Lords Chamber

Wednesday 17th September 2025

(began 3 weeks, 1 day ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:07
None Portrait Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill – committee stage (day 8) - part one
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

House to House to again House to again be House to again be on House to again be on committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I beg to move the House to now resolve itself into a committee on the bill. The question is the House resolve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the House resolve itself again into a committee on the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The My lords, we have a large number of groups to commit the stage of the groups to commit the stage of the bill. We have important guidance which might help us with that aim. which might help us with that aim. The first paragraph on amending stages on the bills, members taking part in a bill at an amending stage part in a bill at an amending stage should simply summarise point made by others.

They should not make second reading spaces or take second reading spaces or take interventions not relevant to the discussion. While there have been important contributions from all important contributions from all sides of the house, parts of the sides of the house, parts of the debate on previous days have strayed into second reading speech is underway from the amendments being debated. So we can make progress on debated. So we can make progress on the remaining groups and therefore I ask noble lords to make sure their remarks are relevant to the topic under discussion and brie.

Second, the paragraph on when drawing an amendment, members other than the Minister pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made in the debate. All revisit points made when moving the amendment. While many noble lords understand this, at times long speeches have been made when withdrawing amendments. I urge all colleagues to keep remarks brief to keep us on the track. The Government Minister is responding will continue to give speeches as confined as possible while providing a proper response to questions raised in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate. Planning and infrastructure bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Planning and infrastructure bill in clause 55, amendment 242, Lord Lucas.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lucas. I beg to move my amendment but if I might first respond to the noble Lord opposite by drawing the Lord opposite by drawing the attention of the House to paragraph
11:09
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
attention of the House to paragraph 431 of the companion. I am pointing out that committee stage is a conversation. It is a free for all. Members may speak when they want. As often as they want. The point is to get to the root of the issues we are discussing. We are here to do a job. Not to stick to a timetable. If that takes us again past midnight, that is what we are here for. The point is to get through so that we conclude the arguments and we can be more brief and formal at report.

This use of the phrase before the Minister sits down is not a committee stage phrase. We have the right to speak at any time. We must hold to that right. Because that is the core of us doing our job well here. My lords, this amendment proposes that we take the whole question of EDP at a more gentle pace. That we start with applying them in circumstances where the concept obviously works. Things that operate on a large scale.

Neutrality, water problems, other such issues are landscape scale problems that need landscape scale solutions. But matters like species, as we have heard on the last day of debate, are much more difficult to deal with. What we have got at the moment is a huge amount of uncertainty, talking to the developer community, listening to them, and they see this as paralysing development for the next five years. This is meant to be a bill that accelerates development. As we get into the moment it is doing the exact opposite.

It creates so much uncertainty as to how part three works. What it will feel like. How it will develop. Natural England has huge powers. There are big sums of money going this way and that. Nobody knows how it will happen. Nobody understands how they have the capacity to manage something on this scale of this type. And what sets our behaviours to expect. What we are setting ourselves out for is five years of stasis. Not getting anywhere. Because it will take that long to settle in.

There is a better way to do this. Pace things, pilot things. Do the easy bits first. To make an early announcement of where the pilot EDPs are going to be so people can get their heads around it. To have large and open discussions about this. We are looking at something which is supposed to last a long time. There is no point in this being done on a constricted and partisan way. It will just break open the next time we have a change of government.

Everybody who wants to be involved is being asked to commit over long timescales. We politicians must adjust ourselves to that. We must run this in a way that allows people to have confidence in the politics over a long time. The government's behaviour on the Biodiversity Net Gain gain isn't a good sign of where the government are in this space. I urge them to have wide discussions. To involve people who are obvious in quality and depth and likely to be there and involved in the years to come.

And in particular to involve people from opposition parties. Not the conservative's choice of who should be involved but the government's choice. Rather like mike noble friend Lord Gove, appointed to the current chair of natural England. Not a natural Conservative supporter. But someone who because they were not a natural Conservative supporter has lasted. And commanded the respect of this government. We want something that Long-term Long-term thinking, Long-term thinking, long-term commitments, long-term relationships. Building confidence. That is what we want.

This amendment says let's take it that way, take it slowly, carefully, take people with us. Rather than a big and uncontrolled explosion. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 55, page 92, line 1 insert the words as printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshall list. My lords, as there is a pause, I
11:14
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My lords, as there is a pause, I will talk to my amendments and in will talk to my amendments and in response to the Minister, one of the ways to quicken these procedures and get rid of the risk of having to withdraw your amendment is actually for the government to accept a few of them. I think we have altogether probably some 400 amendments put forward. Many of which seem to be absolute common sense and yet we seem to have had ministerial resistance to absolutely everything so far.

I just don't think it is a particularly good sign. I will give the government a chance because my amendments are absolutely obvious to be accepted. Even more seriously, in clause 58, it starts, part two, it is quite cumbersome in saying in preparing environmental delivery plans, natural England must have regard to, and then it lists the development plan for the area, current environmental improvement plans, strategies which I am pleased to say would include the nature recovery strategies.

But then at the end of that subparagraph, it says so far as Natural England considers them to be relevant. What my amendment is seeking to do is to say that no, Natural England cannot ignore those three areas of plan and strategy. It actually does have to have regard for them. Sure, any other strategies or plans, I agree, Natural England should consider them as relevant. But it is absolutely crucial that Natural England, when preparing, does take consideration preparing, does take consideration of plans, and any acts under the environment act as well.

It seems to me obvious it should be that way. It is a very simple amendment and it would be delightful if we could have the government agree at least one of the 400 we have looked at over these Well
11:17
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
On the assumption that the Minister won't move the amendments, Lord Teverson was talking about the bill at present. The effect of two amendments, government amendment 278A and 346E is to delete the clause as it exists at the moment and replace it with the new clause which will come whenever it comes, before clause 88. Just so that noble Lords are aware, so the Minister can explain the new clause replacing 58, more or less reproduces what is in it but extends it.

So she will want to explain why that is the case. The point that the noble Lord Lord Teverson made the same point in relation to that replacement text. Can I just say, on behalf of my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe who has amendment 275A in this group, she is unable to be with us this morning. The purpose is straightforward, and I hope agreed on all sides of the House. Which is that, when making environmental delivery plan, regard should be had, and indeed so far as possible, accounts be given, possibilities be exercised, to enable small housebuilders to be able to conduct their business.

The most important thing is when the government comes to publish viability assessment guidance. Which clearly, as the Minister said in an earlier debate, the objective of the EDP is not to make development economically unviable. That being the case, that is a particular issue in relation to a small housebuilders who find it most difficult to bear the burden of regulation and cost when preparing development. I hope the Minister will be able to give reassurance in relation to the point in the amendment from Baroness Neville- Rolfe about small housebuilders.

The viability assessment guidance will specifically mention them and make allowance for them. My amendment, 344, also about the making of an environmental delivery plan makes a simple point. Which is that, at some point, the natural England need-to- know, in relation to which potential development they need to consider, Hap starting out making environmental delivery plan. I don't see it in the bill at the moment. The purpose of my amendment is to say that local planning authorities, when they are considering sites for development, I would say, yes, this should be guidance, but not what they call foresight or consider sites, when they have agreed to put sites forward in for example a submission to the Secretary of State for adoption of a Local Plan.

At that point, they should be notified, Natural England, that there are sites which have, and we know the sites are going to be pretty evident, there will be those when there are protected features and protected sites and protected species involved. That they identify those themselves, and they notify Natural England. I hope the Minister will say that this is intended to happen anyway. I think it would be a good idea if it were to be expressed in the bill so that local planning authorities, who of course operate in their planned making processes according to statutory timetables and statutory provisions, have a statutory requirement to notify Natural England about the potential need to make an environment delivery plan.

That is all I wish to say about this. So when we get to clause 58, we will take it out. But it is now we are discussing what is effectively the language of clause 58, and it is worth being aware that is the case. is the case.
11:21
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to 242B in the name of Lord Lucas. I want to strongly support part of his strongly support part of his amendment,, but I'm not so sure that 2B, to be or not to be, that is the question he is proposing. But my suggestion to him is, I don't think anybody concerned about nature should also be trying to limit growth. I think the two can be done hand-in-hand. If Natural England, or the Secretary of State for housing needs more resources, or decides to subcontract to any designated person, could be a private developer themselves.

I'm not saying that would be right, but just so people are aware of the scope where we are going. I would not support my noble friend if he re-tabled this amendment at report stage. In terms of 2A, I think this is a sensible approach. One of the issues that is particularly holding up aspects of development is the consideration of nutrient neutrality. This is the reason the government has given more broadly. Of course they have latched onto things like jumping spiders, a variety of things, and whatever ancient woodland, whilst still expressing concern for habitats.

But nonetheless, I think having that specific focus on what has been holding up the homes that the government has promised to deliver, 1.5 million by the end of this Parliament, then I think we should keep focused on where these potential EDPs needs to be. That will also keep Natural England focused as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, he says turning the page,, I rise to speak to government amendment 246E in the name of
11:23
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
amendment 246E in the name of Baroness Taylor, Lord Grantchester, and 275A in the name of Lucy, Neville role. I approach this with the words of the noble Lord Lord Livermore in my ears. He said that the government's planning reforms were cut away the bureaucracy, to get Britain building. Perhaps you are thinking about that other planning bill announced by the Chancellor in August. Because the combination of part three of this bill, the development of Natural England, and the astonishingly long preparation process of EDPs starting in clause 58 but going as far as clause 61 envisages that it is difficult to see how any mitigation proposal envisaged by part three could be completed in the 3 1/2 years from now, for a government that only has three and three- quarter years to run.

Even if part three stands passed the bill at the time of ascent, it will take until the next Parliament before someone gets the keys to a new home that has been subject to any DP. Perhaps someone should tell the noble Lord Lord Livermore that part three does not work and will not get Britain building or the economy growing. And I should know because I have been in this space for the last three and half years. As the instigator, and a person of significant control in Norfolk environmental credits limited.

A company established and owned by planning authorities in Norfolk for the benefit of the local councils, taxpayers, and economy. I know what I'm talking about. This is another one of my specialist subject. I observe that amendment three and 46 is a long one. I suppose we should be grateful that it recognises that the bill as introduced was deficient. But it is incomplete. It articulates the problem and identifies the EDP but it does not contemplate that the earliest formative stages, the commercial, legal, and contractual practicalities to put it into effect.

Let's think about the EDP processes that start in clause 58. At the outset, it emerged on Monday that Natural England will support a report to MHCLG Secretary of State not DEFRA. That is quite a revelation. More technical knowledge exists in MHCLG to judge the veracity and an evidenced assertion referred to by Lord Hunt in today's 'Daily Telegraph' when he said, "Anti-growth environment quangos are blocking to elements on spurious grounds. " How can MHCLG have the intellect and capacity to assess this spurious claim? Our company in Norfolk aims to go beyond the disability of cleaning up our rivers, to actually devise the commercial models that are legally robust and contractually certain, the financial system that discounts the activities and makes that bridge between those who need to purchase litigations and those prepared to provide them.

I can tell you from personal practical experience how hard this is, to devise a system that resuscitate the second largest sector of our economy has been placed in suspended animation of the last three and half years. To provide the much-needed homes, affordable home is infrastructure, and the litigation in an area two thirds of the size of the county. My insight is that before the provisions envisaged by this amendment are engaged, there are some fundamental principles to be assessed first. They should be set in statute and they are not.

It is envisaged that the EDPs will issue permits or licences. It is the critical point. A permit is something that is purchased and has asset value. Those of you with long memories forever the last time the state tried to introduce such permit to solve a problem and it created the madness of the milk quota system. By contrast, a local authority issuing licences provides for the point at which the mitigation is no longer required, if say a local sewage treatment plant has been upgraded.

A licence can be surrendered and issued again with a second slice of revenue returns to the taxpayer. At the drop-in session last week when Natural England representatives had Lang faces, they did so when I asked what they planned to sell to developers. Permits or licences? They had not got a clue. That illustrates the intellectual hole in that organisation. The risk of the permits approach is that once issued to the builder of a new home, the neutral neutrality permit attached to that home and goes with the conveyance.

The permits have cost somewhere between £5000 and £15,000. It is a powerful incentive for a homeowner to sell it on to someone else. We find ourselves sleepwalking into creating markets for tradable assets, secondary markets, derivatives, and everything else that history tells us happens when they get into the permitting business was to the taxpayer misses out and that is the lesson from the milk quota fiasco. By contrast, licences are owned by the developer or the landowner. Does not exist as an asset.

Actually it is tied to the property and can only be surrendered back to it. The perverse incentive to sell it on and create secondary ones goes away. None of this fundamental design principle is contemplated by either this amendment, or the bill. Let's move on. Let's think about the longevity of any DP. It is proposed that any DP lasts for 10 years and I thank the noble Baroness for writing to noble Lords this morning. But that tail liabilities for neutral neutrality are 80 years, 30 years of biodiversity net gain.

So I questioned whether a local planning authority can issue a permission if they are not sure what will happen between years 11 and he is 80. I do not believe they can legally issue the permission. Perhaps you will clarify? I want to think also the issue when multiple EDPs, each at a different stage of development, will apply to a proposal. I think we heard earlier this week that a single planning proposal could be subject to various EDPs. The clock, or planning bites, will start ticking the moment Natural England postulates the proposal and the maybe other clocks running at the same time.

This is particularly concerning forcible buildings is why I heartily endorse amendment 275A in the name of Lady Neville-Rolfe. We were told last week the developers will have a choice. And there will be no compulsion to purchase any DP. They may purchase other private options. That has been reiterated today. And they make the point that it could be voluntary to buy any DP. Unless it is compulsory which case there will be no choice as well. So there are powers in the bill to force develop, to use an EDP in certain circumstances, no matter how expensive it is or how far away it is.

Or however long it takes to produce a top will be a choice for small developers. It is Hobson's choice. That is no good. I'm concerned for what was becoming quite a dynamic and well-developed private industry. It has been created in the provision of mitigations. River Slea the Minister smirked when I said the bill with its monopoly regulator and supplier meant that Natural England effectively nationalised it. I don't see anybody laughing now. That is what we are sleepwalking into. We could end up with a situation where development may need to pay twice for this, once for private one close at hand and acceptable to people in the planning authority, and again because this compulsory to purchase another one miles away.

But whichever option is chosen, the very act of triggering the EDP process effectively sterilises that proposal and makes it harder to get Britain and makes it harder to get Britain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It would have been more helpful in my view, and I thank the noble Lord for his detailed diagram which has been circulated this morning, it has been circulated this morning, it would have been much better had there been a timeline that exists before then. It assumes the EDP is before then. It assumes the EDP is existing. I think as mike noble friend Lord Lucas has said, it is probably at least 3.5, maybe five years before we get to that start years before we get to that start line.

I think we need to understand line. I think we need to understand that. Lord Russell asked us, why are we doing this? What is the purpose? we doing this? What is the purpose? It seems to me the purpose of part three is not to clean up nature, get Britain building, but simply to puff Britain building, but simply to puff up a quango with a super veto over developments in a significant part developments in a significant part of the nation for no other purpose than to build bureaucracy and get in the way of growth and make it harder to generate taxes and is so to generate taxes and is so expensive to the developer that the pursuit of other important infrastructure like social housing infrastructure like social housing are found out.

It is not too late to are found out. It is not too late to address this record. The assertion address this record. The assertion yesterday at the dispatch box by Lord Livermore that this reform is going to speed up building, I welcome 346 as far as it goes, but it needs to go much further in contemplating how as well as what if we are not to limit growth into the next Parliament.
11:34
11:35
11:35
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to forward look at the government amendment 346 and in particular subsection two. It says Natural England or the Secretary of State must take account of the best available scientific evidence. What I would like to ask the Minister, is that going to comprise part of the EDP? The reason I ask is that I want to refer back to some of the conversations on Monday, and in particular the email that I wrote to the noble Baroness the Minister this morning, asking for a more detailed morning, asking for a more detailed 3020 in Monday's Hansard in reply to my question that she had already spoken about gritting -- getting scrutiny about the EDP.

When I look back at what she had said I think it is in column 2003. She said that I want to clarify that before the EDP comes to the Secretary of State it will be subjected to proper scrutiny through public consultation. It is helpful to have that. But could she enlighten us about how that consultation will take part? Unless the information is cited in the EDP, it is going to be very hard to challenge. One of the complaints that I have got about Natural England is about how hard it is to challenge them when it comes to scientific evidence.

Because they scientific evidence. Because they hide behind the legal situation and say it is a precaution principle. That is what it is and lump it, all of you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Going on to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas, I wonder if noble friend Lord Lucas, I wonder if the Minister is satisfied about the present position with regard to present position with regard to Natural England and nutrients? My noble friend Lord Lucas would like noble friend Lord Lucas would like to limit the EDP's to the nutrient mitigation, and I think that is sensible. But I do not think the current situation is working well. current situation is working well.

Natural England 's mitigation scheme Natural England 's mitigation scheme was set up in 2022, using £33.5 million of public money. It was million of public money. It was based on the proposals to the Secretary of State. Since then, Natural England has spent £17.54 Natural England has spent £17.54 million, setting up the offsetting scheme to generate nutrient credits scheme to generate nutrient credits scheme to generate nutrient credits by removing 704 ha of farmland. When by removing 704 ha of farmland.

When a new company in the private sector put forward a proposal that they could actually provide nutrient credits without taking farmland out of production, initially natural England said yes. It then reversed the decision as I explained on Monday, my lords. Natural England claims it does not make a profit from the sale of credits as nutrient credits are cost recovery. But if you examine the figures, one can contradict this. Because internal costings showed that credit in Dorset cost £1685.

When accounted for, consideration of administration fees, it would cost £1938. However, on the market it has been selling credits at a significant markup of £3250. Plus a 10% administration fee. This suggests to me Natural England is making a profit of up to £1637 per nutrient credit, representing a profit margin of 45.8%. In the letter received from the ministers this morning, to which reference has already been made, and I must say I am grateful for the letter and I wish we had it before we began proceedings on Monday, I want to quote from the third from last paragraph.

Once EDPs are made, we expect them to be delivered on a we expect them to be delivered on a cost recovery basis. While ensuring good value for money for developers, by ensuring competition and innovation in the procurement of conservation measures. I have just shown that the market is not being operated at cost recovery by natural England. It is excluding competition will stop when you have that existing situation, does the Minister really expect EDPs to be Minister really expect EDPs to be
11:42
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak briefly to several amendments in this group concerning amendments in this group concerning environmental delivery plans. I will start by thanking my noble friend Lord Lucas for introducing this Lord Lucas for introducing this group and tabling amendments. This amendments seeks to make sure the process has time to bed in within uncontroversial areas and that uncontroversial areas and that further development isn't rushed. As we learned, EDPs are themselves we learned, EDPs are themselves controversial. We are of course sympathetic to this amendment and to the words of other noble lords on the words of other noble lords on neutrality.

We have offered amendments which could release 160,000 units of housing stock 160,000 units of housing stock immediately from natural England but these developments are being blocked. Can EDPs deliver and release 160,000 units once this bill commences and the act commences? commences and the act commences? Of the noble Lord, I thank him for tabling 271 and 272. These seek to tabling 271 and 272. These seek to make sure that when preparing an EDP, Natural England must have regard to all the plans listed in regard to all the plans listed in the sub sections rather than only those they consider relevant.

These are serious points and I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will reflect carefully in response. All the government minded in the light of these amendments to clarify how Natural England will weigh up these existing plans? I'm grateful to Mike noble friend for amendment 344, requiring authorities to notify Natural England when they allocate potential sites for development where an EDP would be needed. This strikes me as practical and helping to make sure there is coordination between local planning and natural England.

Turning briefly to Lord Swire, his amendment introduced by Baroness Coffey, I am impressed by his ingenuity in returning to 1 of his favourite topics. I am not convinced Natural England have the bandwidth in the existing To it further. We look forward to hearing the noble Baroness the Minister outlined the government's own amendments. They appear to be minor and technical and we are grateful for the drafting corrections, particularly for amendment 346. The clause already sets out matters to which they must have regard when preparing an EDP.

This would extend that duty to the amendment and revocation of EDPs by natural England and the Secretary of State. It would add further matters to which they must have regard. It would be helpful to understand how these considerations are expected to operate in practice. We welcomed the clarification and I hope the noble Baroness the Minister can reassure the House that the government approach will match the scale of responsibilities being placed upon

**** Possible New Speaker ****

natural England. My lords, before I responded to the debate, I would like to thank the noble lady Baroness Parminter,
11:44
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
the noble lady Baroness Parminter, for her comments. I would also like to remind noble lords that are civil servants across all departments work extremely hard. They bring valuable support to ministers. It is not appropriate to question their intellectual ability during a debate. As we set out in Monday's committee debates, the government remains firmly of the view that when it comes to development and the environment, we can do better than the status quo. Which often sees sustainable housing and nature recovery stalling.

Instead of Environmental Protection is being seen as barriers to growth, we are determined to unlock a win-win for the economy and nature stop that is why part three is important in this bill. Following the introduction of this bill, we have taken very seriously the concerns expressed by those who are not yet convinced about provisions providing necessary certainty about the Nature Restoration Fund and what it will deliver in practice or environmental benefits. With a view to making sure that everybody is confident that the restoration fund delivers improved outcomes for nature, which are at the core of the model, we have continued to engage with expert stakeholders and having done so, the government has developed a comprehensive set of amendments for Taken together, we are confident the Nature Restoration Fund will store not harm nature.

And will make sure house builders built from the same streamlined process to discharge environmental obligations and get written building. I beg to move government amendments 249A, 256A and 346E, these make a series of minor legislative fixes consequently amendments necessary for the correct legislation which supports the more substantive government amendments. Government amendment 346E put in place a new clause that is intended to replace clause 58. The new clause will explicitly require Natural England and the Secretary of State to have regard to the best available scientific evidence when carrying out any functions relating to the preparation of a revocation, or amendment of environmental delivery plan, or when the Secretary of State is considering delivering remedial measures.

They must also consider the sites conservation objectives when they relate to environmental features included in an EDP. The Earl of Caithness asked about scientific evidence. I hope that helps to clarify his question. I would also like to make further clarification around the reference to the Secretary of State. Following the discussions on Monday, further discussions within that department, I can now clarify that what the secretary of state referred to, it is the Secretary of State for DEFRA unless there is good reason for it to be otherwise.

So we are looking for the response to previous dates, debates, is to clarify some of the questions that have come up around this. But also to make it clear to noble Lords the EDPs will be both evidence-based and support the wider conservation objectives of the environmental feature. In designing and delivering, it will continue to be guided to maintain favourable conservation status for species. This is explicitly embedded in the framework by way of an additional duty contained in this amendment to have regard to maintaining or improving favourable conservation status and species subject to an EDP.

I beg to move is amendments. Turning to the non-governmental amendments. First of all amendment 242B moved by Lord Lucas. The amendment would significantly restrict the application of EDPs and reduce the ability for them to accelerate developers. Our nutrient neutrality is an important issue that has been covered by EDPs, and addressing this issue alone is not enough to deliver the level of growth the government is seeking to achieve. It would also limit the environmental aspirations of EDPs, as these would secure better environmental out comes than the status quo.

And so would mean limiting it in this way would reduce the ability to support nature recovery. It also could be argued that all EDPs in some way conserve wildlife as they concern protective species and habitats. This would be more to cut in some instances than others. It should also be unclear what should be considered to be a local concern. Restricting the number of EDPs that come forward risks reducing their ability to support development or incentivise larger EDPs, and that would appear to run counter to the aim of the amendment.

As Baroness Coffey said, we need to keep focused. I would also like to refer to the points made by the noble Lord the Earl of Caithness. In response to this amendment and other discussions, he has raised a number of key concerns, and has also asked a number of detailed questions. I don't have all the answers to them at the present. I am aware that he has a meeting with Natural England on 16 October, and I would like to suggest to the noble Lord that I joined that meeting if he is happy for me to do so.

And I try and get a better understanding of a lot of his concerns and perhaps get into some of the nitty-gritty around concerns around Natural England if that would suit the noble Lord? Moving on to amendments 271 and 272 tabled by Lord Teverson, mandating consideration of plans would be disproportionate because it would take up time and resource for no additional value. The potential raising costs for developers would slow the rate at which EDPs are produced will stop that there is reason to force Natural England to consider plans that are not relevant.

So we think it is appropriate to allow Natural England to only have regard to those plans it considers to be relevant. Amendment 244 tabled by Lord Lansley with added duty on local authority is to inform Natural England of potential sites of development. As the noble Lord noted, the bill already requires Natural England to have regard to development plans which, as you will appreciate, they pretty much choice will be. Furthermore, local authorities are required to cooperate with Natural England in the preparation of an EDP which is likely to include advising them of any information relating to proposed site applications.

As such, requiring authorities to proactively provide this information in all cases, we believe this produces unnecessary administrative burden for local authorities. Of course local authorities can reach out to government or Natural England to request that an EDP be prepared. We believe the bill already provides for proper engagement and give indication between Natural England and local authorities. Amendment 264A that was tabled by Lord Swire and introduced by Baroness Coffey requires Natural England to have an EDP when there is an issue with overhead pylons.

We do think this would place an unmanageable burden for Natural England. In practice, this would require EDPs covering hollowing that addressing a wide range of financial considerations. Some may benefit from an EDP and others will have environmental effects that could not be addressed in this way. If taken forward, this amendment would require natural England to bring forward potentially ineffective EDPs in order to make this duty, rather than targeted EDPs where they would be most effective for nature and growth.

Finally, for nature and growth. Finally, turning to amendments 275A tabled by Baroness Neville regarding consideration of SME of housebuilders, she very kindly messaged to say she was not going to be able to be here today and I thank for that. It is important that she has drawn attention to the need to understand potential impacts on small housebuilders. Nature Restoration Fund is an alternative way to discharge environmental obligations. It does not create new obligations on developers.

And developers will be able to make informed choices based on known costs rather than having to await the outcome of complex dry metal assessments before knowing the costs of meeting a relevant environmental obligation. This upfront clarity is vital for developers, and I believe especially for small housebuilders. When a developer chooses to use an EDP, the payment of the levy legally discharges the relevant environmental obligations, and this transfer is responsible of tea for securing environmental outcomes de- risks development, and we believe it would be particularly beneficial to SME developers who often have less resource for consultancy and legal services.

The Secretary of State is already required to ensure the viability is considered, and they may set different rates for different scales or types of development as well. SMEs have been an important consideration for the government we have been designing this legislation, so I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. With these explanations,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope noble Lords are content to withdraw their amendments. My Lords, I am grateful for the
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:57
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 244. I rise to move amendment to hundred 44 and speak to amendment hundred 44 and speak to amendment 287. These proposals have a clear and focused aim to secure stronger and more reliable protections for our natural environment through the planning system. I wish to layout by these changes are not just desirable but necessary in the light of both recent evidence and practical experience. Amendment 244 addresses the language of improvements to conservation status. Requiring that any improvement to an identified environmental feature within the mental delivery plans would be significant.

At present the bill allows for any improvement to be considered a success, the reality in England suggests otherwise. By introducing the word "Significant" this amendment raises the test to prevent superficial minimal gains from being counted as genuine progress. It recognises that piecemeal gestures will not restore all important lost habitats, or endangered. Instead, substantially positive action must become the norm. This approach also brings the bill into better alignment, with recommendations that already exist for DEFRA. And finally, from ongoing reviews of environmental policy.

According to the state of nature report, wildlife abundance has dropped by 32% since 1970. In 13% of species are now under genuine threat. In these wrenches we believe existing standards are simply not sufficient to reverse these declines. This amendment provides clarity first for developers and planning authorities. It ensures that when environmental delivery plans are prepared, the targets must be meaningful, stakeholders will know what marginal improvements, that marginal improvements are insufficient. As a result, both noble communities and our wider natural environment will benefit from projects that contribute to measurable technological recovery.

The purpose is not to block development. But rather to set a standard that matches the gravity of the challenge England faces. The amendment also provides transparency and accountability, making it clear for all involved parties exactly what is required for a project to meet its conservation obligations. Turning to amendment 287, the rationale is similarly rooted in evidence and practical experience. At present the bill requires that development unlikely to improve the environment. Whether the term "Likely " is in practice too vague and too weak.

The University of Sheffield study revealed that 70 The University of Sheffield study revealed that 75% of birds and bat boxes required already and planning conditions were never actually restored. Such figures clearly highlight how easily required can fall through the cracks when they are based only on probability. The public and divine mental groups have repeatedly raised concerns about repeatedly raised concerns about such long delivery. These replaces likely to with well. Its objective is simple, to ensure the promised improvements are delivered.

Planning policy must be clear and enforceable so developers and local authorities understand their obligations and are held to them. This change would lead to a Stepchange in the credibility and effectiveness of planning conditions. It strengthens the system by making policy outcomes more reliable. By increasing public confidence in the planning process. This group includes many other amendments with the aim of further strengthening the NRF model and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government has listened and acted and changed this part of the acted and changed this part of the bill and we thank them for that. And thank you, Rachel Reeves. They have thank you, Rachel Reeves. They have listened. They have changed. It is deeply impressive. We are asking for deeply impressive. We are asking for further improvements and we think many of them are reasonable within this group of amendments. In particular I would like to commend those cited by Mike noble friend those cited by Mike noble friend Lord Russell and Baroness Parminter.

Our approach is a long prioritised set of clear and enforceable measures. These measures reflect that commitment, prioritising tangible benefit for nature, robust littering and transparent standards. They address current weaknesses in legislation and improve the legislation and improve the reliability of outcomes and support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public trust. I beg to move. Clause 53, page 92, line 6, leave out and insert as significant.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out and insert as significant. I have several amendments in this group and the chances of a government agreeing to an amendment is very slim. I can remember in the other place during passing the committee stage of the bill, setting up the Greater London Authority. In opposition we found out there was an element missing and we moved an amendment which was rejected by the government and brought back at report. I think we get the mentality of these things.

These amendments...
12:03
12:04
12:05
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
is about the way in which the secretary of state approves EDPs. It is currently drafted, it says the Secretary of State may make the EDP or approve it but only if the Secretary of State considers it passes the overall improvement test. The overall improvement test is the key as to whether or not it is sufficient and should go ahead. But the bill does not make it clear on what basis the Secretary of State will make a consideration. If I understand correctly, the Secretary of State, who will actually do this part of the process, they would not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unless I have misunderstood what the noble lady has just said. You have not misunderstood. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You have not misunderstood. We have had further discussions and I can clarify the Secretary of State is the Secretary of State for DEFRA unless there are good reasons for it to be otherwise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to be otherwise. I think the noble lady for her clarification and that is a bit of a clarification and that is a bit of a relief, frankly. Most secretaries of state are not appointed for their depth of economic and ecological knowledge and nor indeed are the civil servants in that department. That is a relief. But it does not That is a relief. But it does not overcome the principal problem. That is the way in which it is drafted. is the way in which it is drafted.

It rather implies that it is about the Secretary of State's judgement the Secretary of State's judgement and consideration rather than the evidence on which it is based. Existing environmental laws are affected because they require that affected because they require that if an adverse the integrity of an internationally important site internationally important site Changes that would impact can only be consented where there are imperative reasons for overriding the public interest. That is a technical term well based in case law and there is a long-standing case law on which the evidence base is required to demonstrate overriding public interest.

Clause 63 seems to make the new overall improvement test a much more subjective decision on the part of the Secretary of State for DEFRA in that it is about their consideration that the test is passed solely on the basis of whether or not the Secretary of State considers that it is passing. There is no need for it to be underpinned by evidence. It would drive me crazy to make some wild decision without evidence but the way in which the bill currently is framed means that it is not likely to be legally challenged if the decision was made.

My amendment proposes deleting if the Secretary of State considers that and hopefully establishes that the decision on the overall improvement test would be more about objectivity and evidence. It would also give scope for the decision to be challenged in court. It is clearly flawed. The drafting of the bill places the judgement of the secretary of state in primacy over the evidence. While repeating again my thanks and thank goodness this is actually going to be done by the Secretary of State who may have a sporting chance of knowing what they are talking about but it would be good to hear from the Minister as to the basis of the evidence on which the Secretary of State will make the decision about the overall

**** Possible New Speaker ****

improvement test in the clause. Thank you. I speak to amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I speak to amendments 286 and 300, both in the name of the noble Baroness who alas gives her noble Baroness who alas gives her apologies but she cannot speak today but I have signed the amendments and
12:09
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
but I have signed the amendments and I hope I do it some justice. As you will see in those amendments and in will see in those amendments and in pretty much this group, it is looking at the overall improvement test and making sure that EDPs deliver significant improvements. Echoing the noble Baroness in her opening remarks, I would also like to welcome the letter this morning and the amendments that have been put forward. I think it does demonstrate movement.

But I do not think it has been extraordinary. I'm glad that the Minister, I'm glad the ministers have got their doors open for us. You may regret making that promise. Because I do still have some concerns with this. It is not just what has been expressed in this chamber. It goes beyond the chamber, ecologies, conservationists, developers and lawyers. Just turning to the amendment specifically, 286 intends to strengthen the overall improvement test. I welcome the amendment but there are still questions and we have now heard it is up to the Secretary of State for DEFRA.

But it is dead judgement and obviously it is the judgement of the Secretary of State ahead of any evidence to the contrary. Amendment 300 is related and seeks to ensure there is a significant and measurable improvement to nature achieved by the EDP. While I do recognise and welcome what the government is seeking to do, I wonder what backup measures are and what is the baseline evidence is being taken in making that judgement by the Secretary of State? It may be that the Minister, it sounds like it is a recent development, but what are the so-called good reasons that it may fall outside of the DEFRA remit? Let's say hypothetically that it is just the Secretary of State for DEFRA with the good reasons wording, does the Secretary of State have to consult or would there be a situation in which it is taken in consultation with other departments such as the Treasury? Overall I think it is important we have checks and balances and these amendments seek to do that.

It does not break the bill. It seeks to make sure that the improvements take place and that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

development continues. My Lord, I want to speak to my amendment, 289. Before doing so, I'm pleased to have followed my noble
12:12
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
pleased to have followed my noble friend. He came to what I think is the crux of this group and what the question really is. In my mind, it is are we content with the government's amendment, which changes the overall improvement test and is it materially outweighed? Or do we want it to be, as is the case with some amendments, significant and measurable? As it happens, I agree with my noble friend and others that measurable and material probably have meanings that are very like but significant tells us something, it should tell us something about the nature of the guidance.

I think the point we had to think about carefully is if we put in the word "significant ", there will be material improvements that are not regarded as a significant. Does that mean there would be environmental delivery plans that could not be made because they would not pass the overall improvement test, even where in fact it would lead to a material improvement? Let's think about this carefully. There is not a simple way of using words in legislation. They have a plain meaning.

If we were to say significant and measurable, we mean that there is something beyond measurable that is significant. The guidance would have to say that. I raise that point because it seems to me that if I was looking for the plain meaning, material helps a lot. It shows there has to be something that you literally can distinguish between the present situation and the future. On Secretaries of State, I have to say that I am confused. I always thought conventionally we put the Secretary of State into legislation.

Actually as a former civil servant, I can remember people sitting in the same office, behind the same desk, working with secretaries of states where titles and departmental boundaries regularly changed. Actually trying to put the Secretary of State for anything into legislation is a mistake. You just put in the Secretary of State and then work out which one it is at a subsequent point. My amendment is about the conservation measures which are identified but not expected to be needed.

This is quite interesting. If they have been identified but are not needed to secure the overall improvement test, then they are awaiting their until we reached the point where the Secretary of State is making the decision. The point of my amendment is that if the Secretary of State determines the overall improvement test has been met, but in doing so has had to take into account conservation measures that were not expected to be needed as referred to in the clause, my amendment requires that determination should make it clear those conservation measures have been added just so there is transparency and clarity about what it is.

Of course that flows into what is required in terms of the levy and the obligations which have to be met out of the restoration My
12:16
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My amendment to hundred and 46 in this group, all on strengthening the NRF model. And importantly on the overall improvement test for environmental delivery plans under clause 55. I think this is an interesting amendment. I welcome speech the noble Lord has just made. We do recognise the amendments the government has made. But judging by the size and number of amendments, and that uniformity of purpose across the amendments and across Political parties, it is I think fair to say that concerns remain, and many members from this House are still looking for further reassurance and guidance from the government on these matters.

Turning to my amendment, it makes clear that the conservation measures must not merely mitigate and offset environmental harm but must significantly and measurably outweigh it. That is important because it is about delivering genuine net gain on the conservation status of our natural heritage. Against this there are two things was to first we have new policies and plans the government has put forward. There is a background to worry about the disregard to nature and the background in the government's plans.

But there's also a worry that the bar is too low, and in the past, too often, we have seen with the best will that government intentions have been failing to deliver what they were promised particularly for nature. It is important to put these in. Others have picked up on it as well. It gives clarity to developers, to those involved, that they need to do something more than merely replace. So this amendment enshrined in law a clear principle that any harm caused by development will be more than compensated by concrete improvements.

And obviously as my noble friend has already said, this aligns with the government's own biodiversity and net gain targets. And sets robust national standards. We are aware we are one of the most nature deprived countries famously in the world ready. And the mix of precious sites we have left are often not properly looked after and maintained, and are very disparate. They are very precious. Organisations and people across the House have raised the issue. So while I welcome claims the government has put forward, I there is a need to go further on these matters.

I hope we can have further conversations on this area. But these matters are important. Just briefly, I pretty much support most of the amendments in this group. And I think what is important is that there is a sense of feeling in this House on these matters that we seek reassurance.
12:19
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
My first intervention today, of course I'm speaking personally. I would like to wholeheartedly support what the Chief Whip said about this being a Committee stage and how it should be conducted. This is a big bill and it does need proper scrutiny. As the Minister has told us today, there are lots of things still to clarify. In many questions still to be answered. Some speakers may need reining in and I'm sure the House will support the Chief Whip when they attempt to do that.

But I would put on record I thought the crude attack yesterday in Oral Questions was inappropriate and unhelpful. To business, I am writing to support most of the amendments in this group but particularly to an 86 and 300. And the others that have been raised such as by the noble Baroness a few minutes ago. These all seek to introduce some quantification, comparison, and accountability into the EDP process. There will always be a temptation for Natural England or those they subcontract to introduce subjective or optimism into their reporting.

Openness with data and debate is going to be essential to enable candour, challenge, and particularly third-party professional scrutiny. EDPs are a new adventure, and lessons are going to be needed to be learnt early and fully. So I support, as amendment 300 puts it, a high degree of certainty based on objective assessment. I also support both 264, from the Earl of Caithness, and, to save time the Caithness, and, to save time the next group, put forward, 275.

They both seek to introduce discipline and accountability via mitigation hierarchy and a stepped approach. Finally I have two related questions for the Minister. First, will there be an independent audit process of natural England and EDPs? Not just to their finances but to outcomes and results? If so, who will be selecting these auditors and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

evaluators? I rise to speak to amendment 290
12:21
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
in my name. It was actually amendment 119 tabled by my noble friend in the other place. I agree that Lord Lansley has clearly identified for us where this group has taken us. Having heard powerful expeditions from Baroness Grender and Lord Gascoigne. This amendment specifically addresses European sites, European Marine site, offshore Marine site and other sites. We are talking about the overall improvement, with a limited subset here. Again we are talking about the nature of the overall improvement test.

These of course are hugely precious and important places. So what this amendment does is it says the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that there is no adverse effect to the integrity of the relevant site. That is part one of the test. There are in two and three, some offsetting allowances if there isn't an alternative, and if there are appropriate measures taken. But it sets a high standard for these terribly important places. I think it is one that is crucially important for those sites.

I note that, in Mondays debate, Baroness Hayman talked about how, under clause 89, the site was previously protected by guidance rather than legislation. And this is indeed legislation. But if the test is not sufficiently strong, it is not any kind of protection at all. And also on Monday, the noble Lady said the triple SIs protection under the wildlife and countryside act. I have not had time to absorb what it says not had time to absorb what it says about referring to the protection.

And about how clause 55 works. I would be interested to hear from the Minister exactly how that works. It is worth talking about and focusing for a second what we are talking about. And I always think of Rutland water, and I'm sure many noble Lords have visited the amazing birds. I'm looking at Lord Randall. But I also looking at Lord Randall. But I also think of the triple SI. And the nature reserve. I think of that because I was there in 2018 and we had the wonderful amazing pleasure of a Marsh Harrier which came sweeping over to inspect, defending their cousins.

I render this sense of wonder and amazement the crowd many of whom are local people. I think that is really important to stress how important the triple SIs are to nature but also local communities. You might say, that will be a right that will be protected. But that was a candidate location for a universal theme park

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the 1990s. And not built. I rise to speak to a group of
12:25
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to a group of amendments, and Lord Randall of amendments, and Lord Randall of Uxbridge is the top one in the House. I still live quite near a nature reserve, so what the noble Baroness has referred to about Marsh Harriers is extraordinary. I have tended to see them in close proximity to Sizewell. So it shows there is an element of how we can try and or live together. 244 gets to the kernel of the issue that we are addressing in terms of the overall significant improvement test.

I strongly support her amendment. Noble Lords have made important points including those made by Lord Gascoigne. I just want to say about the government's amendment, in terms of, it is a very cleverly written amendment. I would say that on the grounds of a legal case, with the last administration, where actually it was Friends of the Earth and I think the good law project which found the government had an unlawful climate action and had to be pushed back on that.

That is the element of hope value, I don't meet hope value in terms of land, but hoping the EDP is good enough in effect. Assuming everything will work wasn't good enough. If this goes into primary legislation in the way it is, without further consideration of some of the amendments have been tabled by a noble Lords today, that gives the government frankly a very good get out of jail card. Because it is primary legislation. The courts would not be able to override on the basis of the criteria that has been set out today.

I think at report stage we should come back and consider this with all that noble Lords and looked at this carefully, on how we try and make this watertight in terms of what we want to do in terms of that significant improvement test. I will come back to the whole debate about what is a secretary of state in this bill because I tabled an appropriate amendment, I can't with the latest grouping if it will be considered in 19 or 20, but I believe it is later on anyway.

In a group that will be started by the noble Baroness Lady Young. There is something that around this whole area that we are getting into, and I'm not going to strengthen the hierarchy, but this is about environmental principles public duty which applies to ministers. It does not apply to arm's-length bodies. It applies to any policy to dream legislation. It applies to any strategies. It applies to any framework. But critically it does not apply in itself to any planning application consideration.

So that is why we need to make sure we get this bit of the bill right. As far as I'm aware, although on gov.uk, it says the environmental principles policy statement was under the last demonstration, it should still be in force, and I would like confirmation from the Minister that is still the case. But I would point out to her that if it is not in force, the government would be acting in an unlawful way. So, in consideration of this, there may be further questions coming, whether through this or other legal means about specifically how, in constructing this part of the bill, the vital policies and principles policy has been applied in order to achieve this particular outcome that is desired in that, but also potentially in other aspects of how it is complied.

With that, it is worth as having careful consideration before the next stage on how we all want the outcome. I'm confident the government wants, despite a lot of the speeches and rhetoric, in order to make sure we have nature thriving.
12:29
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments aimed at strengthening the natural recovery framework and addressing the overall improvement test. I do not intend to take up more time of the House than is necessary so might address each amendment in this group individually. I would like to speak to my amendment, 291, which stands in the name of my noble Friend Lord Blencathra. It provides a power for the Secretary of State to reject an environmental delivery plan, where they consider it is not in the public interest.

We believe this is a crucial safeguard. While we recognise the need for local responsibility and innovation within the model, it is important that national priorities and wider public good remains central. This amendment ensures that where an EDP does not sufficiently deliver the environmental improvements expected, or where it conflicts with other essential national interests, the Secretary of State can act decisively. Provide the necessary balance between local ambition and National Accountability Bureau while we are opposed to the entire EDP bureaucratic scheme, if the government does insist on pursuing it, it must be meaningful and measurable.

The framework must be rooted in real outcomes not vague intentions. Turning to the broader concerns, we recognise the need to toughen up the so-called overall improvement test. It is relatively meaningless in a matter of opinion. It is not good enough. There are several amendments in this group that would make the test more evidence-based. We support the intention behind them. The objectors to the government proposals are calling for objective scientific test. They are not asking for delays or unnecessary costs, the opposite.

If they are to go ahead, the minimum required is clarity, evidence, and required is clarity, evidence, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We will return We will return to We will return to amendments We will return to amendments that offer scientific rigour. We must not just rely on process. We must be confident about outcomes and we must be satisfied that harm can be offset. There must be a demonstrable offset. There must be a demonstrable net gain for the public and stakeholders to trust. We support stakeholders to trust. We support the amendments in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Caithness and the noble Lord Randall among others in this group.

We welcomed others in this group. We welcomed the clarification from the noble Baroness the Minister about the responsible secretary of state and I am sure in later groups we can am sure in later groups we can discuss which departments for discuss which departments for The results must be visible and they The results must be visible and they must be robust. This is not just about regulatory compliance. These amendments look to make sure of the delivery of lasting improvements to the natural environment.
12:33
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

the natural environment. My Lords, this grouping covers government amendments and the government amendments and the overall improvement test. It is part of our comprehensive package of amendments to make sure everyone can have confidence that the restoration fund will deliver the improved outcomes for nature which are at the heart of this model and which I know many noble lords will support. The government is clearly overall improvement test is one of the key environmental safeguards in the new system and as such, it is vital there is confidence in the operation of it.

These amendments remove risk of ambiguity about the test and operation by making it clear the Secretary of State can only approve EDPs where the effective conservation measures materially outweighed the negative effect of development on a conservation status of each identified environmental feature. This provides more reassurance for communities and developers that measures will not only be delivered but lead to a material improvement for the relevant environmental feature. The noble Baroness Coffey referred to the government amendments being cleverly written.

Well, I thank for those comments on behalf of our civil servants. I'm grateful for the intellectual capacity of our civil servants. To better support communities and help the Secretary of State in deciding whether to approve EDPs, government amendment 256 adds a requirement for Natural England to set out a view as to how conservation measures will enable the EDP to pass the overall test. Finally they make a series of fixes necessary for the correct operation of the legislation after the substantive government amendments.

These are important clarifications that put beyond doubt how the overall test will operate and I beg to move these amendments. Turning now to the non-government amendments, and I welcome the comments from the noble Baroness about providing clarity in the planning system, which not only benefits developers but also communities and the planners that have to operate in the system. The non-government amendments, many of them relate to the overall improvement test. For example wording such as significant, and increasing the amount by which the positive impacts of conservation measures must outweigh the negative impacts of development.

I urge noble laws that a material improvement as required by the government amendment is more appropriate because it captures the mean to secure improvement without placing undue burden on the developer to contribute significantly more than their fair share to address the impact of development. Similarly Outweighed with demonstrated net gain as proposed by amendment 288, tabled by the Earl of Caithness, restores comparisons to a different planning policy, the Biodiversity Net Gain policy. Amendment 289 would introduce a duty on the Secretary of State to specify whether EDPs rely on backup conservation measures which are not expected to be used to EDPs will always need to be capable of passing the test without relying on backup measures as they are by definition those which are not expected to be needed.

With this explanation I hope the noble Lord will agree these amendments demonstrate the government commitment to getting this right and Stakeholders and parliamentarians will work with the government to shift focus to on the ground delivery, driving nature recovery and supporting the delivery of the homes and infrastructure needed. Turning to amendment 285, tabled by Baroness Young, this would amend the overall improvement test and remove the consideration of the Secretary of State from the test. The overall test is inherently forward-looking, given that EDPs may be in place for up to 10 years in order to deliver the necessary conservation measures to secure the required improvement in the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature.

When deciding on whether to make any EDP, the Secretary of State will have before them the EDP itself, which will use the best available scientific evidence. The view of Natural England as to whether the conservation measures are sufficient to meet the overall improvement test and the responses from the public consultation. Armed with this information and with the power to request further information, the Secretary of State would be able to make a reasonable decision as to whether or not make the EDP.

I point out to the noble Lord Gascoigne that process already includes consultation. So I think the consultation is part of the EDP process already. But we have noted none of us have a crystal ball. It would be lovely if we did and then we could probably go well ahead. That is why the bill includes a number of safeguards to ensure the overall improvement test will be met. I know this will have been touched upon previously. But it is worth restating the important role monitoring will play in ensuring conservation measures are performing as expected and if they are not, the government amendment requires backup conservation measures will be deployed.

Despite all these safeguards the EDP is falling short of the expected outcome, it will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to take forward remedial action to make sure the overall improvement is delivered. It is also worth highlighting the government amendments requiring Natural England to set out the post sequencing of measures against the scale of development under the EDP as well as the clarification that Natural England and the Secretary of State will deploy the best available scientific evidence throughout the process.

Removing the consideration of the Secretary of State from the overall improvement test as proposed by this amendment would require EDPs to replicate a side-by-side approach which is not appropriate or necessary under this new strategic model with the aforementioned safeguards in place. I think the noble Lord referred to the comment about the Secretary of State this morning and he is quite right to say that it is not specified in the bill. I don't think any bill ever specifies which Secretary of State because as we all know things can change.

But we hope by providing some clarity to the chamber this morning that will help members to understand where we are with that. I hope with that explanation my noble friend feels able to withdraw her amendment. Moving to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord Randall and the incredible clarity and braveness with which I thank him for that, it places the overall test with an evidence-based improvement test as well as introducing further requirements connected to this revised test. The government is in complete agreement but the quality of evidence is paramount when the Secretary of State considers whether EDPs should be made.

I hope the noble Lord will welcome the government amendments which have been brought forward. Because I think they speak to what is at the heart of his amendments. As I have already set out, the government amendments to the overall improvement test remove risk of ambiguity by making it clear the Secretary of State can only approve EDPs when effective consultation measures materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the conservation status of each identified environmental feature. The Secretary of State would be required to take into account the best scientific evidence when undertaking all activities related to part three, including when considering the overall test will stop but it must be recognised the Secretary of State will make a determination before any EDP is in effect and conservation measures are in place.

While EDPs will be based on the best available scientific evidence, there is a need to consider the impact of these consider the impact of these A long-term approach and why we have included a provision of backup measures to be deployed if monitoring shows the primary conservation measures are failing to deliver as expected. This provides assurance that where the primary conservation measures are not performing as expected, further measures would be deployed to ensure the EDP met the overall test. With these amendments we are confident the overall improvement test is fit for purpose and so we would not seek to amend in the way that has been proposed.

In addition the associated amendment would require the Secretary of State to carry out more consultation and that risk adding further process because those bodies have already had an opportunity to express their views. Moreover Natural England are now required to include an EDP in their views as to how the proposed measures enable the EDP to meet the overall test. With these explanations, I hope the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw those amendments. Turning to amendment 290 tabled by the noble Baroness Bennett, which would amend the overall improvement test, I think it might be helpful if I just quote from the letter.

I know it only went out this morning. Myself and Baroness Hayman try to get it out a bit earlier but you know how these things work. If I just repeat the paragraph, we do recognise many noble Lord have expressed concerns related to the application of the model to irreplaceable habitats and rare species. We wish to be clear that the intent and legal effect of the overall test and the associated safeguards is to stop the inappropriate use of EDPs where an environmental feature would suffer irreversible harm or harm which could not be outweighed by the EDP.

This means the EDP could not allow action to be taken will all sink -- resulting in harm to an irreplaceable habitat as this would by definition be incapable of passing the overall improvement test. We note the planning policy framework includes a strong presumption against permitting development which would harm irreplaceable habitats. These protections are not changing. Before turning to the individual elements of the amendment, I should remind of the amendment, I should remind the House that the current system of maintaining the status quo is unacceptable and that is why we are proposing a system providing for alternative ways to discharge environmental obligations instead of simply offsetting impact and improving the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature.

In providing alternatives, it must establish a framework for decision- making which analyse the strategic outcomes focused approach stop this has been subjected to much debate. We are confident with the proposed amendments, this will deliver the better environmental outcomes that we all need. Reintroducing elements from the existing system to the new model does not recognise the necessary shift in approach to secure better outcomes. We will of course be discussing the mitigation at length in subsequent groupings. I hope with those explanations and the discussions to come, the noble Baroness is can withdraw their amendments.

291 tabled by Lord Roborough would allow the Secretary of State to withhold an EDP for reasons of public interest. I'm happy to reassure noble lords there is nothing to compel the Secretary is nothing to compel the Secretary -- to approve and it would be in their power to reject for any reason including for reasons of public interest as expressed in this amendment. I hope noble Lord therefore feel free to withdraw their amendment. 264 tabled by the Earl of Caithness would introduce three tests and EDP must specify in order to meet legal challenges.

The first refers to consultation and the bill already has measures governing consultation. This amendment would apply to the pre-consultation required by the previous amendment. The second proposed test is around cost effectiveness of conservation measures. The Secretary of State is already required to consider the economic viability of development when making decisions which will govern the area. The government has been clear no aggregate cost to developers, sorry, the aggregate cost to developers should not be greater than the status quo to ensure that using EDPs are attractive options for developers, since the majority will be optional for developers.

If the levy is too high, they will simply not use the EDP. The third test is that the EDP must follow the mitigation hierarchy. We will turn to that in the next group so I simply state that the mitigation hierarchy is expressed in this model with government amendment underlining the continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of EDPs and their ability to avoid impacts and the clarity local conservation measures have which are preferred unless there is a clearly articulated environmental process to look further afield.

While there are matters raised and they are important considerations, I hope the noble Lords would agree that these are dealt with elsewhere in the legislation and introducing more legal tests will avoid challenge and result in a significant cost and delay as a result to EDP so I hope the noble Lord can withdraw these amendments. Amendments to hunt 98, tabled by the Earl of Caithness, seeks out a new route for legal challenges with EDPs but it does not set out amendment 264 and it would allow for challenge without the statutory time limit given to other challenges under clause 65.

But when grouped with 264, this route would only be available to persons and organisations which have expressed interest in delivering conservation measures. This is likely to result in more legal challenges outside the normal time limits for such challenges, resulting in uncertainty that EDPs can be relied upon. This is the uncertainty we are seeking to remove and I hope noble Lords agree the review procedure and oversight from the system with individual cases will be sufficient for holding the government and Natural England to account.

The noble Lord Cromwell raised the issue of an independent audit process. Natural England will be subject to audit as are all public bodies and I do not have the answer about who selects the auditor answer about who selects the auditor

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All the amendments in this group are trying to basically answer the question of what success would look question of what success would look like, and how do you measure it? The old cliche. The point I was concerned about was not just the financial audit but measuring financial audit but measuring performance of EDPs. Because environmental changes are fantastically difficult and fantastically difficult and subjective to measure. I wonder, is there a commitment to use external third-party expertise to evaluate success, or is Natural England going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to mark its own homework? As if by magic, I do have the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As if by magic, I do have the answer about who audits Natural England now so I can give an answer. The accounts are nurturing and are audited by the control and Auditor- General under the natural environment and rural communities environment and rural communities act 2006. So I hope that is helpful.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In relation to his point about... It is helpful I'm sure they will look deeply into the financial look deeply into the financial performance. I'm worried about how the performance of the EDP will be measured?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

measured? The performance of the EDPs will be measured in the way set out. There will be oversight of that from There will be oversight of that from the Department, so there will be a process of monitoring the EDPs. It might be helpful if, in between committee and report, Baroness Hayman and myself were able to set out how the process will work. We will aim to do that. The noble Baroness coffee talked about environmental principles policy statement and I can confirm that this bill must have regard to the environmental principles in line with the Environment Act 2021.

I can confirm it is the case. With all those comments, I hope noble Lords will be able to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I asked the Minister after helpful and interesting points about helpful and interesting points about backup conservation, is not expected to be needed. Can we have to be needed. Can we have conversations about how the calculation of the cost of the EDP, and the amount of the levy, how the and the amount of the levy, how the levy and the liabilities for the levy are to be determined, and when they are to be paid? Can we talk they are to be paid? Can we talk about how that applies to backup conservation measures because clearly development don't want to be clearly development don't want to be in a position of paying them, or expecting that they have to pay them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

expecting that they have to pay them and finding the actually they don't need to pay them. I understand the point the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand the point the noble Lord is making. When a developer opts for an EDP, there will be a clear statement of the cost. I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clear statement of the cost. I think it would be useful to have a conversation between now and report so I'm happy to do that. Thank you for the full reply the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for the full reply the noble Baroness is given. Can I ask to speak a bit about the timing of the public consultation? How long the public consultation? How long the government thinking of between the Secretary of State receiving an EDP, and the time that is going to confirm or deny the EDP? How long is that public consultation going to be?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the noble Lord will be aware, there are standard timings for government consultations. We were deployed as principles as set out in deployed as principles as set out in the government regulations for all consultations. If the noble Lord is not familiar with those, I can send him the details.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

him the details. My Lords, I thank the Baronesses for the responses on this. I thank
12:52
12:53
12:55
None Portrait Amendment 245
-

have the support of the noble Lady and Baroness Parminter. Amendment and Baroness Parminter. Amendment 245 in my name seeks to specifically set out the importance of the litigation hierarchy which has its litigation hierarchy which has its head. Most should know what this means but in short it is the well- established common principle of established common principle of elements that there are a series of steps to go through when it comes to the environment. These are first to the environment.

These are first to avoid and to minimise, then to restore, then to offset. The problem restore, then to offset. The problem as we touched on here in this bill as we touched on here in this bill with EDPs is that you simply fast track to compensation. You can track to compensation. You can ignore the first three stages, and offset whatever it is you are doing. Here you are only obligated with the payment, your role is then done. It is a pretty dystopian view. And I is a pretty dystopian view.

And I know too many this won't happen and so we will seek to follow the steps when working on development, even if the law does not step related. It is the law does not step related. It is in force. This amendment would fix that and it is part of the EDPs conservation measures. Indeed my amendment would be inserted into the paragraph explicitly states and EDP will set out the measures, the conservation measures that are to be taken on behalf of Natural England under the EDP.

It may be argued that it is not needed because the hierarchy, I'm afraid the Minister is not in her place, she was just saying that mitigation hierarchy is complicit in this common practice was not and I say this to the Minister who I assume will be responding. I'm sure somewhere in those fine words it will say that she will respond at the end of this debate. That whilst the government supports the principle and the arguments behind what I'm seeking to do, one of the arguments will be because it is in the NPPF.

But if it is not expected in the bill, it does leave the door open to regression. I know that some see the NPPF more as planning guidance rather than law. Not to mention that in itself it is general rather than specific. An EDP creates a new regime. As a result it is not in the NPPF yet. I know therefore that, despite what the Minister did just say, it is right because it is something that it is new and should not feature in this bill because this grating a whole new aspect of planning law.

It will ensure that the bill and the NPPF line coherently. And it should be explicitly in this bill. It is not just me that thinks the mitigation hierarchy should feature, we have all been talking in fact was covered in the last group, that the government set out some of the amendments themselves. If you look at the guidance when these amendments were set out, the government said that these changes underline the continuing role for the mitigation hierarchy. The design of EDPs ensuring that local conservation measures referred, unless there is a clearly articulated environmental bases to look further afield.

Pretty much the Minister said concluding the last group. When these amendments came down, I was relieved. I'm grateful the government has put some amendments down for the but I kept hearing the word mitigation, hierarchy is going to be maintained, I thought that is great, a good step. But then I look at the list in here that we are debating in this group and I can't find where exactly the government says the mitigation hierarchy is to take place. This amendment seeks to fix that, and putting what it says the government supports.

As I say, it feels like it was only yesterday we were debating this, it was literally yesterday 1am we were talking about species. It may very well be that even if there are no species to be protected on site, I think we can all agree that it is right that any development seeks to minimise as much damage and to avoid as much damage as possible on a development. That in itself is conservation. There are a number of other similar amendments in this group all seeking to address the same issue, putting specific references in.

And I support them. This particularly goes to 301 in the name of Baroness Willis of name of Baroness Willis of Summertown. I have added my name to it. This amendment seeks to ensure that the mitigation hierarchy applies as well last allowing for flexibility of Natural England. If you take the group as a whole, these amendments do not stop the legal amendments do not stop the legal process will stop they are not political games. And it does do what the government says they are supportive of.

I do hope that it will feature at some stage as a result of these conversations because of the moment it isn't in the bill. I hope the Minister will recognise that this actually improves what the government seeks improves what the government seeks to do and it does make the EDP a win-win for nature and developing.!. win-win for nature and developing.!.
12:59
12:59
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I speak to my amendment to hundred and 56 E, and I thank the noble Baronesses for their support in putting their names to the in putting their names to the amendment. Can I support amendment 245 in the name of Lord Gascoigne and his elegant promotion of it. It means I don't really need to explain what the mitigation hierarchies are about. It is an important principle and it has really come to the fore in the biodiversity net gain policy.

And in the case of this bill, it would require the developer, and natural England, in preparing an EDP, firstly they look at how to avoid damage to features and then, if avoidance of damage is not possible, to mitigate, i.e. Reduce the impact, or the last resort to the impact, or the last resort to provide compensation habitat. Natural England could be subtler otherwise pressurised to putting an EDP that jump straight to damage and consultation, for example that might be the lowest cost option.

And therefore to be desired by developers but also perhaps by developers but also perhaps by This would be easy to impairment measures to safeguard the ticket habitat. Now, I know that the Minister doesn't like the nickname of cash to trash but I believe the bill will need to be amended to encourage developers to comply with the mitigation hierarchy if the bill is not going to be capable of being portrayed in that way. The noble Lady Baroness Taylor, in responding to the previous group, referred as has been said the mitigation hierarchy, but also said that a change of direction is needed to achieve more conservation action, perhaps distant from the site of an existing environmental feature.

And I have had that said before that we need a change of direction, a change of heart in our approach to conservation if we are going to reverse the decline of species and habitats. And that strategic landscape scale action is what is required as recommended by Sir John Lawton in his report. Bigger sites, better sites, more joined up sites, but Lawton didn't actually see these as an alternative to insight conservation. He saw them as an addition to that, and I think it is true to say that existing protected habitats are almost always more valuable than newly created habitats.

And so I hope that we can find a middle course that allows these landscape scales to be developed but does not in the process unnecessarily damage environmental features that could be maintained and protected under the mitigation hierarchy. So I'm sure that the mitigation hierarchy which has been subjected to a large number of amendments will be an issue that we need to report to, but it would be useful if the Minister could give the house assurances about the position that we see for the position hierarchy as the bill is currently formulated.
13:03
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I raise to move my two amendments in this group so I move amendments to, five, one and 275. I don't want to speak to long on this in the interest of the committee but just to start with, I think this is really one of the key issues remaining in this bill. And to my mind the government hasn't made enough of a solid argument for removing the mitigation system that works. A system that can be relied upon and no doubt there are inherent risks with changing the new system, even with the best will in the world, and similar to the last group, I genuinely support all of those amendments and welcome them, but again, despite the reassurances given by ministers, there is an area of concern around these issues.

The other point I want to make is that the government hasn't made the required level of arguments as to why they need to remove mitigation hierarchy. And I want to look at that in relation to housing and I raise this in relation to the standard group we had the other night. All of the energy statements have recently been updated. The overarching national policy statement. We have had new policies on renewables, on the grid, and new policies on nuclear which have been updated under this government, and they all have the mitigation hierarchy at their core, and they are really good solid documents, so I guess my question for the government is really if this government is able to deliver the energy transition with the mitigation hierarchy in place, why is it that the same government isn't able to deliver new housing with that? It just doesn't make sense to me.

That is something that needs to be discussed, my amendment to 516 to ensure the lack of national England accepts requests only when developers have properly applied the mitigation hierarchy and justifies products due to their being no alternative solutions, and no incorporated public interest grounds for sensitive habitats. We believe in these basic safeguards which are needed, and bedding core principles and environmental protection and planning into this bill. And the other amendments, my amendment to 75, 6 to intervene in cause 58 of the planning Bill and is designed to inject rigour and accountability and genuine environmental protection into the heart of the new planning system.

And I'm pleased that this amendment has the backing of the wildlife trust. It mandates Natural England as a delivery body which must not only adhere to the hierarchy but also demonstrate that any EDP will result in significant environmental improvement at an appropriate scale. And those words are important, so other members have raised the issues about the mitigation hierarchy. I do recognise the commitment the government has made. I think there is still a need for reassurance on these matters, but with that, I beg to me.
13:07
Baroness Parminter Portrait Baroness Parminter (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I have been pleased to sign because I think this issue is an because I think this issue is an outstanding big area of concern. Those of us who are wanting EDP is to be part of packaging in future are concerned about it. My noble friends have made the case well. About our concerns that the mitigation hierarchy doesn't remain for EDPs whereas it does for other planning obligations, so I ask one question to the Minister.

In a letter today, she provided an EDP so it can include planning permissions to avoid or reduce impacts on the site before they can access the benefits of EDP. That is an attempt to soften the concerns of those of us where it doesn't apply for an EDP, but I think the house, certainly before report stage means quite a bit of information about what exactly that means and I know it says the EDP can and I don't see how it is going to work because very helpful chart makes it quite clear that an EDP has no compulsion for an assessment of the environmental impacts of the site they will develop before they can go in with an EDP, so how can you have planning permissions for a site where you haven't even had an obligation to identify what an environmental impact is, so I would really like to have drawing up plans for EDPs or nutria neutrality so they must have some idea of what the type of planning permissions might be.

So I think I would like bit more information about how the planning process might work and what it might be in order to give noble Lords more information before it gets to report stage but I do think that we will be able to move past go and avoid the hierarchy which is a massive hole in this new system. Other parts of government have managed to find ways to incorporate it in development.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The environmental history is
13:10
13:11
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment to 40 which proposes a new clause after clause 87. This would enshrine clear duties on both the Secretary of State and Natural England to take reasonable steps to avoid, prevent and reduce adverse environmental effects when exercising functions. It enquires them to safeguard designated sites such as the European sites that we have had mention the previous group except in exceptional circumstances and to protect irreplaceable architects like ancient woodland and veteran trees.

I thank the noble Baroness Freeman who has signed the amendment and she sends her apologies and says this amendment provides a great opportunity to clarify the court commitment to nature protection should remain in the bill. This amendment is a clarification and strengthening of legal duties that are already underpinned for protections but risk being deleted under the new framework. While the bill aims to introduce strategic fund based mechanisms for environmental management through both EDPs and NRF, the happy legitimate concerns that they may be weakened or circumvented, so this amendment doesn't obstruct development.

It ensures that development. It ensures that To avoid causing significant harm, applying the fundamental mitigation hierarchy that we have already talked about, and which prioritises avoidance first, minimisation second and compensation only as a last resort. The amendments emphasis on biodiversity aligns directly with the government's own environmental principles policy statement which guides all departments to embed environmental protection in their decision-making and places biodiversity and improvement alongside harm avoidance as a clear statutory duty.

Of particular importance is the protection afforded to habitats as mentioned already which are unique and fragile ecosystems comprising just 2.5% of UK land, yet supporting disproportionately rich biodiversity, and the NPPF rightly sets the loss of such appetites as a matter to be fused unless wholly exceptional reasons to apply and compensatory measures are in place. Embedding this principle therefore in primary legislation strengthens the hand of conservation and local communities. The amendment also correctly restricts where significant adverse effects on European sites may be permitted only when justified by imperative reasons of overriding public importance and where compensation will occur.

This follows environmental law and international obligations and provides clarity. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
13:15
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
I will start by introducing my amendment 346 in the interest of brevity will avoid detailed comments on the other amendments in this group. This is a probing amendment which would require the Secretary of State to report on the potential benefit of removing distance from the biodiversity metric and measuring the value of registered off-site biodiversity gain under paragraph 4 of schedule seven a of This is important because the current system places a heavy weighting on proximity. This does not necessarily fit so well in this group in terms of the amendment but it seemed not sensible to have a separate group for one request.

The amendment simply poses the question to the government, if proximity carries limited weight in designing EDPs, why should it continue to carry so much weight on the market? This risks handicapping the private market for these services versus EDPs. Currently developers pay far less for BAAG and agent neutrality units went further afield than local. Which translates to lower prices per unit and lower sensors for landowners to develop cheaper units. We on these benches remain convinced the proximity of where the offsetting actions are located where the damage has been done remains an important principle which we will seek to defend.

However if the government were to insist this is not the case in the EDPs this amendment would seek to protect private developers in their ability to compete. There is an argument that holds weight of mitigation actions cannot be done locally further afield may be acceptable. In that case the choice should be made on guidance based availability not price. If I could turn to the arguments raised in the scope of amendments which we support, we are proud of the work done in the Environment Act 2021 to enshrine the mitigation hierarchy in law through biodiversity net gain.

It has taken some time to implement but now works better every day. Developers are increasingly comfortable with it, supply of BMG units is increasing providing valuable income to landowners and funding for environmental NGOs. Given that it is hard to understand where the problem isn't planning that part three is trying to fix and perhaps most importantly nature restoration is already happening at increasingly greater scale around the country through the current system. Why undermine it? By not protecting the mitigation hierarchy within the application to the nature restoration fund and the design of EDPs, this bill continues to represent a regression in environmental law in this country.

It also adheres competitiveness the solution to housing and instructor development. In conclusion, the Shows a common desire to protect mitigation hierarchy and in short is embedded into all aspects of the NRF and EDPs. I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to support this and offer encouragement.
13:18
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank noble Lords for taking part in this debate on the mitigation hierarchy. I have listened very carefully and I do very much recognise the concerns that are being raised. These amendments would seek to add provisions which require natural England and the Secretary of State to apply the mitigation hierarchy when considering whether to produce and EDPs in the production of NTDP and in the implementation. -- Production of an EDP and the implemented Asian. In producing the strategic act of...

Provides a degree of flexibility England and conservation measures to provide environment measures which are subject to an EDP. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne when he introduced his amendment noted the NPPF includes consideration of the mitigation hierarchy. In respect of individual planning applications. I was not actually going to mention it but because he did I thought I had to. As we have set out this is a strategic model and while I want to reassure noble Lords mitigation hierarchy lines, lives in this model it is integral to the model we are trying to get across, it cannot be considered in the same way as an individual planning of the.

Again I do want to stress the NPPF is a statutory model. You cannot just ignore it. It is part of the application process. So we would expect Natural England to consider this throughout the process and to use tools to request planning conditions as a result of an EDP. Preparing an EDP, Natural England will also be mindful of the benefits affording impact before they occur. Taking impact locally which takes the same feature being impacted by development will be the default under an EDP.

This place is an ecologically lock on the use of network -- places an ecologically lock and the use of networks in cases where it can only be used where clear and taking action where it would more beneficial to the environmental future. In addition when making the EDP, the Secretary of State will have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement which is in line with the Environment Act 2021. This will ensure important principles like the precautionary principle and the rectification outsourced principle are considered.

Ultimately the ultimate improvement test will require that each EDP demonstrates how the conservation measures will secure an environmental uplift that goes beyond the offsetting that is achieved under the current system. Coming back to amendment 245 tabled by the noble Lord on specifics as I have just said the principles are already incorporated into existing provisions and further reinforced by the amendment we have put forward. As Baroness Parminter has said, Natural England can request planning permissions are imposed upon development to ensure impact on minimised.

As I have explained network measures can only be implemented when doing so allude to greater improvement. The noble Lady has asked for further information. Let us get together for a report and I will get that information for the noble Lady and share it with noble Lords. Natural England will always consider the environmental principles when preparing an EDP and the Secretary of State may only make one if it need -- meets the overall improvement test. The additional flexibility provided by the nature restoration fund can only be used to deliver better outcomes for the environment.

Turning now to amendment 251 from the noble Lord Russell and 301 which is from the noble Lady Baroness he was not in her place, it would require a developer to demonstrate they have applied the mitigation hierarchy before Natural England can accept their request using an EDP. The clear aim of the nature restoration fund is to deliver a win-win for both development and the environment and a fundamental element of delivering this is to reduce the amount of time and money spent on individual environmental assessment and refocus these efforts on strategic action to improve environmental outcomes at scale.

The EDP itself is required to consider the impact of the relevant development on the environmental future and to propose appropriate measures to address enmity really outweigh this impact. -- And materially outweigh this impact. It will include actions to avoid impact as well as conservation measures to address and outweigh impact. As such that requires developers to take individual assessment risks, eroding the value of an EDP. By doing that it adds costs to individual develop in. Which we think would reduce the utility of relying on EDPs.

Where an EDP is in place the overall improvement ensures the outcomes for the outcome like the outcomes for the environment better than the existing. It gives us an opportunity to streamline the process in order to deliver this win-win. The noble Lord Russell tabled amendment 275 which seeks to require Natural England to sign an EDP for a protective measure if two conditions are met. First Natural England's follows the outcomes and also it would contribute a significant environmental in the conservation status of a relevant environmental structure.

I have just addressed the first I will focus on the second. Existing provisions in the bill already require the Secretary of State to consider the overall improvement is met once a draft EDP has been repaired and presented. Natural England are required to consider that same test at an early stage would not be possible because neither the detail of the conservation measures nor the environmental impact on development is intended to address would be known at that stage. We think the correct point to apply the overall improvement would be after an EDP is drafted not before.

The amendment also proposes a modification to require conservation measures are significantly and are measurably way the environmental impact of development. This was addressed previously so I will not repeat it here but to say the bill requires conservation measures must address the environment impact of measures and contrary to an overall improvement in the conservation status and we have clarified that through our amendments we have put through. Turning to amendment 256 Said A tabled by my noble friend Baroness Young, the government amendments make it clear network measures can only be taken forward as I have said, Natural England and set out the approach and will make a great country petition to the improvement of the conservation on the site measure.

We are clear flex abilities will not come at the expense of action to avoid impact on the bill provides powers to address such actions and secure they are taken through the use of planning conditions and there is also the opportunity to scrutinise those conservation measures including actions proposed to avoid impact during the consultation on e.g. EDP. The Secretary of State will have access to the environmental policies printable statements and other important pencils are considered. Turning to amendment 340, the overall improvement test with the nature restoration fund.

I have gone into some detail about how that is supposed to work. But the proposed requirement to apply the mitigation hierarchy rigidly will restrict the EPCs ability to meet the overall improvement test strategically. As I said it cannot be made and an EDP cannot be made unless the Secretary of State is satisfied will meet this taste and any flexibility applying the mitigation hierarchy should be seen through this lens. The naturist narration fund like the nature restoration fund does allow Natural England to impose conservation measure which do benefit the environmental structure for the bill does not apply under cement the NPPF therefore the remaining policies remain unchanged existing policies remain unchanged.

They can only be replaced and habitat is a feature of a protected site but even then an EDP could not allow for the loss of irreplaceable habitats as it would simply not be possible to satisfy the overall improvement tests in these circumstances. Turning finally to the biodiversity enhancement Grant it is not clear what this would add is an overall improvement must be achieved in relation to the protective feature to which the EDP relates. Finally amendment 346 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, we have recently concluded consultation on improving the implementation of BMG for minor, medium and brownfield element.

Among the options is a proposal to streamline be an geometric process. Therefore it might be interesting to pick this up and discuss this further because the government is currently considering this response and we will be publishing our outcomes in due course. New legislation will require government legislation will require government to layer reported matters and therefore it is not necessary at this stage and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. Can I say this has been a really important debate and it has raised a number of issues that I am very aware noble Lords would like to discuss further.

I think this is something we should specifically pick up and discuss ahead of report. These explanations I kindly ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
13:28
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in that group. Not least the Minister. I apologise for incorrectly prejudging what I thought the Minister would say. Obviously I got it wrong. I apologise. The noble Lord got it right when he said this group and the previous one are the nub of the problem is with the whole EDP part three. I think this gets to the heart of how we try and make the bill win-win for both development and for nature.

I do not want to dwell too long. I am grateful for the Minister has said. We will come back to that, I think it is worthy of us all coalescing and having another shot at it. With that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

begged to withdraw my amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment by leave withdrawn. We now come to amendment 245 A. My Lords, this group has government amendments and non- government amendments and non- government amendments so I will introduce the government amendments at this stage and then respond at this stage and then respond further amendments at the end of the debate once I have heard what people debate once I have heard what people have to say. The further government amendments speak directly to the matters raised by environmental groups and the Officer environmental groups and the Officer environmental protection which along with those and other groups presented, hence a package that addresses these issues as well as picking up wider matters as well as picking up wider matters raised during parliamentary debates as to how this nature restoration fund can operate going forward.

Government amendment 245 Able require Natural England to set out require Natural England to set out the anticipated sequencing conservation measures against the development expected to come forward under the EDP. This provides transparency as to when conservation measures are proposed to come measures are proposed to come forward to address the impact of development. By including the proposed sequencing in the EDP this will provide further assurance the will provide further assurance the EDPs will not need to open-ended or irreversible impacts of development irreversible impacts of development might lead to open-ended or irreversible impacts of developing and how they will be developed over the period.

While backup measures provide greater certainty of outcome we also propose to reframe the duty on the Secretary of State to deliver remedial action in the unlikely event the conservation measures in the back of conservation measures do not deliver as originally foreseen. Government amendment creates an expert requirement for the midpoint, endpoint and revocation ports to set out whether the EDP is still likely to has passed the overall improvement test. Should the end port report contain an assessment conservation measures are not likely or have not passed the overall improvement test Secretary of State will be under a duty to take proportionate action to address any shortfall in environmental outcomes.

These measures will need to be set out in a report containing a clear out in a report containing a clear assessment of the effect of the Secretary of State expects those Secretary of State expects those actions have. The Secretary of State will then also need to review the effect of these measures two years later. These new reporting requirements will remove the need for Natural England to conduct an for Natural England to conduct an annual assessment of the effective -- effectiveness of all EDPs that are enforced and that is further are enforced and that is further addressed by government amendment 325 C.

I hope that is informative 325 C. I hope that is informative 325 C. I hope that is informative
13:31
None Portrait Amendment: Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-

Clause 55 page 92 line 7, insert the words as printed on the Marshall list.
13:31
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I speak to my amendment to 58C which seeks to ensure that EDPs are grounded in scientific evidence and on a clear ecological baseline so that they can be judged as genuinely delivering measurable environmental improvements. The government proposed amendments are welcome of going some way to have regard to existing scientific evidence but they are silent on what happens if there is insufficient data or evidence. Perhaps the noble Lady could tell me whether that would be required to have measures judged.

This would ensure that every EDP has a strong evidential foundation so that the interventions can be judged as to whether they are credible to make them defensible and I think I should remind noble Lords that we are dealing in this circumstance with the most important threatened with the most important threatened environmental features as requiring the highest level of legal protection so it is really important that we get the scientific basis and the evidential basis. To assess whether development is a negative aspect, it is essential to know what the starting ecological conditions were.

Without an efficient baseline, it is not possible to evaluate whether an EDP is delivering the environmental achievements it is supposed to. Requiring a proper baseline and evidential base bills and transparency, increases trust and the whole system and allows proper monitoring of the time and I welcome the noble Ladies explanation of additional amendments and monitoring. This amendment works as an additional item to take account of the environmental principles to publish a statement of how it is done.

The lady has already talked about principles but it would be useful to get some clarification as to how they would refer to the ministerial roles which is clear through legislation that they already apply. I think requiring national England to consider them specifically would give clarity for developers, regulators and for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public. I am talking to my amendment to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am talking to my amendment to 85 a which commits to a new clause which would require national England which would require national England to undertake a baseline by the survey for an EDP, very much along survey for an EDP, very much along the lines that the noble Lady has just said. It would require the just said. It would require the Secretary of State to consider this when determining if an EDP parses when determining if an EDP parses the overall improvement test.

Now, I'm very keen on the biodiversity I'm very keen on the biodiversity and my noble friend the noble Lady and my noble friend the noble Lady referred to me as the twitcher. Take that not entirely while the twitcher
13:35
13:36
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to support Baroness Young and Lord Randall in their amendments. Turning to baseline data and coming back to earlier and coming back to earlier discussions in committee, I know there is work going on to improve what we have got by way of baseline data, and we have been involved in extensive discussions with the local environment record centres and with others. I would really appreciate to understand either now or by letter what the government's intentions are by way of giving momentum and a sense of determination to taking our current system and moving it onto the point where we gather all the environmental information which we actually collect into one place, both generated by the planning system and the extensive environmental data generated through high quality systems.

And use that for the benefit of understanding what is going on in terms of local ecology. It is all very well to do a baseline survey. It is traditional to do them in February. But actually doing proper baseline and really understanding what is going on in an area requires presence throughout the year over a period of years. And we do have that data. We are collecting that data. The world is full of seriously good amateur natural historians putting in a lot of work for free and we are not taking advantage of that.

We don't even use it to monitor the condition of travel size, so understanding where the government is intending to go on this and how it will pick up on the discussions which are currently taking place and taking forward is something that would be a very important thing to understand before we get to report and I will write to the noble Baroness the Minister on that subject. Secondly, when it comes to such things as water quality and nutrient neutrality, I'm afraid that the monitoring system run by the Environment Agency has been run down to such an extent that you really don't have a good texture of what is going on in the average river catchment and as I said before it committee, my brother is involved in the efforts that the wily Valley farmers are making.

They have created their own lavatory, working with the Environment Agency to produce a much better quality of baseline data and also understanding what can be done to deal and where the problems deal with them. High- resolution data makes it possible to resolve problems. The sort of stuff we have got is the general flow from the Environment Agency which leaves us puzzling. So again, I very much hope that the government will find itself able to work with all the resources and interest and determination which is out there in farming communities to get the data better and not just think that it has to pay huge amounts to environmental consultants to do it through the usual methods.

There are better ways of doing these things by opening up and I very much hope that this is the direction the government will take.
13:40
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
On the face of it, I welcome 245 a and the amendments from the Baroness because clearly it is right that the public understands the proposed sequence might be and for Lord Lucas has stolen some of my thunder in identifying that some of the research can take place at certain types of year and if it's a particular time window, maybe 11 months away and this temporal longevity which can happen over many seasons. Think it is really important for sequencing, laying out the sequencing that we get an understanding of what timescales may be needed because my concern is what happens at the point at which an EDP is first mooted and that sequencing process starts.

What assurances can the Minister give because the process may take several years. It doesn't impose a moratorium on any development while we wait for the sequences to go through all the sequences. They were laid out not just in the helpful diagram but in those bits before. I think it is really important in considering 245 a which I welcome but it must be coupled with the anticipated timescales, and I think it might be implicit in the amendment, but it would be helpful if the noble Lady could make it explicit the sequences and timescales in there because if that is the case, and doesn't apply

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to a moratorium in the meantime? I will speak first May 2 amendments in this group. Amendment 293 requires Natural England to report on environmental delivery report on environmental delivery plans more regularly than at the halfway and completion points of the
13:42
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
halfway and completion points of the plan. This is important because without frequent reporting, parliaments and the public are left in the dark for too long about whether the plans are on track. More frequent updates would allow for earlier course correction where plans are falling short. Helping to build public confidence through transparency and ensure that delivery does not drift between the start and finish. May I asked the Minister if she might set out why the government are confident that the current reporting framework is sufficient when many stakeholders believe more scrutiny is essential.

My next amendment requires environmental delivery reports to include assessment of local communities and the local economy. Rather than focusing on environmental consequences. This matters because improvement is not achieved in isolation. Amenities are affected, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively by the choices made with restoration. Understanding the economic and social consequences alongside the environmental ones is the only way to ensure that these plans are fair, balanced and capable of long-term support. My noble friends Lord Jamieson have repeatedly argued that local community voices matter and planning and this is no different.

These benches we continue to stand up for local engagement and meaningful consultation so that communities are not bystanders in shaping outcomes. I would also like to thank the noble Baroness for her amendment to 58C and Lord Randall of Uxbridge for his amendment. These are both vital because they strengthen the foundations on which environmental delivery plans are built. I have direct experience of this with my own farming activities and new forest development. Without accurate data on the condition of the soil flora and fauna and water quality, it is simply impossible to be confident on progress.

I would suggest this should be publisher that all stakeholders can hold Natural England to account. It is essential for plans to be robust to deliver benefits for nature and remain aligned with the principles of your lordship house is consistently supporting and in that context, I refer to my register of interests which I haven't done before in this respect as a shareholder in Agro carbon. These are constructed and necessary amendments that provide the cheques, the evidence-based and the community voice that will make environmental delivery plans more effective, more trusted and more deliverable.
13:45
13:46
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

calling in Natural England to tell My Lords can I thank noble Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords can I thank noble Lords who have introduced their amendments and for the wider debate. I would and for the wider debate. I would like to first of all talk to amendment 293 tabled by the noble Lord. That requires Natural England produce reports on EDPs rather than at the mid endpoints of the EDP lifespan. We think our amendment 325, the new report requirements partly speak to this amendment but our concern is the amendment would bring a disproportionate burden given the strength in reporting requirements we have introduced in government amendment 295A.

The noble Lord asked about whether we were happy with these levels of reporting. What is important is the frequency of reporting has to strike the right balance. Natural England. We carrying out appropriate monitoring throughout the EDPs life-cycle and will retain the power to publish a report at any time. Similarly requiring EDPs to include an assessment of the impact on the local economy and community of the relevant area as is proposed by the noble Lords Amendments 295, would add a significant burden to the reporting requirements for the EDPs.

It of course communities will be involved during the consultation process and I wonder if it might be an idea to circulate the consultation guidelines to noble Lords because of busy the consultation process is an important part of what we are -- of course the part of what we are discussing. I also hope I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson requiring a biodiversity survey in an EDP area is already accommodated in the existing legislation that such a survey is not necessary.

I was very pleased to hear about his love of birds. You may be interested to know I am a member of the RSPB. Perhaps I could be just -- be described as a mild bird fan alongside him. Clause ready requires an EDP to require the conversation status -- conservation status at the EDP start date setting out the relevant baseline. Of course in doing so as is the case for all duties carried out in relation to part three, Natural England will be required to take account of the best site to give evidence.

It is also best to remember these are targeted plans to address the impact of development on specific environmental feature requiring a full survey in all of the biodiversity of an EDP area and risks and costs to burden which go far beyond what is required to consider the impact of development on the environmental feature. Turning to amendment 205 eight C told by my noble friend Baroness Lea -- noble friend noble Baroness which is a series of actions Natural England need to take when preparing an EDP.

I know from discussions she wishes to make sure they are as rigorous as possible while making sure it is an effective tool to support of element come forward. In respect of this specific amendment around the supporting evidence base for EDPs and the consideration of the environmental principles I can assure my noble friend these matters are already captured through the drafting and amplified by the government amendments to part three. My noble friend also asked about further evidence collection and where it is necessary to gather additional psychological evidence to prepare and monitor and EDP the associated costs may be recovered through developer contributions.

Clause 57 already requires an EDP to set up why conservation measures are considerably required and new clause 87 A Two requires Natural England to take account of the best scientific evidence when exercising scientific functions in relation to EDPs. Clause 57 also requires EDPs to describe the conservation status of each identified environmental feature, again with regard to the best available scientific evidence. This means there is already a requirement for Natural England to ensure there is a solid base of scientific evidence including adequate baseline data.

To inform the preparation of the EDP. My noble the preparation of the EDP. My noble friend asked about how it is Natural England is required to have regard to environmental principles as it refers to Ministers. I would just reiterate the Environment Act requires the Secretary of State to take them into account when making their decision to approve all make an EDP. -- Or making EDP. I recognise the desire to ensure there is much protection for the environment as possible but we must ask -- make sure we are not asking developers to address more than is reasonably possible or asking EDPs to replace the important development work to protect important sites and species as part of our ambitions over the overall Environment Improvement Plan.

We have to get that balance right. We have to make sure environment supports development and at the same time doesn't stop important development where we need it. Regarding the noble Lord, Lord Lucas's questions. He asked a lot of questions from the baseline. It is properly helpful if I put that in writing to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord. I hope these explanations and assurances, noble Lords feel able to withdraw their amendments. Does the honourable lady wish to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the honourable lady wish to remove her amendment -- wish to move her amendment?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her amendment? Amendment proposed, 245 A. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. content". The contents have it. Amendment 246, not moved. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

246 A, moved formally. The question is this amendment be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this amendment be agreed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. 247, not moved. contents have it. 247, not moved. Amendment 247 A, moved formally. The question is this amendment be question is this amendment be agreed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 248, withdrawn. We come now to amendment 248 A.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

248 A. My Lords, I beg to move the House be resumed. The question is the House be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the House be resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. My Lords, will now take a short break in order for the House to be readied for Oral Questions. I therefore beg to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3 PM. The question is the House do now adjourn until pleasure until 3 PM. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not
13:55
None Portrait House Adjourned during Pleasure Until 3:00pm.
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, first My Lords, first oral
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
people who are we trying to run businesses in difficult times, for collecting taxes, and that surely is not acceptable. -- To people who are trying to run businesses in difficult times for top

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I remember my time on the committee and was privileged to serve when he was Chair of that committee, and we have course produced many very high quality reports. I don't think I was actually on the committee at the actually on the committee at the time of the report that the noble Lord refers to, but of course I do fully appreciate that there are fully appreciate that there are costs to business of doing this. I think the recurring cost is estimated to be £110 average annually for the cost of this.

But annually for the cost of this. But HMRC have worked with industry and I think it's important to say, to ensure there is a range of software ensure there is a range of software available, including free and low- cost software. And of course, those costs don't take into account the costs don't take into account the benefits. I think there are very important productivity benefits, important productivity benefits, time-saving benefits. In terms of Making Tax Digital for VAT, HMRC have carried out a detailed evaluation of the impact of Making Tax Digital for VAT.

That shows two thirds of business reporting time- thirds of business reporting time- saving benefits. For those businesses using digital accounting businesses using digital accounting software for the very first time, 80% of those businesses reported significant benefits. One quarter of businesses reported improved businesses reported improved productivity and one third of productivity and one third of businesses use Making Tax Digital software for the business processes. I think a time when productivity a challenge, an issue that we frequently discuss in this House, when small businesses make up such a large part of the economy, if we can see two thirds of those small businesses making significant productivity gains, I think that is a benefit really worth having.
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
None Portrait Oral questions: Ensuring the UK’s consumption of forestry commodities is not driving deforestation abroad
-

Second oral question, Baroness Sheehan.
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:23
None Portrait Oral questions: Ensuring that the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care gives due consideration to the needs of working age adults to live as independently as possible
-

Third Oral Question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
terrorism, and China, whose treatment of the people is an international scandal and poses a clear risk to global security with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that attitude towards Taiwan. Iron not speaking for the MoD, I'm speaking for the government. But I'm speaking for the government. But I respect my noble friend's position I respect my noble friend's position on this. He clearly disagrees with the decision the government has made, and it is absolutely his right made, and it is absolutely his right to do that. We understand that this is not a decision that we have taken is not a decision that we have taken lightly.

He has asked about criteria, there is not a set criteria, there is not a set criteria for this decision. It is an unusual position we have had to take but we are in an unusual situation. but we are in an unusual situation. Israel, as he quite rightly reminds us, is a long-standing friend and ally, we have close links with ally, we have close links with Israel, through many historic ties, Israel, through many historic ties, people to people ties, business people to people ties, business ties, I very much hope we can restore the arrangement as it was, because I think it is good for the because I think it is good for the United Kingdom.

I think it is good for Israel as well. But for the moment, as things are at the moment, moment, as things are at the moment, the things that are happening on the ground in Gaza, the unwillingness for the government of Israel to wish to engage and to listen, and to change course, has led us to take this regrettable decision. this regrettable decision.
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:46
15:47
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

emption. My Lords, this next grouping covers further government amendments to bring confidence that the Nature to bring confidence that the Nature Restoration Fund will deliver the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model. At its introduction the bill provided the ability for Natural England to include backup conservation measures within a GDP that could be used if the initial measures were not delivered the delight doubtful. Affecting the original defence where these will be used when a, Amendment 248, A, makes it mandatory for ADP to improve backup measures and requires natural England to monitor the effectiveness of conservation measures so they know when it is necessary for these to be deployed.

The government amendment to 98, as a day, forces the duty of the Secretary of State to carry out remedial measures. Should the endpoint report, or report following relocation, contain an assessment the conservation measures on two or have not passed the overall improvement test, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to take proportionate action to address any shortfall in environmental outcomes whether the EDP has revoked or if it reaches the end date. Finally, amendments make the series of minor legislative fixes and consequential amendments necessary for the correct operation of the legislation following these substandard government amendments.

I do hope the House will support these amendments and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 55, page 92, line 13, leave out subsection 5, and insert the words as printed in the
15:49
15:50
15:51
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
252, withdrawn. In clause 55,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 253, Lord Roborough. I rise to move my amendment to hundred 53 and speak to my other hundred 53 and speak to my other amendments in this group. I believe it is an embarrassment in our small, wealthy island nation that according wealthy island nation that according to APHA, the over 2,000 non-native to APHA, the over 2,000 non-native species of which 10 to 15% have become invasive, and pose a serious threat to our by diverse and our threat to our by diverse and our environment.

We must make intensive efforts to control and eliminate the species, to protect our own besieged species, to protect our own besieged by adversity. The greyscale has pushed the red squirrel out of much pushed the red squirrel out of much of our woodlands and now destroys countless young trees every year. Making it almost futile to plant native broadleaves in Devon and many other parts of the UK post I asked other parts of the UK post I asked the barrister Mr what progress is being made into the research of sterilisation of grey squirrels and sterilisation of grey squirrels and when will the treatment be expected to be made generally available? to be made generally available? Himalayan Folsom, Japanese knotweed have invaded river systems, have invaded river systems, displacing our native flora and upsetting ecology for animals, fish upsetting ecology for animals, fish living in those waterways.

I commend the group for the work they have done in controlling these invasive plants under the auspices of the Taymor Valley national landscape in that area. What similar work is being done elsewhere in the country to eradicate these species? Signal crayfish are present in many waterways and reservoirs, spreading disease that kills our native crayfish and relating on our migratory and freshwater fish species. There are spreading rapidly across our country, crops, damaging fences and stripping the bark of young trees was numbers are out of control.

The purpose of these amendments is twofold, to raise awareness of the damage that these and other species are doing to our environments, the government needs to change attitudes to these animals, birds and plants so everyone in this country takes steps to eliminate them from their gods, farms and lands. The second purpose is equally serious. I cannot see how an environmental delivery project funded by this new Nature Restoration Fund can be judged to be successful if non-native invasive species are still present on the land within the projects after five years.

It simply does not make sense that this EDP can have done unacceptable job on that site if those species remain in place attacking our much loved trees, ground squirrels and aquatic species. Should the House choose to support this amendment, I fear there is a risk Natural England could then two sites that are not infected with both species and I would like the Minister to assure the House that would not be the case. I think all who know and love our beautiful countryside appreciate how difficult a task it will be to achieve this even in these limited areas but it is not impossible and it is crucial.

I look forward to the noble Lord Lord Cromwell's introduction of his own amendments and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 55, page 92, line 20, add and insert the words as critical a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and insert the words as critical a marshalled list. -- Is printed. I confirm my support for all
15:55
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I confirm my support for all three of these amendments that the noble Lord has just moved, 253, 296 noble Lord has just moved, 253, 296 and 297. I would caution the use of non-native. It is the invasive aspect that is the problem. What could be more English than a rose? What could be a more typical English fruit than an apple? Both of them originate from Central Asia. They are not natives. But I entirely take the point about evasive, invasive species amendment 60 already debated referred to guidance to planting along highways and there was much discussion about trees and wildflowers and I enjoyed reading what type of tree Lord Moylan might represent, which might repay people who want to look at up in Hansard.

One plant that grows along our highways, and that wasn't mentioned in the earlier debate, is ragwort. The bright yellow flowering plants seen everywhere alongside our highway network. Through lack of enforcement, existing legislation, this invasive plant has become a menace to the environment, to animals and to agriculture, and action to control it is long overdue. Once it has flowered, ragwort produces seeds that like dandelions that people may be more familiar with, come with a downy parachute that means they float far and wide in the breeze across the countryside and in the farmland where they take root, produce more seed and so on.

Ragwort is poisonous to livestock and is not advisable for people to touch it with their bare hands although I do spend many unhappy hours putting it up myself with my own behind, as I'm sure others do. Grazing animals leave it alone while it is growing but where a field is cut for hay or silage as in the case of money grassland farms it gets incorporated into the bales, animals cannot detect it and they get poisoned by it. And finally, area set aside for environment benefits such as margins for wildflowers quickly become choked ever expanding strands of ragwort.

So much for the biology. What about the law? Ragwort is a notifiable weed and landowners and occupiers have a legal obligation to control and remove it, physically if it is spreading, causing nuisance or posing a risk to livestock. The weeds act of 1959 and the subsequent code of practice how to prevent the spread of work outline these responsibilities -- spread of ragwort. Failure to comply can lead to legal actions or clearance notice requiring action to be taken to remove it.

This has not been forced for many years. As part of my research, in putting down this amendment, I asked a written questions about notices or prosecutions in the last 12 months. I was informed that " in the past 12 months no notices in relation to ragwort control have been served to National Highways and there have been no prosecutions under the weeds act 1959 or the code of practice. And I would bet we could go back a lot more years in the last 12 months, the result would be exactly the same.

That is not good enough. Defra and the Environment Agency need to be enforcing existing law and regulations. This bill will create new areas of land controlled by a quango. This amendment specifically identifies this problem plant and requires that at least in the development of new infrastructure, proper controls are carried out and my favourite theme, enforced where necessary. That would be a start. I beg to move.
15:59
16:00
16:00
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
The prospect of spending weekends with the noble, Lord Cromwell, well worth the ragwort pulling. I will also sound a note of caution in respect of my noble friend, Lord Roborough's amendments. I think as they are drafted, particularly 296, animals like grey squirrels come and go as they please, you can't eradicate them from an area. You can try pushing them back, but we are stuck with them until we develop a national solution for them. I don't think you should pay lies in EDP because it happens to be infected.

Also, are we referring to the list that is generated by retaining regulation 1143, 2014? When we are referring to invasive non-native species. This is a list that mostly consists of things that are troublesome in much warmer climates. There is really a very... Lots of things that cause problems for us, like, say, sycamore, would not be included at all. So, I am cautious. included at all. So, I am cautious. It is really hard to eliminate invasive species from waterways.

Unless you control the whole waterway. And have a really integrated careful expensive campaign over several years. It is very difficult to do more than just reduce. I think we should, by and large, learn to live with these invaders, as a lifelong botanist, we have and we enjoy and we celebrate the thousands of plants that have come to live here, courtesy mostly of gardeners. And to play a small part in the native flora. There are very few plants that cause a huge problem, in terms of invasive.

Animals can be difficult. Insects of course, difficult but really hard to control. And anyway, when it comes to the flora of this country, we should recognise what we mean by native. If we go back to the ice ages, just about talking about birch, and a bit of Scots pie, and the ice ages crushed the European temperate flora against the Alps. As a result, we have a really depleted flora in Europe, compared to, say, China or North America, which may have southern refuges there flora could get to.

And you really see that in the case of forestry. We have 30 wooded species in this country. Every year or two, disease threatens another of them. I am starting to lose my mature oak trees, to acute Oak decline. Having lost a lot of ash, a lot of Elm. A healthy temperate woodland has lots of species in it. The fact that we are bringing back, that a few are finding their way back from gardens and diversifying and getting us back to A-level of diversity that we ought to have is something we should celebrate.

I don't think we should... There is this. About non- native, no, let's celebrate the immigrants.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to come back, without referring back as long as the ice referring back as long as the ice age or is taking as long as not to age or is taking as long as not to talk about it, my amendment relates specifically to one particular plant and I would just like to ask the and I would just like to ask the noble Lord, is he suggesting that we do not apply the existing legislation? Because that is what my amendment is seeking to do, merely amendment is seeking to do, merely apply the law as it stands now, through enforcement, not create new law.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

For troubling serious agriculture, yes we should enforce.
16:05
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

agriculture, yes we should enforce. It takes one to know one, it is worth noting this is a debate that we are unlikely to have in the next we are unlikely to have in the next session of Parliament. The old-style hereditary peers contribution to the governance of this country. I would briefly like to say about invasive species, shall declare my interest as a landowner in Cumbria, that it has always seemed to me the real problem in dealing with the ones which are pests and we can all think of a number of them, Japanese knotweed and so on, is we have never, those of us who want to see them rolled back, managed to capture the hearts and minds of the country.

Because it is no good just doing it yourself. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. I would like to suggest the government think in terms of trying to enrol the nation on this particular crusade. And a way to start, I say this because my contributions towards our local red squirrel group, I hope, would be -- Will not be endangered, but may be endangered for support for my agricultural enterprises, because there is less money going around. So, I think perhaps there might be ways of incentivising those involved in land management, possibly with a bit of contribution of money, as part of a wider package, to see some of these things happen.

I will leave it at that, other than to say anybody who wants to see a really extreme example of a reservoir, a whole group of invasive species in 1 Single Pl, you should travel by train from Preston to Manchester and look out the window. They all seem to be there, on the verge of a Can't bear mentioning, since you introduce the issue of hereditaries, many of us indeed are invasive species, as we came over with the Normans.
16:07
16:08
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

phosphate. I have also got rid of Japanese

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have also got rid of Japanese knotweed. Can I thank the noble knotweed. Can I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for amendments to 35296 and 297, the noble Lord Cromwell, for amendment to thrive free -- 253, B, I will consider these together because they all relate to the species and restoration funds for some the government recognises the impact that invasive non-native speakers have in our species, and ecosystems. And as the Minister for invasive non-native species, I do appreciate the noble Lord's intentions in tabling these amendments but they do not align with the targeted nature of the Nature Restoration Fund.

However, I would like to reassure noble Lords that I do have a particular bee in my bonnet about how we best tackle invasive non- native species, because they can have a devastating impact on our native biodiversity Himalayan balsam, nothing grows at all. And it balsam, nothing grows at all. And it wrecks riverbanks. It is not about what is here at the moment and how we manage it, it is about how we stop more invasive species coming in and that is a huge challenge.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, while I am on that subject, ask about the list, it is retained EU law but we have been reviewing and amended in order to tailor to UK circumstances. Amendment 253 would require Natural England to take action to eradicate England to take action to eradicate the invasive non-native species, that could negatively impact on EDP's environmental features. The legislation already allows invasive non-native species control to act as a conservation measure, where this would support the action of Natural England to material material outweigh the impact on the development feature.

However, we should recognise it might not always be the best option, in terms of environmental impact, both of money and delivery considerations, such as the need to secure the overall improvement by the EDP end date. Requiring action to eradicate invasive non-native species and these considerations could delay EDPs, increase costs and limit the ability to secure positive environmental outcomes. With these amendments, the Secretary of State would be required to invoke on EDP, even one delivering effectively for nature, because of the presence of a single grey squirrel.

And that doesn't make sense in the bigger picture. Making EDPs contingent on mandatory eradication in this way could also make them unviable. But on the graceful question, the noble Lord asked about the sterilisation program. Just to confirm the program is ongoing and is being supported by DEFRA. Turning to amendment 253, B, table by Lord Cromwell, which seeks to require bodies exercising powers relating to EDP, to ensure that legal obligations under the weeds act 1959 publicise, observe, and enforced.

The weeds act does grant powers to the DEFRA Secretary of State to serve landowners with the requirement to remove the weeds specified within the act also ensures that landowners retain responsibility for their own land, instead of public bodies needing to act. EDPs are targeted tool, to address the impact of development, and specific environmental features, introducing a broad application for Natural England and others exercising responsibilities, relating to EDPs, would expand the relating to EDPs, would expand the scope of EDPs, and risk diverting focus from their core purpose.

Obviously, the noble Lord Cromwell and others, we had a bit of a discussion about record, and I can assure the noble Lord that there is nothing in this legislation that would preclude Natural England or others from taking action in line with the Weeds Act such as reporting the presence of drug war, where this is encountered, or from appropriately removing such weeds, when it Natural England all delivery partners are delivering conservation wedges on the ground. With these -- Conservation measures on the ground,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with this, I hope noble Lords will withdraw their amendments. It is interesting in this debate,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is interesting in this debate, and I would like to pick up Whatley noble Baroness, the Minister, said. noble Baroness, the Minister, said. -- What the noble Baroness, the Minister, said. Could she update us, firstly on the point that my noble friend, Lord Roborough said about friend, Lord Roborough said about the grey squirrel. If she could be a little bit more specific about the little bit more specific about the the update situation on that, but also causing havoc to the plantations and farmland.

And those plantations and farmland. And those might not include non-native invasive species, but there is far invasive species, but there is far too many deer in the countryside.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

too many deer in the countryside. One of the main idea that causes a problem is a non-native but we won't go into that. The Department is currently producing the dear is currently producing the dear strategy, the revised dear strategy, I am sure we can share with the noble Lord when it is produced. The noble Lord when it is produced. The noble Lord, the Earl of Kinnoull, is working very closely with the group that is working on the grey squirrel sterilisation program. I have had meetings with him and his colleagues.

I cannot give you the colleagues. I cannot give you the details of that, because it is something that they are specifically driving forward themselves. It may driving forward themselves. It may be worth the noble Lord having a conversation with the Earl of Kinnoull and we are, as we say,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supporting the work they are doing. My Lords, I am very grateful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this short debate and particularly, the noble Baroness, the Minister, the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her very knowledgeable answer. But I should add my thanks to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for a meeting she organised a couple of meeting she organised a couple of weeks ago with her officials, the depth of knowledge of those officials was phenomenal on the subject. I thought the noble Lord, subject. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made good points about public education.

These are not adorable furry animals, these are a pest, they are causing damage are a pest, they are causing damage to our wildlife, trees, everything another country. I think people need to be aware of that. I couldn't to be aware of that. I couldn't agree more with Lord Cromwell, the noble Lord, and his points on ragwort. Certainly, my experience, ragwort. Certainly, my experience, as responsible farmers remove this as soon they see it, and it is as soon they see it, and it is saddening to see public what is not taking that seriously.

I also thank taking that seriously. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his points. I think you slightly contradicted himself. Of course, contradicted himself. Of course, it's very difficult to remove these invasive species but not impossible. I have a same experience with Japanese knotweed, and Himalayan Japanese knotweed, and Himalayan balsam, you can eradicate it but you have to work at it. In conclusion, I will take away the comments that everyone has made in this debate, and perhaps see if there is something we could do in this bill gone elsewhere, to try and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

strengthen the defences against this. And I withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 253, A, already debated, Lord Lucas, not moved. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

253, B, Lord Cromwell, not moved. DEFRA will take into account the need to enforce the existing legislation when public bodies are running EDPs. Because many public bodies are not doing so at the bodies are not doing so at the moment. But on that basis, I withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw my amendment. Amendment 253, C, already

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 253, C, already debated, Lord Lucas, not moved. The question is that clause 55 stand part of the bill. As many as are of part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 254, already debated, Lord Trenchard, not
16:15
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
already debated, Lord Trenchard, not moved. Amendment 255, already debated, Lord Gascoigne, not moved. In clause 56, amendment 256, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name and move amendment to 56 and my other amendments in this and my other amendments in this group. These concern the use and governance of the Nature Restoration governance of the Nature Restoration Fund levy. This is a large group of amendments so I will use the time I have left available to address other amendments. My amendments aimed to reinforce the principles of reinforce the principles of fairness, transparency and proper fiscal stewardship in the deployment of levy funds, ensuring the mechanisms intended to restore mechanisms intended to restore nature do so in a way that commands public trust delivers tangible environmental outcomes.

Let me begin environmental outcomes. Let me begin with amendment 256. The 6 to prevent Natural England from including the costs associated with compulsory purchase order's in their budgeting purchase order's in their budgeting for environmental delivery lands. The use of CPOs should be the absolute last resort, not a built in absolute last resort, not a built in assumption or a line item in standard budget planning, including such costs upfront risks normalising such costs upfront risks normalising compulsory acquisition and an approach that is confrontational and potentially costly to the public purse.

It discourages collaboration with landowners, many of whom are with landowners, many of whom are keen to play a voluntary role in restoring our natural environments. This amendment promotes a partnership led model of land restoration rather than a heavy- handed and bureaucratic one. Amendment 313 built on this principle by explicitly prohibiting the use of levy funds for land acquisition by compulsory. The Nature Restoration Fund levy is paid by developers and ultimately by the public with the promise it will support direct and measurable environmental benefits.

Using those funds to acquire land through force undermines the voluntary market based ethos behind the levy and risks reputational damage to the scheme. We must be clear, the levy should support restoration, not legal battles over land. Turning to amendment 315, this amendment ensures funds raised through the MRF levy are not schooled away for indefinite or speculative future use. Monies raised should be deployed properly and transparently to deliberate nature of now, not locked up for uncertain projects that may or may not materialise in years to come.

The public contributors deserve to see timely tangible benefits from these contributions. Especially in an area of growing scrutiny over the effectiveness of environmental spending. Finally amendment 317 provide the Secretary of State with the necessary regulation making power to return to surplus or unused funds to contributors this is basic fairness measure. The funds have been raised in excess of what is needed or where they cannot be spent appropriately, it is right and proper to be returned. Without such a mechanism, we risk creating a one-way system of financial extraction without accountability.

I hope noble Lords will recognise that, taken together, these amendments to the integrity of the levy by ensuring it remains targeted, proportionate and fair. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 56,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 56, page 92, line 37, at end insert the words as printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. I have added my name to my noble friend Lord Roborough's amendment
16:19
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
friend Lord Roborough's amendment and I want to speak to that and lost my amendments 311, 316, and 318. On my noble friend Lord Roborough's amendment, 313, I hope that this is an easy one for the Minister to accept or at least confirm the situation will not take place at all, when it comes to compulsory purchase order's. An amendment to hunt on 11, I have three items which I would like to see included in what the regulations might be.

Two of the items referred to the medication hierarchy, we discussed that at some length in amendment 245, so I will not say anything more about that. But one of the things I would like to add in the regulations is that they should require Natural England to consider a delivery hierarchy such that preferences given to those bodies and persons in promoting the EDP. I believe that will encourage the private sector to take its appropriate share of the work of EDPS, and keep the money with the people who actually manage the land and tended, and not just for 10 years of an EDP, but the future generations as well.

Turning to amendments 316, this seeks to clarify the legal obligations of other parties, such as landowners, farmers, and accepting NRF funds to deliver the EDP, and amendment 318 provides further clarity on the involvement of an appropriate body, not just a public authority, and I hope the Minister will be able to confirm exactly what it is meant in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bill on that point. I wish to speak to a whole raft

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish to speak to a whole raft of amendments in my name in this Order Paper which are 307, 308, A,
16:21
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
Order Paper which are 307, 308, A, 309, 310, 312 and 314 but all of them are designed to ensure the money raised through part three for the nature of refund is actually spent on nature recovery rather than the bureaucracy and process. This should concern us all because as we have discussed repeatedly, part three does establish what I see to be an elaborate and quite ambitious mechanism, ambiguous, rather, mechanism that carves out some developers from certain civilities. Overall my general approach to legislation is that it needs to be as comprehensive, clear and coherent as possible.

We should not seek to keep things vegan purpose. To me all that does is live problems -- to keep things vague on purpose. As drafted I'm afraid I fear this bill leaves a huge amount open to legal interpretation and case law. I'm not speaking to any agency of audio department, and perhaps it is more a fraction of human nature itself but my experience is that where there is an ambiguous process there is a tendency for government and others not to feel as much pressure on the need to deliver coequal not to deliver cost effectiveness and on something as bold as this scheme I feel there is likelihood to go through copious administrative procedure to mitigate litigation risk.

These copious administration procedures are cost and the ultimate question is, is it fair that nature pays that cost? These amendments seek to limit the power of Natural England to take a cut from the fund England to take a cut from the fund at the expense of nature. I'm sure some will balk at this concept and ask, where does the money come from, but that is not the debate here. What I'm seeking to do is ensure the funds raised for developers are spent on the proper purpose.

We should recognise Natural England already has a generous provisions for it to charge fees, for licences and other work through such an 11 of the Natural Environment and Rural Amendment 3076 to limit the amount that Natural England can charge in accordance with those existing provisions and I wondered if it was possible the Minister could explain if they no longer see those existing provisions are sufficient to cost quite recovered legitimate costs. Amendment 309 quite recovered legitimate costs. Amendment 3096 to ensure any charges taken are used to work with the same local authority boundary and I'm grateful to the noble Lord Teverson sadly is not his place to add his name to this amendment.

It makes it clear the levy raised must be spent within the same planning authority from where the levy originated. And the reason I put this amendment down and are happy to discuss, and it can be debated, whether it's too narrow in its definition, but as currently drafted the monies raised from on- site in the legislation, the monies are spent, raised from one side, can be spent anywhere. And I'm blessed as I'm sure the noble Baroness Macintosh will agree, to be born in God's own county of Lancashire, but more recently I have moved, I confess some roles.

Hypothetically speaking there's nothing in this bill as drafted for the site to be taken out of where I live in Surrey now and for the EDP to Dean that the money raised shouldn't go to place or improve something near to what I have lost but rather it could be spent in beautiful Lancashire. As a result, family may gain from that benefit, people in Surrey would lose the benefit twice, they lose the site which is within scope of the development and the money should be there to rectify that.

I would like to speak to amendment 308, A, which speaks to provide other departments and the Treasury mainly to effectively siphon money for nominated uses. If you look at clause 71, five, D, you can see the bill allows for Natural England to pass monies connected under the levy to another public body, indeed go so far as to say in the bill that it could require Natural England to pass it to another public authority. A little later a rather gloomy entry of clause 72, seven, which says " the regulations may require public authority to collect any Nature Restoration Fund levy charged by Natural England.

The privations of which is worthy of debate itself in my view, which public body does the government for CS taking its role if it isn't Natural England? I will leave that to others if they wish to go down that route. Ultimately, this amendment protects the funds to whomever and wherever these monies may go. It means ultimately the original purpose shall remain. What I think everyone can unite around in this amendment, from sceptics of the bill to those supporting it, -- because it means that money for nature should remain for nature and not be consumed into a general pot.

I know all too well what happens if things are not ring fenced clearly. As an aside, there is a precedent here, the other day, when we discussed the infrastructure levy and in those 2010 relations it includes a ring from an what is to ensure that the income spent on infrastructure, no matter who is doing the spending and it's in course 59 of that relation if you wish to check. Sadly, throughout this issue, the nature fund needs to be very clearly protected, defined very clearly, in the bill, and not to be allowed to be open to interpretation or postponed to secondary legislation.

The remaining amendments in this group in my name, 310, 312 and 314 or seek to tighten further the accountability and transparency behind any decision of Natural England to fund its own administrative activities from the nature of fund.
16:27
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
The last two speakers adroitly pick their way through the thicket of these various amendments stop I will prove the touch and there's before getting to mind. As regards 256 and 313, where land CPOs from its owner it is manifestly unfair to include in the levy the cost of acquisition, it's rather reminiscent of the victim of an execution being made to pay for the bullet. As regards 37, 312 and 14, I support clear limits being set on the ability of quangos, physically quangos in a monopoly situation, being able to overtake their charges.

Turning to amendment in my name, this requires Natural England to provide a natural budget break down. It is hard to imagine how a levy required can be quantified in another way. If in the event there is an underspend of the developers levy money, the amount not spent to meet the purpose of the levy should be promptly returned to the developer. It has always been my understanding that the specific purpose of the levy is to enable the replacement or offsetting of environmental degradation caused by specific developments.

Such environmental degradation is to be defined, calculate it and quantified by Natural England all the appointees, in order to arrive at a numerical amount of the levy sum payable by the developer. That some will, as Natural England have confirmed to me, in each case include an amount for contingencies. That is a normal part of any budgeting process, for what could be a complex project. Where the system departs from normal practice is what happens to any unspent funds once the quantum of environmental benefit that the developer has paid for is achieved? When I asked Natural England executives about this, they told me to my great surprise that any unused funds would simply be kept by Natural England and spent by them on unspecified further work.

My Lords, the levy amounts are likely to be substantial. It is not unreasonable to 8 patents in case millions of pounds. To allow Natural England to retain any unspent funds for their own purposes flies in the face of standard contractual practice will stop it is also an open invitation to overprice the levy for any project as a means of generating revenue for Natural England above and beyond what is reasonably required for the ingredient environmental benefits. This amendment therefore requires a transparent calculation in budgeting process, accountability for how these large sums are spent, and timely return of unspent funds to their rightful owners than being pocketed by Natural England.

The amendment would thereby prevent such temptations being placed in the path of Natural England, the temptation that my recent discussions with them already suggest they may be already suggest they may be already suggest they may be
16:31
16:32
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
We are under the bonnet here, looking at the minutiae of the EDP, and we are missing the bigger picture. I rise to speak in support of the noble Lord Cromwell on 307, A, but also 256, in the name of Lord Roborough. We find ourselves in this situation, because the organisations with the statutory duties and powers, the staff, income, systems, to clean up our rivers, insofar as nutrient neutrality is concerned, haven't been doing so. DEFRA, Natural England, the water companies in particular, drainage boards, all in scope, they have got their job and I have not been doing it.

I think my concern about the levy, is we're talking about how we are going to charge this levy but we're not really talking about where the money is coming from to deliver these EDPs, because what part three is effectively doing is letting these statutory undertakings off the hook. Instead, those people who don't have the powers and responsibilities, councils, and local developers, and if my honourable friend, Lady Neville-Rolfe was in her place, I am sure she would intervene and say and the small builders, those small companies that spend money on local supply chains and what have you.

So, we have here the ultimate moral hazard. It is a reward for failure. I don't deny that the costs of doing these EDPs should be apportioned appropriately, across the canvas that is required for the purposes of the EDP. And in proportion to the number of units. But I'm disappointed this bill doesn't require those with the responsibilities to, if you like, have the first poll. DEFRA, Environment Agency, and so forth. I think it is an omission and 1 We Should Pl on the record and returned to later, a postage.

-- At report stage. But I want to question the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. It talks about the surplus. In a previous group, I explained how I had been involved in this for some time. And there will be no surplus. Because we are talking about ATO tail liabilities. -- 80 year tail liabilities for some of the money ponied up front foreign improvement is going to have to be jam spread over 80 years in the case of nutrient neutrality, or 30 years in terms of biodiversity net gain and what other revelations come along.

So we will not know whether there is enough money in the kitty, until the year 79. And I don't think this is really fully understood. The noble Lords in previous groups, so spoke about 1,900, 1,300, he was concerned on the current account, if you like, on this year's P&L. What the extra margin might be. Milos, there has been a fundamental understanding of how the accountancy works. That is why, in an earlier group, I wanted to explain and I will talk about in a later group, when we get to the private involvement, we need to have proper accounting standards of how we are going to approach accounting for these 80 year tail liabilities.

But nevertheless, until we do, and when we are sitting this levy, it should be on the basis that those should be on the basis that those who require to, and are paid to do this work, should carry the first burden. Otherwise, what we are doing is having those small family building businesses cross subsidising the large water companies, who raise water rates and should be upgrading their own sewage plants. And the owners of the purchases of new homes, young families, trying to get their foot on the ladder, effectively going to be cross subsidising.

These EDPs need to be explicit, in asking those to be paid and have the duty to do this work, to do it first. Then, if there is any requirement left over thereafter, that is what has got to be portioned over, for the developers, and in due course, passed onto the purchases of new homes. So, I think we have only really, in this group, scratched the surface about the costs, accountancy and financial models. We need to do a lot more work on this.

Because otherwise, the money is going to run out, in year 42, 52, doesn't really matter. We are not going to get to your 80. And in the meantime, those costs of the EDP, the annual inspection costs, renewals, accountancy and everything else, having factored in not at all. This is not at all straightforward. As we get a report stage, we will have to dig much deeply into this, who pays, who should pay, how we are going to value these tail liabilities, is almost an actuarial problem.

But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

until we do, there will be no money to go back. Very briefly, because I found

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly, because I found that a fascinating exposition and I would very happily discuss it further outside the chamber with the noble Lord. I think it is almost impossible to calculate therefore what the levy should be because you are dealing with unknowns into an 80

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are dealing with unknowns into an 80 year period, but let's not discuss it now. Let's move on. Thank you. Can I talk to amendment 309, A,
16:38
16:39
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm very supportive of my noble friend, Lord Gascoigne's amendments. And also speaking to those on my front bench. And I think there is a couple of factors in this. The Treasury hates ring fencing, because right now, they pretty much control every penny that leaves the government's hands. With the rigours of the local government or similar. In fact, the department starts to want to try and control money coming out of existing government departments and how it should be done and how it should not be done.

So, conventions start to happen within government, which then frustrates the very purpose, at times, of what the levy is therefore in the first place. And so, I think by... Presidents has already been set by my noble friend, Lord Gascoigne, about silks being on the face of the act that brought that in. And I think there are other aspects where the noble Lord, Lord Tennyson's amendment, making sure this is additional money, the amendment saying basically Natural England shouldn't become self financing through this.

Every single penny raised should be going to nature restoration. And my noble friend, I was also born in the county of Lancashire, so very proud of that. I won't start singing the cricket song, don't worry. But there is something to be said here about how we try, as Faris possible, to make -- As far as possible, to build on the repetition of source, to have that biodiversity nearby for a very occasionally, there have been projects and I'm trying to think of things like the Channel Tunnel, and that sort of infrastructure.

Where it has simply not been possible to recreate the habitat for the relevant habitat for certain displaced species. And it has had to go further away. There is no point, a bit like HS2 found, just planting a tree, not watering it, at the wrong time of year, what a surprise, 70% of them are dead. And we end up spending more money to fix the problem rather than sorting it out in the first place. So there is an element here about how we get that coordination which I think Natural England has reasonably well placed to do.

But also, bear in mind when we were setting up the P&G pilots, and sometimes local developers were not able to do it. And there was an opportunity to buy national credits. And so, think at the time I know the Department was very keen, Natural England was very keen, they were the only body that could have this national pot. But I made sure that a few more bodies were available, because it is important, not necessarily to have exactly competition, but also a variety of people who can provide, rather than resource constraints becoming the determining step or not helping the progress, which I come back to the 2021 Environment Act and the species abundance target, on the face of the act, is by 2030.

So, just to give a couple of other examples. It might surprise you that regularly the treasure holds back over £1 billion from the apprentice ship levy. And will use it, quite often, to pay for some various training here and there. Nature is too important. I thought of it is no longer the Cinderella of the climate environment. I am afraid it is back in that sad era. And we have to make sure to -- Make sure it gets its fair dues, and that it disabled and these amendments today.

-- Add that it is tabled.
16:43
16:44
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-
I briefly rise to say I would like to support those who argue that the levy must be spent exclusively on nature. That is what it's collected for. The government which administers these things more generally has enormous resources at its disposal. Ordaining this is the way things be done. As part of the general function, should foot the bill for its own activities. I would really like to turn, if I may, to amendment 309, the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne's. I have great sympathy with it.

What I think I would like to suggest that it might be better to put a spatial measure, rather than a local authority boundary measure behind the approach adopted here, because if you have a development very close to a local authority boundary, it may be that the right place to spend it is just over the boundary. Equally, I have suddenly discovered I live in the county of Westwood. When previously, I had always lived in Cumberland. The distance from Olveston to Barrow in Furness, which are in the same county, is over 100 miles.

And I think that, again, would throw problems up. But I think there is a deeper fundamental problem behind it, which I don't know the answer. And that is part of the emotional element around the idea of a levy, is where money is being used to be spent, nature and environment improvements quite close by. That is the psychology of it. But as the noble Baroness, lady coffee, said in cases such as the Channel Tunnel, that isn't really possible and certainly speaking as someone from the north of England, we have plenty of projects that could benefit from money of this kind, if all the money raised is in the south of England and can't be spent in the North, I think you would find there is a very considerable feeling of this consent.

-- Of discontent. Because the problem is, once you get away from the immediate locality of a particular project may be extreme,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This next group of amendments
16:46
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
relate to that regulation making powers governing the nature of the restoration levy. Powers provide the framework for how the levy operate and how it will be used to unlock development and deliver Nature Restoration Fund can I reassure no Lord Framlingham, we have a group on CO Powers, and I'm sure will have further discussions. It will be governed by secondary lane of the affirmative procedure following Royal assent. As well as receiving scrutiny from Parliament, is worth highlighting that the relevant charging schedule will form part of the consultation on each EDP and to reiterate that the use of an EDP will be a choice of developers.

Turning to amendments to 56 and 313, tabled by Lord Blencathra, the government has designed the Nature Restoration Fund to work on a cost recovery basis with actions required to deliver EDPS funded by the developers who use the EDP. The framework of powers ensure the levy can be designed to achieve this aim and that all appropriate costs can be met through the levy. This follows the polluter pays principle as the EDP will address the negative impact of development and so it is right these costs be met through the levy.

Given the range of matters that may need to be addressed to an EDP, there may be circumstances where the acquisition of land is required, and where this is the case it is only right that this cost recovered through the levy rather than through public funds, where the land is acquired by agreement or by compulsory purchase order while recognised concern around the use of compulsory purchase order these are important powers to ensure there is sufficient certainty that where necessary and appropriate land can be acquired for delivering conservation measures.

This again highlights the importance of consultation on each EDP to ensure proper scrutiny before the EDP is considered by the Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sorry to dropped and I appreciate there are other appreciate there are other amendments dealing with this but if you are buying somebody's land, he should pay fair market price for it,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

surely? He is correct, there are provisions for that in the process. Turning to amendment 37 tabled by Turning to amendment 37 tabled by the noble Lord Lord Gascoigne, and I know he is a nonentity species of know he is a nonentity species of sorry. I hope he is not an invasive species of sorry. His amendment would limit what expenses could be included in a charging schedule to those included within section 11 of those included within section 11 of the natural environment and rural 2006.

These powers were drafted long 2006. These powers were drafted long before the EDF. Natural England's role is wider than simple providing role is wider than simple providing a service. They'll be drafting EDPS conducting surveys and analysis to conducting surveys and analysis to work out the most appropriate conservation measures, consulting on conservation measures, consulting on it, presenting it to the Secretary of State, and will subsequently have administration as part of a fermentation such as contracts with service providers and administration of levy collection.

Many noble Lords have referred to the need for the scientific basis. It will be important they are able to deliver that scientific evidence. As mentioned previously the government 's objective is for the NRF and Natural England's role in delivering it to operate on a cost recovery basis which would not be possible if we were to accept this amendment. To ensure value for money for the taxpayer it is important that Natural England can recover all appropriate costs as part of the levy.

Turning to amendment 38, A, we agree with the noble Lord and the government is clear that money from Nature Restoration Fund will be used to deliver the EDP and secure the necessary conservation measures. Natural England will be the organisation drafting EDPS on behalf of the Secretary of State, they will not always be the best placed to deliver the conservation measures and so will work with other bodies securing those measures. Will be setting out a procurement strategy in due course which will speak to the issues the noble Lord is driving out through his amendment.

Where Natural England work with all three partners they remain bound by the provision in clause 71 to spend money received by virtue of the Nature Restoration Fund on conservation measures that relate to the environmental feature, in relation to which the levy is charged stop money used in this way cannot simply be used for other purposes and for that reason clause 71 still requires that this money is monitored and accounted for. On the basis there is always the link between the levy and the delivery of conservation measures regardless of whether Natural England is the body delivering them or not, I would hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Turning to amendment 309 tabled by Lord Gascoigne, as the noble Lord will be aware the government has tabled an amendment make it explicit that Natural England only deliver network measures that don't directly address the impact on a project it's but improve the same feature elsewhere, where they consider that it would make a greater contribution to the improvement of the environmental feature in question, the measures that address the impact of development locally. Under these proposals, Natural England will be required to state how they have reached this conclusion with reference to the best available scientific evidence.

Crucially, network measures could be used where to do so could result in the loss of an irreplaceable habitat. This would inherently not pass the overall improvement test. More generally the amendment would limit actions by local planning authority boundary which may not align with the ecologically boundary of the protectants on frontal impact. I trust this speaks to the substance of this amendment given the government amendment provides an logical block on the use of these measures where Natural England must regard to the need to protect the overall coherence of the relevant site network.

Turning to another amendment from the neighbour Lord Gascoigne, 310, this will require the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations covering all the matters listed within 471, three. There are many indispensable elements of the levy relations that will be brought forward to ensure this legislation can operate effectively. But by framing the powers is a rather must, discussion is provided when deciding whether it is necessary to bring forward specific relations and requirements. Turning to amendment 312, the government agrees that transparency is vital throughout the EDP process.

Which is why the bill already includes reporting requirements at the mid point and end point of an EDP which will include information about the cost of conservation measures. In addition natural and are required to publish annual reports across the NRF which will include a summary of Natural England's accounts with information about the total amount of levy received and an amount spent on conservation measures each year. We are confident through this process they'll be an adequate level of transparency in respect of both costings and expenditure.

Turning to amendment 314 and 315, tabled by noble Lords Gascoigne and Blencathra, as I have set out previously, removing Natural England's ability to recover it initiative expenses would require the government or Natural England and the taxpayer to shoulder the cost of creating EDPS and any administrative costs and preventing them. Similarly removing Natural England's ability to include previous expenses would directly impact this and remove the ability of government, with Natural England recovering the money through the levy when development proposals come forward before repaying government.

Limiting the ability of Natural England to reserve money for future expenditure would restrict Natural England's fax abilities to secure the most appropriate conservation measures and plan for unforeseen circumstances stop allowing these costs to be included within a charging schedule, will ensure the long-term viability of the Nature Restoration Fund and provide greater certainty that environmental outcomes will be achieved. In a similar vein to previous amendments, amendment 301, A, will require that the money accepted and moved by Baroness Parminter, would require money accepted through the levy be classified as additional two and not part of the core funding of Defra or Natural England.

On this point I can assure the noble Lord that the legislation is clear. That the Nature Restoration Fund levy is provided to Natural England to deliver on the EDP and is not able to be used for purposes outside the EDP. As part of this and to ensure transparency, regulations may require Natural England to account separately for any money received through the Nature Restoration Fund which will prevent this from being merged with central projects. Although the levy can be used Natural England for administrative expenses in connection with an EDP this master as the drafting suggests the in connection with an EDP.

This might, the cost of drafting and fermenting a specific EDP or a proportion of the cost of setting up a digital platform for the NRF Germany but the Nature Restoration Fund not affect the core budget of other Natural England or Defra which remains a matter for the government. With this estimation I hope the noble Lord will comfortable to withdraw his amendment. Turning to amendment 37, I, the Nature Restoration Fund is being established to support development, sorry, it's vital that the next levy does not undermine the economic...

While securing sufficient funding to live at necessary conservation measures to meet the full improvement test. There is no legislative requirement to include contingency in the levy as framed by this amendment. It is important that the regulations allow for circumstances where it may be necessary or prudent to include a precautionary buffer to support the delivery of conservation measures whether through backup conservation measures or simply because the primary conservation measures may cost more than originally anticipated. Crucially, a draft charging schedule will include details of how the levy has been calibrated.

If a contingency were included in the charging schedule, this would form part of the draft EDP which will be subject to consultation before being considered by the Secretary of State. While I'm confident that the Nature Restoration Fund will be set at a fair price that supports development, the use of EDPS will remain voluntary in all but the most exceptional circumstances. A developer is free to use the existing system if they do not think the EDP or the levy is appropriate. Developers will have full clarity on what they are paying...

Sorry. Tapping I thank her for explaining

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to clarify that I think we were both at the same meeting where I challenged Natural England on this. And they assured me there would be contingency which is would be contingency which is entirely sensible. But when questioned on what would happen to the contingency or any and spent fund my any and spent fund, when fund my any and spent fund, when meeting the required level, to my astonishment, I was assured they wouldn't be handed back as excess wouldn't be handed back as excess but they would spend it on some more good environmental stuff, beyond and good environmental stuff, beyond and above what was anticipated for the levy.

I think that is a slight of levy. I think that is a slight of hand if I could put it in those terms, to use the money which was not needed for the purpose it was not needed for the purpose it was provided for, for another purpose. I think perhaps at best there's a think perhaps at best there's a difference in understanding between the Department and Natural England which it would be helpful to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clarify. I thank the noble Lord for that point and I will attempt to clarify point and I will attempt to clarify that for him. Potentially there are significant capacities and legal and financial liabilities reduced by financial liabilities reduced by requiring the return of the money interest to developers, given the developers have received the benefit they paid for it with the more proportionate as well as better for nature for Natural England to use any excess funds to benefit the environmental feature.

With this explosion I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moving to amendment... She has confirmed what I have said which is that if there is money left over they will spend it on something, some other good stuff. something, some other good stuff. But that is rather unfair on the developer who has paid for something and now the excess which wasn't spent is being used on something else

**** Possible New Speaker ****

else I have listened very carefully. The developers knows what he has The developers knows what he has paid for. The developer has bought something. The developer has something. The developer has purchased an 80 year project. He hasn't bought anything until year 79. And I think this is where we have got to get our heads around the money side, the financials, on this. money side, the financials, on this. We are not going to know, and a later group, I will dwell a bit more later group, I will dwell a bit more on this, but the suggestion someone has bought something and it is done

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has bought something and it is done and dusted on day one is a full premise and we have to understand that. We are starting to repeat

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are starting to repeat ourselves, but I have to say, that is not the reply the Minister has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

given me. I'm happy to continue the conversation but I would make two conversation but I would make two cut reiterate two points, one is that it is up to the developer whether the enter into an EDP and they will have a charging schedule set out before them, if they feel the contingency is too great they can argue that or not take part in the EDP. Let me find my place, sorry. Moving to amendment 309, labelled by Baroness Young, I can reassure noble friends the intention of her amendment is captured already.

It is crucial Natural England ensure the effective delivery of conservation measures which is why clause 55 sets out that the conservation measures in an EDP are to be taken by or on behalf of Natural England to address the environmental impact of development as well as contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the identified Natural England will be responsible for securing the delivery of conservation will be required to deliver and report on their progress government amendment 248 Eight also requiring mandatory backup measures to be deployed monitoring and mid point reporting demonstrate they are needed.

At the end date, the outcomes originally envisaged have not been delivered the bill supported by government amendments requires the Secretary of State to carry out remedial measures that consider appropriate to secure those outcomes. For this reason it is not necessary to restate the subjugation to the levy regulations and I hope my noble friend will agree to withdraw here amendment. Turning to amendment 311, we have already discussed mitigation hierarchy at some length and I hope they will find suitable assurance the mitigation hierarchy is already giving effects through this new model.

In contrast the well trodden territory of mitigation hierarchy, the concept of the delivery hierarchy is new. The noble Lord is likely introducing this to support amendment 274 which was debated on Monday. Where expressions of interest are solve -- sort from bodies other than Natural England to deliver conservation measures in order to give pressures to those bodies. It is most appropriate for Natural England in individual EDPs and in relation to the individual conservation measures to decide whether it is best to deliver conservation measures themselves or through procuring services from external providers.

The reasons given just now the government cannot support another Lords Amendments 316318 and would argue it is unnecessary to allow Natural England to provide loans to third parties or to pass money to them. When Natural England proposes to procure services from the private market to deliver conservation measures I can assure noble Lords they already have sufficient powers to do so. With these explanations in mind I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments. In turning finally to amendment 317 tabled by the noble Lord Blencathra, I would like to begin by reissuing the noble Lord the regulation making powers -- reassuring the regulation making powers in line with wider precedents are framed around indicative this to demonstrate how the powers may be used.

If you are comfortable the scope of this power is already scope of this power is already sufficient to manage unspent funds as well as managing repayment, with these explanations I would ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is clear from the amendments in this group there is broad consensus across the House on broad consensus across the House on a number of key principles. In the use of governance and restoration use of governance and restoration pens lovely. -- Restoration fund levy. There is transparency, fairness and value for money. The fourth I think was I think noble Lord Gascoigne's point about that these funds should stay local as these funds should stay local as much as possible and we ask us this -- discussed this in the previous group.

Frankly all of these group. Frankly all of these amendments I agree with, the noble Baroness the Minister has given us a very comprehensive answer to these very comprehensive answer to these amendments and it is very helpful and there was definitely some reassurance in there about the potential for ringfencing of the EDP potential for ringfencing of the EDP or Surrey the NRF. I think I would like to target those comments way -- take those comments way and explore take those comments way and explore them further but I feel this might be something we refer back to a report.

I think the House is concerned this could become a slush fund. We know from the water restoration fund have resisted the Treasury is to hypothecation of funds. And how keen it is to get a hold of the penalties to the water industry and things like that. So industry and things like that. So what we do not want to see is it turning into a slush fund used to acquire land at will by Natural England, spent on bureaucracy or even just return it to the Treasury.

For now I will withdraw my amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but I would very much like to return to this. Is at your Lords treasure this amendment be withdrawn? By leave amendment be withdrawn? By leave withdrawn. Questions in clause 56 withdrawn. Questions in clause 56 done part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Clause 57, amendment 256 Said A not moved? Not amendment 256 Said A not moved? Not moved. Amendments to hundred and 56 moved.

Amendments to hundred and 56 A.m. 256 B, Baroness Taylor full the A.m. 256 B, Baroness Taylor full the question is the amendments be agreed to en bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 257. Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved. Amendment 258, Lord Currie. I speak to amendments 258, 268 and 253. Within this group. I very
17:05
17:08
None Portrait Amendment:258 Lord Curry of Kirkharle (Crossbench)
-

address this challenge and in very many cases they are working really well. It would be a serious well. It would be a serious retrograde step if these were demolished by the application of measures in this bill and be replaced by much less effective replaced by much less effective solutions. One of my concerns, the levy will need to be administered as levy will need to be administered as we have heard so I would ask noble Lords, what proportion of the levy Lords, what proportion of the levy collected will eventually be spent, will it be 80%? Will it be 75%? Will will it be 80%? Will it be 75%? Will it be 70%? Natural England is a public body so a whole new public body so a whole new department will need to be created and we can assume there will be lots of bureaucracy which will have to be paid for.

There will be a likely timelapse, local market solutions can be established almost immediately by local actors and in immediately by local actors and in parallel with the development. The development by Natural England is development by Natural England is likely to take place at a much lower level. I did write snails pace but perhaps it is not appropriate. And to take years for Natural England to find sites to replace lost habitats find sites to replace lost habitats and ecosystems. There will be a constant and ongoing environmental deficit as a consequence.

Ecosystems vary as we know within a few miles and should be replaced as near to the development site as possible. Local knowledge is essential. Natural England may not be as close to the action as local players. The impact assessment of this bill has identified many of these risks so it is not just a concern of mine. In addition the bill places a huge responsibility on the Secretary of State who will need to spend their holidays getting on his or her bike to visit sites of the length and breadth of the country to ensure Natural England are doing their job.

My Lords, if local solutions to replace or to replicate ecological sites at risk from development cannot be identified or negotiated then by all means play a levy and give Natural England the challenge. But we should allow time for local solutions to be explored first. These amendments are proposed to allow developers the opportunities to present local, private market solutions before the Natural England levy is applied. In response I suspect Ministers may say this opportunity exists but it needs to be an explicit requirement and an obligation as part of the bill.

I beg to move.
17:09
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed, clause 57, page 93, line 7. At end insert the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

words as printed on the Marshalled list. It is really important we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is really important we have private market solutions as a key part of what we are trying to achieve and at risk of this becoming a second reading speech or being a second reading speech or being accused of that, I just want to be able to go back a few years and able to go back a few years and think of the first green strategy, did not mention nature at all. That was back in 2019. But then we produced the sustainable roadmap, the roadmap for sustainable the roadmap for sustainable the roadmap for sustainable investing.

I managed to get in on the act when I was DWP by talking about how pension funds should get in on this and we had already introduced T and CD. -- T NCD and I hope we can get TFT going. The green finance strategy again in 2023. That not only is the what we need to do not only is the what we need to do in this country but the whole concept of private finance being a concept of private finance being a fundamental partner to making this fundamental partner to making this nature restoration real, whether it is the GBF framework or the other different elements of aspects of environmental international treaties repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly the UK has been at the forefront in trying to make sure we can actually only really achieve this by making sure we have private finance and private markets.

As being a fundamental way of achieving it. The noble Lord is looking at me with disbelief perhaps, I am not sure if that is because I have misunderstood his amendments or perhaps he is just surprised I am so supportive of it. But nevertheless I know the current government and ministration has also talked about the importance of private finance. There is a very real fear quite a lot is going on that will actually kill the private nature markets and reduce land being made available.

Whether it is BN GE, we have not quite, this is why it is novel and coming up again, I am really concerned in a variety of ways that if we end up just a statement solution we will fail. I think the advantage of the amendments the noble Lord, Lord Currie has put is to be very clear in this legislation that it must be considered. It must be involved and while I appreciate we may get M dare I say it warm words about like many other previous environmental legislation, if it is on the face of the bill and it comes on the act then the government will do something about it.

If it is not it something about it. If it is not it is not necessarily that it will do a -- and then resort to perhaps apologising years later when it has not quite worked out how they hoped. The market is growing and it is still nascent to some extent, it is still moving, it is now having a bit of cold feet so to speak. We do not want to be enveloped whether it is the Himalayan balsam all the others in terms of those in Hampshire.

In order to make sure we get those markets -- that market driving and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not declining. I very rarely disagree with the noble Lord because he knows a lot. And I very rarely disagree with the noble Lord Cromwell because otherwise he might poison my
17:13
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
otherwise he might poison my breakfast. On this occasion I feel I have to comment. I understand entirely the noble Lord, Lord Currie is worried the emerging very valuable nature markets should not be eclipsed totally by the levy and Natural England's role. But I think some of the amendments in this group tipped the balance too far the other way. And say the nature markets are going to be the first port of call and not considered alongside all other potential organisations that can deliver the right solution for the right site.

For a particular EDP. The existing nature market products are very valuable. Some of them are less so but if you think about the number of organisations and groups who could deliver for Natural England, the requirements of an EDP we are talking about some of the larger charities, the NGOs, farmers, groups of farmers. Other landowners. The Forestry Commission. There is a shed load of organisations. I think the role of Natural England must be to consider which of these organisations or groups in these organisations should be the best way forward including private nature markets.

But not giving a pre-eminent based private nature markets and preventing Natural England from choosing perhaps the most effective part -- partner would be someone local on a site that is available, who was already working in and providing nature outcomes and who could do more work to help with that EDP. I particularly would be very unclean we avoid Natural England being able to do itself like to do this itself on occasion. If there is work to be taken forward in the next EDP in the next natural nature reserve that has already been managed by Natural England, why should Natural England simply not do that by extension? It

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would be the most sensible proposition. I would like to assure the House I am looking forward to many convivial and toxin free breakfasts convivial and toxin free breakfasts with the noble Lady in the future in case any body was worried and in case any body was worried and in some way I had threatened her with anything else. That was far away from anything I wished to do. I support the three amendments put forward so effectively and forward so effectively and forward so effectively and I accept his implicit view that much of England does not lessen necessarily know better.

I know every piece of wetland and fence post in the land we farm and I doubt anyone in Natural England has close
17:16
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
anyone in Natural England has close to that knowledge. That said, I took some comfort from the noble Ladies letter of 16th of September received today which referred to, I think I'm quoting accurately, new opportunities for farmers, land managers, and others to provide conservation measures. This actually has enabled me to strike out much of my planned contribution, noble Lords MAC may wish to cheer at this point. See you for breakfast! Can I ask however, on a more serious note, for the Minister to perhaps write to me to set out what these opportunities are, how they will be made available, and how will the payment rates which are appropriate be rates which are appropriate be determined? I'm not suggesting she can quantify them now, but what is the process? Because I don't the bill makes it clear unless I have missed it.

Turning to that three amendments in my name, I will take them all as a group. They are linked, and they address the actual delivery of the conservation measures set out in the environment development plans. The bill at clause 76 section 3 on page 109 does recognise this, and says that Natural England may pay other persons to take conservation persons to take conservation measures. But the bill lacks clear simple and manageable series of steps for Natural England to follow to achieve this.

My amendment turns the "Made" into a "Must. " Meaning the parties must be engaged. I don't think they are entirely commercial, it could be a non-government organisation. My amendments are 320B and 325ZA set out rational steps for delivering works which is firstly, a competitive tender process, secular, if there is no willing bidders, to seek to buy the land market value. Step three, if that proves impossible, to proceed to compulsory purchase as a last resort. These amendments will strengthen the bill, by setting out a clear set of sequential proportionate process stages for the all-important implementation conservation works.

This will be helpful, both to Natural England and to those wishing to engage with delivering the EDP process. I hope the government will recognise this as a helpful clarification that will support the effective implementation of the plans under Natural England plans under Natural England

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supervision.! I beg to move I am concerned the current draft
17:19
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
of the bill potentially freezes out private-sector providers, thus stopping investment into nature. That said, I was mildly reassured by the letter that came this morning. Nevertheless, I am anxious that the proposition is that Natural England will become a monopoly consolidator, provider, litigation solutions, with the dead hand of the state. This bill should be defining how private operators can work alongside Natural England to address the market for mitigation. In an earlier group I explained the distinct between permitting and licensing.

In my view, licensing is the way to go for the EDPs, because they will prevent the derivatives, secondary markets and speculators at the expense of delivering the outcome. We can't afford to create a new milk quota disaster, with the creation of new collateralised asset class, it has everything to do with speculation and nothing to do with nature recovery. It is not an argument against private involvement. But it is an argument for channelling and regulating what is a fast developing industry. So I support amendment 20 and 58 and 268 because I think they will place how we deal with private industry and how Natural England is required to engage with it.

This bill should set the terms of trade. How those liabilities will be secured. What set of rights will be in the event of the provider going bankrupt? The obligations be characterised as section 106 or a land charge in the Land Registry? Section 106 route is criminal, and prosecution route in the event of land non-compliance. A land charge is a civil matter subject to litigation. How we deal with these will be an important part, needs to will be an important part, needs to be on the face of the bill.

I spoke about these tail liabilities. I have some experience of this, as I declared earlier, the device through which the local councils in Norfolk manage environment. We are subject to International Accounting Standards Board. We need to take into account our covenant strength and I don't believe this has been thought through it all. We made I believe from memory £5 million worth of sales of credits to local developers. Two discounts that income over an 80 year tale, and the interplay between the balance sheet, and I see my noble friend nodding.

The interplay between the PnL and the balance sheet is something this bill has not contemplated at all, and it must. Unless we include sensible benchmarking accounting standards to value the upfront contributions against the tail liabilities, we will never give confidence, clarity so the schemes can be consistently compared. None of this detail is contemplated by the bill and it should be. This is before we get to private industry having a role in the price, and the heroic assumption that Natural England will be able to deliver mitigation more efficiently than a competitive healthy private sector.

Given the nature of this, and the speed with which bureaucratic organisations operate, this unqualified assumption seems tenuous. The obvious conflicts of interest and susceptibility to legal challenges through the complex. How will Natural England kitemark private proposals for protections? And the looting of legal contract inspection costs onto innovative solutions, with the only solution for these private operators to be against the organisation that is trying to eat their lunch. So we need the innovation and private providers so we avoid the muddled thinking.

I'm delighted to see Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in his place. What he classified as the eco- zealots that brought us the eye- wateringly expensive that tunnels, which was a colossal waste of money. Or the dedication of land at Airbus fleet. So we need a streamlined process. Where developers can work with landowners and can have good schemes developed in local markets at sensible prices. Especially now we contemplate that hundreds of these EDPs may be produced. While Natural England is focused on their own proposals, need to give comfort to private operators that their applications will be dealt with applications will be dealt with properly, and submitting the ideas and not having them take them fiercely by Natural England is no way to proceed.

We need to establish contract certainty, the legal basis, and the enforceability of these projects. And the assurance of mitigations being delivered over the liability period. The failure looks like it we packaging and collateralised age and of the schemes, to avoid the sub-prime crisis was not we must guard against that. The private sector has a role and should run in tandem with Natural England. All this counts for nothing unless the terms of trade are set. I have other things to say, but given the time I will stop there, except that the bill needs to explicitly state the private sector has a role to play.

But Natural England should have a statutory duty to actively assist competition in this space. Even in a promptly and timely manner, even if it is at the expense of its own proposals.
17:25
17:26
17:27
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to move my amendments. This amendment seeks to ensure that farmers and farming cluster groups are able to apply, permitted to apply financially led to the Nature Restoration Fund, and actively participate in the delivery of conservation measures required under EDPs. This is a straightforward but essential point. Farmers are not just stewards of the countryside. In many cases they are the very people who are best placed to employ and sustain long-term environmental outcomes. If we are serious about delivering the ambitions of this bill, we must make full use of the capacity expertise and local knowledge of the farming community.

Allowing them access to the Nature Restoration Fund is not only fair, it is practical, efficient, better for nature, and also to the noble Lords point, it expands choice. One of the many concerns that I and others have expressed about part three of this bill is that it disenfranchise is the private sector. I appreciate the Minister has, and probably will, suggest EDPs are intended to operate alongside the existing structures. And also to engage with the private landowner and farming community.

But it is far from clear how that will work does not appear to be on the face of the bill. Whether this amendment encourages Natural England to define the EDP that they are seeking to deliver and allows the private sector to offer solutions on commercial terms. This amendment has very considerable merits, as a guarantee to the involvement of the private sector. It also takes pressure of the under resourced to design the process and deliver it. At a time that funding is being reduced in real terms, I hope the Minister will welcome this, or any similar amendment.

Turning now to amendment 20 and 58, 268, and 353, these amendments aim to ensure the private market solutions can play a meaningful role in the implementation of part three of the bill. Including through on-site mitigation by developers and investment in nature recover through market mechanisms. We support the sentiment behind these amendments they are thoughtful, interesting, pragmatic, and right. Lord Currie rightly identifies that if we are to achieve and run mental targets we must unlock private capital alongside public investment.

That includes enabling developers to deliver effective white biodiversity net gain recce where appropriate. And the confidence even to investors that their participation in the ecosystem markets will be valued and B and the other amendments in the name of Lord Cromwell. These will strengthen the obligation of Natural England to use private markets in delivering EDPs. And introduce a clear hierarchy for Natural England's direct involvement. These amendments point to a real concern, notably the risk of crowding out private sector delivery, by overly centralised aquatic processes.

This also introduces a limitation on Natural England's ability to compulsorily acquire land. Requiring authorisation from the Secretary of State, and evidence that land cannot be bought at market value. This is an important addition to amendments we have put down and debated, trying to restrict Natural England's power to restrict Natural England's power This group of amendment rightly challenges us as to how the private market can be gauged with the DPs. Private markets are already experiencing a chilling effect on this bill as I and others have mentioned before.

It is about -- it is at a time when farmers are being financially pressured with family farms death tax as well as cuts to delayed payments and the NSF I, it is absolutely essential the door into these projects is wide open. I would like to take this opportunity to ask the noble Baroness, the Minister if she can update us on the progressive introduction of the new SFI's we were expecting. This year. In response to a comment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell which I thought was interesting, of course farmers and landowners know the land better than Natural England but it may be interesting to know I under the landowners and farmers have been receiving letters from Natural England asking us if we would share that information with them.

I wonder if that has anything to do with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their newfound powers coming in this bill. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness, the Minister's response. My noble friend has said is very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend has said is very important. I would just like to draw the houses attention to an announcement in February of this announcement in February of this year. With the environmental farmers group which comprises of about four% group which comprises of about four% of England's farmland and over 700 farmers and nearly one million farmers and nearly one million acres. Through working with Natural England before the powers of this England before the powers of this bill got into print my Lords, or got
17:32
17:33
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Currie for the amendments to 58, 268 and 353. These amendments speak to the role of the private providers of nature services and that they will play in the delivery of the NRM. We share the noble Lord's desire and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate to support private sector investment in nature. We are clear private and third-party providers will play a critical role in delivering the NRF.

By design this bill allows partnership approach to the delivery of conservation measures. This includes explicit reference in clause 76 to paying others to undertake conservation measures. The government expects Natural England to use competitive procurement approaches wherever appropriate to ensure innovation and value for money. As the noble Lord, Lord money. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell said when we tried to spell this out a little better in the letter we sent round. It explains EDP's will provide new opportunities for the private sector for habitat banks, farmers, local authorities and environmental groups to supply nature services.

Of course local solutions are an important part of this. But I am also happy to write to the noble Lord regarding processes. As part of the wider measures to support the NRF the government will issue guidance to Natural England specifically on this point. The noble Lord also asked about percentage of the levy we are going -- that will be going through conservation measures. We cannot be specific on that because clearly it will be dependent on the nature of the EDP, the size of the EDP, the nature of the measures going to be agreed.

Admin will be able to be used, claimed for but the overall focuses delivery and the conservation measures. That is where we want the money to be spent. They will be charging schedules which will provide more information. The problem with enforcing the binary choice that is in the amendments is it induces the role for private solutions as part of the implemented of part three of the bill. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood rightly said we need choices in order to have the best outcomes for nature.

Looking at amendments 318 B and 320 B in the neighbour of the Lord Cromwell -- in the name of the Lord Cromwell, Natural England will of course work with private providers and landowners to work on conservation measures and recognise the vital role these private bodies play. Restricting Natural England's ability to deliver conservation measures themselves and the way this is proposed risks EDPs being unable to deliver value for money for developers where the only available and willing providers are relatively expensive.

We are shortly going to be discussing compulsory purchase so I will only say here we expect Natural England to consider compulsory purchase only where attempts to acquire land have failed and use of Natural England compulsory purchase power must be authorised by the Secretary of State stop I trust the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment. Turning to amendment 318 ZA, I do understand the desire for clarity on the opportunities for farmers and others to be involved in the delivery of conservation measures.

As mentioned earlier, this relies on close working with private partners and landowners and we will publish guidance to support this. We also are aware local landowners will know their land better than anybody else. Finally moving to amendment 325 Z A table by the noble Lord Cromwell, I will be very brief. I just want to reassure the noble Lord this amendment is unnecessary because where the land is available to Natural England at market value they will already be able to pursue the Compulsory Purchase Order because there is a long-standing requirement.

The Compulsory Purchase Order's can only be used reasonable efforts to negotiate the purchase of land by bodies have failed. Regarding the noble Lord's questions about SFI's, there is a reformed scheme we are looking to launch next year. Just to confirm. As I know more details I will keep the noble Lord in touch. With those explanations I kindly ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will the noble Baroness, the Minister, before she sits down, would it be possible for her to share a draft of the guidance to share a draft of the guidance to help us understand where we go in the next stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the next stage. Of course, very happy too.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course, very happy too. May I ask the Minister, when this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I ask the Minister, when this project is going and we start to see how natural England's balancing its own activities against involvement
17:38
17:39
17:40
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Labour)
-

Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. I am going to be on my feet for a bit my Lords, so I will go as fast as I can. Amendment 258 B, Baroness Taylor. Moved formally. The question is this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 258 C, Baroness Young. Not moved. Amendment 259, not moved? Amendment 260, not moved.

Amendment 260A, moved formally? The question is this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 261, Baroness coffee. Not moved. Amendment 261A, Baroness Hodgson. Not moved. Amendment 262, Baroness coffee Mac, not moved. Amendment 262 A, Baroness Taylor. Moved formally. I should alert the House this amendment is agree to I shall not be able to call amendment 263. The question is amendment 263 be agreed to.

As many of that opinion -- As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 263 is pre-empted, amendment 264, not moved. Amendment 200 and 6T for A -- 264 A, not moved. Amendment to a 264 A, not moved. Amendment to a ... I beg your pardon, the question is clause 57 as amended stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. Clause 58, amendment 266 stop not moved. Amendment 267, not moved. Amendment 268, not moved. Amendment 269, not moved. Amendment 270, not moved. Amendment 270 Eight, not moved. Amendments to 71 and 272, not moved. Amendment 273 not moved. Amendment 274, not moved. Amendment 275 were not moved. Amendment 225 A, not moved. Amendment 276 and 277. Not moved. Amendment 277 A, not moved. Amendment 278.

Not moved. The question is clause 58 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". I will have another go. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. -- The not contents have it. In clause 59, Baroness Taylor. Amendment 278 moved formally. The question is amendment 278 A be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 279, 280 and 281. Not moved. Amendment 281 A. Not moved. Amendment 281 B and 282. Not moved. Amendment 283, not moved. Amendment 283 A, not moved. Amendment 284, not moved. Amendment 285, not moved. The question is clause 59 as amended stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 285 A. contents have it.

Amendment 285 A. Not moved. In clause 60, amendment 285 A, not moved. 285 B. Not moved. Amendment 286. Not moved. Amendment 286 Z A. Not moved. Amendment 286 A. 286 Z A. Not moved. Amendment 286 A. Moved formally. I should alert the House if this amendment is agree to I cannot call amendment 287 or 287 A. The question is amendment 287 A be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" forced Of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. Amendment 287 and 287 AR pre-empted. Amendment 288. Not moved. Amendment 288 A, not moved. Amendment 289, not moved. Amendment 290. Not moved. Amendment Amendment 290. Not moved. Amendment
17:46
None Portrait Amendment:292 Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-

Amendment 290. Not moved. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move my amendments, 292 and speak to other amendments in my name. I leave my comments on other amendments in the groups in the time amendments in the groups in the time I have available for the end. I hope that minister listens to the contributions. I must apologise if I contributions. I must apologise if I inadvertently misspoke and interrupted the Minister. As I've interrupted the Minister. As I've mentioned in previous debates, we are strongly opposed to Natural England being awarded CPO powers in connection with environmental connection with environmental delivery plans.

We questioned the necessity of the Nature Restoration Fund used to fund EDPs. 1% of housing applications consulted on by Natural England are objected to on the basis of environmental concerns. Only 10% of long-term infrastructure projects that are challenged by projects that are challenged by environmental concerns. To suggest that it is environmental regulations that are the reason why develop it that are the reason why develop it is not occurring is not correct. The is not occurring is not correct. The Natural England to be given CPO powers is rubbing salt into the wound.

Bill threatens to create a wound. Bill threatens to create a government monopoly on conservation project delivery. And delegates responsibility to Natural England. responsibility to Natural England. These amendments attempts to rein in the powers of Natural England and outlined their scope so that, whilst still extensive, they do not extended to being intrusive. It will return to the original owner if the EDP intended does not go ahead. Lord Sandhurst has already discussed the rules, and this amendment simply makes that part of the legislation.

I believe this is a valuable safeguard to ensure that land is only CPO when an EDP is certain. Amendments to under 98 is in a similar vein. Ensuring the land as returned if the CPO is invoked. A valuable sanction against underperformance by Natural England. Amendment 324 seems a simple and obvious amendment, and a critical protection for every homeowner or tenant in this country. Surely Natural England CPO powers should be limited, such that it cannot CPO a garden or allotment, or indeed a home for any EDP.

It may seem unlikely that should even be a possibility, and for that reason, some may think this is not a serious amendment. But it is. What if someone's garden or allotment is located in an area subject to an EDP? And contained a feature or species or habitat that is attractive? This bill will give the power to have forced entry in CPO it if the owner does not want to play ball. I urge the government to accept this amendment to allow us to remain secure and enjoyment of the property.

The Minister will listen carefully to the amendments in this group. And be sufficiently stimulated to help prevent Natural England becoming an authoritarian empire. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 60 page 96 line 14, with the words printed on the Martial list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Martial list. I have put my name to the amendment moved by my noble Friend and I thoroughly support them. I do and I thoroughly support them. I do not wish to add to what he said. I not wish to add to what he said. I have also got in this amendment 323. have also got in this amendment 323. I asked your Lordships to look at the Explanatory Notes. In the Explanatory Notes to the bill, and I Explanatory Notes to the bill, and I quote from it, paragraph 816, quote from it, paragraph 816, subsection two sets out that the power can only be exercised if the land is required for purposes land is required for purposes connected with a conservation measure, and here are the important
17:50
17:51
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I speak to the amendment I have tables, and I removed a group from the debate, removed a group from the debate, noble Lords will be pleased to know, and I thought this was the appropriate place to put it. I will start briefly by supporting my noble friend's amendment because actually, in that human rights memorandum accompanying the bill, it is frankly on the edge of trying to suggest that this could be allowable on the basis of being for the public benefit.

So clearly, if the land is no longer needed, and has not been approved for use by the Secretary of State, that it must go back to the original owner. Otherwise it would be a further infraction of land removed. I appreciate there may have been some compensation in the interim but perhaps the details need to be sorted out. I am going all the way to page 119 in this bill but it goes back to sections 83 and 84. It suggests that powers do not apply in relation to the land, and subsection 10 defined Crown land in that 10 defined Crown land in that regard.

Whilst section 10 says that Crown land means land which has a Crown interest or Dutch interest, but Crown land I may have explained to the committee before is a land belonging to any government department. So, in terms of thinking this through, while I appreciate I don't know the full conventions about discussing matters regarding the Royal family, I would give an example of Dartmoor which has been a combination of the Duchy of Cornwall owns part of Dartmoor, and many other privately held.

It is also a significant area, and significant landscape, probably of the type that would want and could well be used to have EDP proposals put their, ideally fixing the triple SIs that are not so good at the moment. My main focus is really about government land. It does seem somewhat, perhaps I'm being too strong here, heinous, I did refer to this in a previous debate on this matter. The government can start going after all other private land but by the way, bear in mind how much land this government owns in this country.

I think the MoD is the fourth largest owner of land in the country. Why is it that this does not apply? Quite often what has been happening with bits of government land around the country is that the government is trying to get some of that for housing and so on. It is actually an exceptionally laborious process. And while trying to achieve government outcome. Departments like the MoD often put the full market value as if it was a commercial enterprise. So I am really concerned, I wouldn't mind if we excluded the bit that was the Duchy of Cornwall, or the Duchy of Lancaster.

We should not be excluding government land from being potentially available to undertake the exercise that we want it to, as government and Parliament intends. For that, I would encourage the government to think again, and to perhaps re-scope in terms of subsection 10 of clause 91, to only have the very specific narrow have the very specific narrow elements of that definition as set out in part 13 of the act, to exclude and held by the government and Crown interests.
17:55
17:56
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, this grouping relates to the powers in part 34 Natural England to make a compulsory purchase order for purposes connected with the taking of conservation measures. The government has taken a cautious approach in respect of compulsory purchase powers but it is clear this needs to be available to ensure there is sufficient certainty that where necessary, and appropriate, compulsory purchase can be used to ensure conservation measures are delivered. However, the government does recognise the need for such powers to be tightly constrained.

I'm confident that when considered alongside existing safeguards, the proposed amendments are not necessary. Turning first to amendment from the noble Lords would seek to require Natural England to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order in two different scenarios. The first scenario is when Natural England uses these powers to purchase a piece of land, and the secretary of state later decide not to make the EDP in question. I can assure the noble Lords that this will never happen as Natural England cannot make a compulsory purchase before the EDP has been made.

The second scenario is when an EDP is revoked. When an EDP is revoked, any land secured through compulsory purchase may still be required to address the impact of development covered by the EDP, or to support the delivery of any remedial measures taken forward following revocation. Requiring land to be returned automatically would risk removing a crucial way of delivering remedial measures and potentially damaging the relevant environmental feature. Where land has been compulsorily purchased and is not needed, and would genuinely be surplus, the rules will apply.

The land would be offered back to the former owner or their successor, or sitting tenants, at market value, provided the land has not materially changed and none of the exceptions apply. These rules are well established. As we discussed in the debate the other day, so I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment. Moving to amendment 323 tabled by Lord Cameron and the Earl of Caithness, I can assure noble Lords the subject of their amendment is already addressed in the bill.

CPO powers may only be used in connection with the taking of conservation measures as defined in the legislation. Amendment 324 would restrict Natural England's ability to use CPO powers to purchase land that is part of a private dwelling. I would first like to assure noble Lords this type of land is incredibly unlikely to meet the high bar for compulsory purchase, or to be approved by the Secretary of State. The use or future use of land be taken into account by the Secretary of State and approval of 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. I think the noble Lord mentioned this. Turning to amendment 3-5-2 to extend the compulsory powers to Crown land. The CPO powers in the bill are there to run assurance that land can be acquired where necessary to ensure an EDP can deliver the necessary conservation measures. Extending these powers to cover Crown land is unnecessary as, to put it simply, if Natural England were to require Crown land for conservation measure, this will be resolved between Natural England and the relevant authority.

I hope these explanations noble Lords are content to withdraw amendments. amendments.
18:00
18:01
18:03
None Portrait Amendment:294 Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-

protections. The aim here is to safeguard against watering down of environmental commitments. Once they environmental commitments. Once they have been set out in and EDP. Years and years of planning and history and years of planning and history has too often shown protections established in the outset erode over established in the outset erode over time. Whether under pressure in the name of economic growth, shifts in name of economic growth, shifts in ministerial priorities or as new developments are proposed nearby. developments are proposed nearby.

For example more than one third of England's rivers remain classified in pure ecological health. Frequently because enforcement standards around protections we can as circumstances like weaken as circumstances change. It is circumstances change. It is therefore vital the circumstances to mitigate to make sure the circumstances are not easily reversed or diminished. This is rooted in the environmental nonaggression principle. This principle asserts environmental law in standard should not go backwards but instead serve as a stable and reliable foundation for ongoing improvement.

Once conservation measures are agreed and EDP is made protections and enhancements should be seen as a baseline from which further progress can be made. Not as temporary line which can be negotiated away. Local communities, environment groups and stakeholders need assurance commitments to for instance river restoration or species recovery will not be diluted at a later date. The amendment aligns with the government own viral mental principles policy statement -- environmental principles policy statement. Under which all companies are due to protect environmental not...

Developers and landowners will know measures agreed at the outset must be maintained. Promoting high standards of stewardship and account ability. Policymakers will be able to set conservation targets with making sure they are durable and not fleeting and subject to Minister win. -- Whims. This is a chance to break the never ending cycle of much promised and not cycle of much promised and not delivered. I note it is in the same group as several other amendments which I suspect will have a very strong wind behind them and I hope it sits along with them.

It would be excellent if this joined them or if there is any possibility of that. I hope the noble Lady, the Minister will consider the merits of this amendment and I look forward to hearing her response and I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. Amendment proposed, clause 62, page 96. Line 37. At the end insert page 96. Line 37. At the end insert the words as printed on the Marshalled list.
18:05
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled list. My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to amendment 294 submitted by the noble Lady, the Baroness grander. Apologies I was not in the House this morning. I had to attend Select Committee, especially because it is a subject I demanded was investigated. I thought I had to be investigated. I thought I had to be there. The amendment by the noble Baroness seeks to prohibit Secretary of State from having the power to amend and EDP in a way that would reduce the measures taken down to mitigate the negative environmental impact and develop meant.

This touches on important points of principle including environmental conservation and the remit of the Minister's power. I will be interested in hearing the government response to the amendment. I also wish to address the government amendments in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Taylor which would require Natural England to consult on the EDP when certain amendments are proposed. The circumstances in which the consultation will be necessary when the proposed amendment would increase the maximum amount of development covered by the EDP, include new places and the development area or add new types of conservation measures.

Not currently included of EDP. It seems an important principle that amendments would seek to change and EDP in this way are subject to consultation and I agree entirely. Such consultation should have the aim to allow for the relevant expertise and voices of a variety of stakeholders to be heard. I look forward to hearing noble Lady the Minister's response to the amendment by the noble Lady, the Baroness Grender when she moves her amendment. amendment.
18:07
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, this grouping considers further amendments the government has tabled to address matters raised in advance of committee. As part of this package, government amendment 295 B verifies the consultation of our amendments when needing and EDP and it would always be to ensure consultation has taken forward but was proportionate to do so. This will ensure where there is a significant amendment measured by meeting certain criteria they will now always be a requirement to consult on that amendment so the public and expert stakeholders are able to contribute to and comment on the proposals.

Government amendments 295C, D and E contain minor fixes and consequential amendment for the legislation following the substantive government amendments. I hope the House agrees to accept these amendments and I beg to move. Turning briefly to the non- government amendment, amendment 294 tabled by the noble Baroness, Baroness Grender seeks to make it impossible to amend and EDP when that would in any way reduce or weaken the conservation measures in contains -- it contains, whilst I absolutely appreciate the concerns she has really raised it would substantially restrict natural England's flexibility to make crucial amendments to EDP's which may reduce the amount of development and amount of conservation measures contained in the EDP.

For example we would want to ensure if expected development was not actually going to come forward and EDP could be amended to reflect this. And reduce the scale of conservation measures in line with the reduction of impact from the development. I would also like to note all significant amendments will now need to be consulted on, all EDPs will need to pass overall improvement curse -- tests following the new amendments. I hope the noble Baroness agrees to withdraw her amendment.
18:09
18:10
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-

Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 295. Not moved. Amendment 295A, moved formally. The question is amendment 295 A be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is clause 62 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 295B, moved formally.

The Amendment 295B, moved formally. The question is amendment 295B to E stand and be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is clause 63 stand part of the bill. As many of that opinion say content. Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 296. Amendment 296 A. Moved formally. The question is amendment 296 AB moved and agree to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. I cannot call amendment 297 by reason of pre- amendment 297 by reason of pre- emption. Amendment 298. Not moved. The question is clause 64 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 298 ZA, moved formally. The question is amendment 298ZA be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. Amendment 298 A, the Earl of Caithness. Not moved. The question is clause 65 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.
18:12
None Portrait Amendment:299 Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-

content". The contents have it. I rise to move my amendment 299 and speak to amendments 3:06 AM and 308 in my name. These amendments seek to introduce clarity, proportionality and fairness into the operation of this new levy. Amendment 2996 to specify the principles governing payment in the calculation of the amount payable. Under the nature restoration levy. I appreciate the noble Baroness, the Minister wrote a very helpful letter today laying out some of the process the developers will be subject to.

It is essential developers have certainty and predictability, clarity on who pays, how much they pay and ensuring a functional and trusted levy regime. It does not deter responsible development. There is considerable concern over the cost of developers of the EDP. Particularly given it appears it will be taken outside of the section 106 agreements and therefore threatens the financial viability of developments. My noble friend Lord Lansley appears to have a similar attempt of amendment 306 and I will listen to his comments with interest.

Amendment 306 A deals with proportionality. It recognises that in some cases even after applying the mitigation hierarchy in full there may still be residual environmental impacts of this amendment would allow proportional contribution to full contribution to be levied in such cases. It ensures developers who are genuinely taking steps to minimise harm and not disproportionately penalised whilst still upholding our responsibility to invest in nature restoration where impacts cannot be wholly addressed on site. I believe this is an important environmental protection that ensures mitigation on site remains incentivised as it would result in a reduced contribution to the nature restoration funds.

This also helps to ensure private sector services will remain important for developers. My noble friend, Lord developers. My noble friend, Lord Grayling's amendment 305 again appears to pursue a similar aim and I am sure we will speak prior to the report if we do not receive a satisfactory reassurance today. Amendment 308 turns implemented Asian and ensures regulations governing the restoration levy include provisions for how it is to be collected and enforced. Crucially it requires the funds received are spent by Natural England and conservation measures are directly linked to the environmental feature that justified the levy in the first place.

It does not only increase transparency but also maintains public trust in the system. Furthermore the amendment includes the right of appeal on the question of fact related to the calculation of the levy. This is a basic principle of fairness and accountability. My Lords, I believe these are sensible amendments. They do not seek to undermine the nature restoration funds but rather ensure its integrity and fairness. Principles which should be central to any regulatory mechanism. Together the amendments in my name form a coherent and practical approach to ensuring the nature restoration levy supports both environmental enhancement and sustainable.

I look forward to the remarks from noble Lords. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I speak to amendment 306 in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I speak to amendment 306 in this group in my name. Want to make a number of other points. I want to number of other points. I want to first just note we have just agreed clause 65. I remember that my noble clause 65. I remember that my noble friend the Earl of Caithness did ask a question on a previous group about
18:15
Lord Lansley Portrait Lord Lansley (Conservative)
-
-
a question on a previous group about the opportunity to challenge an environmental delivery plan which said there was a provision somewhere to challenge it. This is true. I would make this point, and we may need to return to it and check we are clear about this. It is a challenge by way of judicial review, so it is not the opportunity to challenge an environmental delivery plan in circumstances where one believes the facts and the evidence are wrong. So the merits of the decisions may not be challenged with procedural aspects by way of judicial review.

I mention that because, in this group, my noble friend in his amendment 308 refers to a right of appeal. This is a right of appeal in relation to the establishment of the levy. Of course this is an appeal on a question of fact. So it is a different kind of appeal for a different purpose. I think it is rather a good throwing. The question is, to whom should it go? We look at clause 69, 70, a bigger pardon, clause 70 sets out the may be an appeal.

But unfortunately it does not say to whom or how or whatever. Can I just ask the Minister if the government happens to know to whom the appeal will be made? When I look at clause 69, and the provisions setting out at some length how the charging schedules may be established in regulations, for those who recognise these things, it seems to me awfully similar to the legislation that provides for the Community Infrastructure Levy. An appeal against the Community Infrastructure Levy would be to the District Valuer Service.

So it might be sensible for ministers if they could do nothing else, at least tell us if this is the intention that the District Valuer Service would undertake the work on the service and levy the amounts and the environment plans. The point of my amendment 306 is to say, we have this lengthy set of clauses that tell us that the EDP must be calculate in relation to its costs, and that must be turned into a charging schedule. We clearly can't assume that the development will be responsible to any one person, it may be responsible if your many persons.

So the charging schedule is very much like a Community Infrastructure Levy being charged against a development. Indeed it might be imposed that the charging schedules could, as clause 69 said, be by reference to the nature, the amount of development. So it could be very like an infrastructure. For community it would be so much. If it is very like it, I think it would be quite useful to know that. The Minister might say, a power to consult, the requirements of local authorities to consult on infrastructure, but many do.

And I hope that the Minister will be able to say that when an environmental delivery plan is proposed, that it will be the intention of Natural England to talk to the people who are potentially liable to pay the levy. Otherwise I'm not sure how we arrive at the point which the legislation appears to anticipate, that the developers would actually volunteer and request to pay the levy. So they need to about it. They need to be consulted about it.

I think they should also be consulted about the charging schedule, not with a view to agreeing it, but certainly to be able to understand what the nature of the additional cost concerns. This is linked to the second point in my amendment which is about the regulations saying, setting out when and how viability assessment might be undertaken. Often for developers, the viability assessment matters is the one that starts out. At the point at which one is buying the land.

The point at which one is understanding the costs. The point at which you put all of these potential costs together and say, how much is this option worth? How much is this land worth? The later viability assessment are potentially very burdensome and maybe can torpedo a development. But that is not what we want to do. What we want to do is arrive at an understanding at the earliest possible stage of what the costs look like. The regulations I think should provide for natural England to talk to the potential developers that might pay the levy, and to make provision if necessary for a viability assessment to be undertaken at a relatively to be undertaken at a relatively early point.

It is a probing amendment because I want to ensure these things happen and they can under the legislation included in the guidance that is to be provided. The question is, will they? And if ministers can't say they will, then perhaps they ought to reconsider or at least look at whether the regulation should provide for that. One final question which I will use this moment because I think it comes closest to this issue, in clause 69, when the amount of the levy is being determined, we are looking through all of this, and suddenly we encounter the proposals that the environmental delivery plan may be mandatory.

I have not found the place where we understand, under what circumstances, and for what reasons, the levy becomes mandatory. As opposed to voluntary. I would be grateful if the Minister either at this stage related stage would explain that to us.
18:22
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I speak to my amendment 304 in this group on the NRF levy and appeals. This amendment seeks to ensure that the cost of works for nature restoration are covered by the developer in accordance with the polluter pays principle. The setting of the levy schedule should act as a deterrent to developers that would have an oversized impact on the natural environment. Directing them to locations with lower environmental impacts. This is an amendment clause 67 of the bill, aiming to define the fundamental purpose of the nature restoration levy.

And to embed core principle of environmental justice into the legislation. This amendment is quite different to the others in this group, and I think this is an important amendment. The amendment explicitly states that the Secretary of State, in making regulations for the levy " Must ensure that the overall purpose of the nature restoration levy is to ensure the costs incurred in maintaining and improving the conservation status and if I mental futures are funded by the developer. " It further clarifies that the setting of the levy schedule should act as a deterrent to a developer that would have outsized impact.

Thereby redirecting them. This is an important thing, to make sure we are not just having this kind of damage. I thank the ministers for their letter earlier on today. I was in committee this morning so I have not fully managed to look at it. But there are still concerns about the Nature Restoration Fund, and developers paying to offset and the potential impacts that exist in this bill. My amendment seeks to change this by requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that the overall purpose of the levy regulations is a development that remains economically viable.

This approach has been identified by the office of environmental protection as risking leaving the process open. The wildlife trust similarly have articulated it is essential that it is not the case. That achieving overall environmental improvement must be an absolute priority within the system. They argue that it would be correct. Correct the oddity of clauses which are meant to be environmental and having an overall purpose. This amendment directly addresses this floor by placing the nature restoration levy, and the overarching purpose of the levy.

In so doing it does three things. It upholds that polluter pays principle. It prioritises nature recovery. It ensures that the nature restoration levy is primarily a tool for delivering genuine technological improvements rather than primarily designed to facilitate development viability at nature's expense. And it acts as a deterrent. It directs the levy to act as a deterrent to incentivise developers to choose sites with lower environmental impacts. Proactively looking after our natural environment and preventing irreversible harm.

I think this is a sensible amendment. I welcome the other amendment which I read as probing amendments. I am interested to see what the Minister says in response to those. I think this is an important thing, I look forward to having further discussions with the Minister. I response.
18:26
18:29
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My My Lord My Lord sorry, My Lord sorry, the My Lord sorry, the noble My Lord sorry, the noble Lady My Lord sorry, the noble Lady caught me out with the speed of her moving me out with the speed of her moving the amendment. I will make sure I the amendment. I will make sure I come to the right place. My Lords, come to the right place. My Lords, this next group of amendment relates to the collection and payment of the nature restoration levy.

Firstly amendments to hundred 99 and 308 amendments to hundred 99 and 308 tabled by the noble Lords seeks to reframe the powers to make levy reframe the powers to make levy regulations. In designing these powers, the government has been powers, the government has been careful to ensure they cover everything required to support the levy. These powers are drawn from existing powers in the planning act 2008, to make community infrastructure and levy regulations, as the noble Lords referred. These provide for all relevant circumstances.

As such we believe the powers as drafted appropriate and sufficient to cover the matters of the noble Lords set out in their amendments. Clause 69 subsection 1 requires Natural England to base the schedule on expected conservation measures when considering how much to charge developers. Moving to amendment 304 tabled by Lord Earl Russell, the only test the EDP needs to pass as the overall improvement test, but ensuring the viability of development is a crucial consideration for any EDP. Put simply, if using an EDP would make develop and unviable, and developers will simply choose not to use the EDP.

Amendment 305 tabled by Lord Grayling, by Baroness Coffey, seeks to add a duty Natural England to offer discounts to developers paying into an EDP. If they incorporate measures to enhance biodiversity on their side. This approach risks conflating the existing requirements with a discharge of environmental obligations to an EDP. However, we will of course look to ensure a smooth user-friendly experience for developers including the semi- builders that we have talked about so much during the debate. Amendment 306 tabled by Lord Lansley would allow for regulations to make provision for Natural England consults developers who may be liable to pay the levy ahead of prospective EDP Coming into force.

Given that all EDPs will be subject to public consultation, I'm confident that the intention behind the amendment can be achieved with the provisions as currently drafted. Lord Lansley referred to appeals, and I can say to him that levy regulations will be done by affirmative SIA. They will draw on SIL so there is the potential for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the Minister. I note in clause 69 there is a provision the regulations say they provision the regulations say they could require Natural England to integrate the process, that is the integrate the process, that is the integrate the process, that is the levy process to the extent in the manner specified by the regulations with processes undertaken for other with processes undertaken for other statutory purposes. Are we in that territory? Are we in the territory where a community of infrastructure levy and environmental delivery plan levy and environmental delivery plan levy on the restoration levy could be part of the same process?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be part of the same process? I am not sure they would be the same process but I think where that refers to the fact that some of the same processes for example the appeal process might be similar to the process being used for the EDP process. In the levy for the EDP I process. In the levy for the EDP I should say. So I think that is what that references to. But if it is any that references to. But if it is any different than that or complex as the way the noble Lord mentioned it would be a much more complex integration of both processes.

So I will confirm to him. The noble Lord also referred to the viability also referred to the viability assessment. And the way developers do this. In my experience, quite lengthy of planning that developers are pretty masterful in developing their viability. In the early days of this they will want to look at how EDP's and the charging regimes around them are being framed. But most developers are quite competent at working up a viability assessment to take into account some of the new things that come along.

The guidance point is an important one. We will always aim to assist those who are involved in this process with guidance so I would anticipate there will be guidance forthcoming. With this explanation I hope noble Lords will be content to withdraw their amendments. Finally turning to amendment 306A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brown bro, this amendment seeks to allow the restoration levy regulations to pay into the restoration fund where the impact of the development cannot be fully dealt with through the mitigation hierarchy.

The levy regulations will already allow for differential rates to be charged based on the varying impact of development. So it follows development that is having a greater impact on the environmental feature will be charged at a higher levy rate. Where a developer chooses to use the existing system it would need to address the impact of development through that approach. However should a developer subsequently decide it wishes to use and EDP it would still make a commitment to pay the levy prior to the planning application being determined.

As such I believe the legislation can already accommodate the circumstances envisaged by the amendment so I hope the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be withdrawing his amendment. I thank my noble friend for the reply. Can I just ask the Minister reply. Can I just ask the Minister if perhaps not now but at some point before report could she just go back to the questioning clause 66 of the to the questioning clause 66 of the circumstances in which an EDP makes circumstances in which an EDP makes the levy mandatory? And explain what kind of circumstances are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

anticipated? I would apologise to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would apologise to the noble Lord, I did not answer his question which was quite a clear question. I think the issue of mandatory EDPs think the issue of mandatory EDPs has been put in as a precaution but I think he is right it would be I think he is right it would be useful to have some examples of where that might be necessary. So yes we will come back to that in yes we will come back to that in between committee and report.

So we are all clear the kinds of circumstances where mandatory EDPs may be put in place. I think it is
18:35
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

important we all understand that. My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions for their thoughtful contributions to this short debate and for the response from the noble Baroness, the Minister. I am particularly grateful to the comments from my noble friend, Lord Lansley for clarifying my question particularly about viability I suppose. I remain not completely clear and I think the letter this morning was held for but I think it would be helpful if perhaps when noble Baroness, the Minister responds to questions raised in this debate, she would reply to me whether the actual cost reply to me whether the actual cost of contributing to the EDP will be available prior to the section experience.

She has much more experience than I do. Giving little wriggle room as possible to open affordable housing can traditions to section 106 based on unexpected costs of the NRL it would be reassuring to know there is no excuse for reopening that on the basis of the NRL. The noble Baroness, the Minister response about the proportionate nature of the nature restoration levy. I will go away and read her comments. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will withdraw my amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 300 and 301 already debated. Not moved. and 301 already debated. Not moved. Amendment 301 A, not moved. The question is clause 66 standard part question is clause 66 standard part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendments 302 and three O3, already debated. Not three O3, already debated.

Not moved. The question is schedule for be the fourth schedule of the bill. be the fourth schedule of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 304 not moved. Amendment Amendment 304 not moved. Amendment 305, not moved. Amendment 306, Lord 305, not moved. Amendment 306, Lord Lansley. The question is... Nought Lansley. The question is... Nought moved. The question is... As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" are of that opinion, say, "Content" Of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. Amendment 306 A. Not moved. The question is clause 68 Not moved. The question is clause 68 standard part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 307. Not moved. Amendment three of 7A. Not moved. The question is clause 69 standard part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

Amendment 308. The question is clause 70 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 309. Not moved. Amendment 309 A. Not moved. Amendment 310, not moved. Amendment 311, not moved. Amendment 312, not moved. Amendment 313, not moved. Amendment 314, not moved. Amendment 315, not moved. Amendment 316 not moved. Amendment 317 not moved. Amendment 318, not moved.

The question is clause 37 one -- the question is clause 71 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 318 Said A -- Said A. Not moved. The question is clause 72, 73, 74 and 75 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 318 A. Moved formally. The question is amendment 318 A be agreed to.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. content". The contents have it. Amendment 318 B. Amendment 319.
18:40
18:41
18:42
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
individuals or organisations be held to account for the work they do?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to address amendment 319 and 320 is introduced amendment 319 and 320 is introduced by my noble friend. I thank him for by my noble friend. I thank him for moving these important amendments and seek to ensure future environmental delivery plans are delivered by people or bodies that have an appropriate capability necessary for conservation projects. necessary for conservation projects. Environmental delivery plans are centralised schemes that will pull together more resources than previously been designated to environmental institutions.

It means environmental institutions. It means an increase in both scale and responsibility. Delivering the responsibility. Delivering the necessities of those responsible for the required expertise, not only industry knowledge but also larger scale management of capabilities. The particularly speaks to this as it expands the potential providers it expands the potential providers to include bodies allowing it to be delivered by a wider and more diversified group of people. Responsibility is higher with EDPs as the use of pool resources as the use of pool resources necessarily greater than case-by- case funds increases the risk of external waste facilities.

It means external waste facilities. It means providers must be proof resource. It is important those delivering EDPs have the relevant experience and qualifications in order to mitigate waste and management and maximise effectiveness of those schemes. These amendments seek to ensure those paid by Natural England have the requisite skills. I look forward to the noble Lady, the Minister's answer to that and to the questions raised by the noble Lord.
18:43
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I thank the noble Lord, the Earl of Caithness for his amendments 319 and 320. Which seek to amend clause 73 of the bill. These amendments specifically seek to amend those paid by Natural England to deliver conservation measures have the right level of expertise. I understand it of course is very important appropriate expertise is deployed in the delivery of conservation measures and by an appropriate person. The bill contains measures to ensure the conservation measures within an environmental deliver plan deliver the necessary environmental improvements.

With further safeguards included in the amendments that government has proposed. Without the necessary expertise to deliver conservation measures, natural England sleekly cannot -- simply cannot comply with the measures set out in the bill by procuring conversation measures from third parties. The overall improvement test as amendment would ensure when making new environmental delivery plans, the Secretary of State is confident the effect of the conservation measures will outweigh the effects of negative development. This includes confidence in the delivery of the conservation delivery of the conservation measures.

Natural England will need to demonstrate the high integrity and standards will be applied in the procurement of any conservation measures and circumstances. As noble Lords will be aware we have introduced a requirement for Natural England to take sufficient monitoring measures to monitor the effectiveness of conservation measures and to the effects of EDPs in general. This will ensure any nonperformance is addressed. Finally the Secretary of State will issue guidance is needed to ensure conservation measures are designed to deliver and produce the appropriate expertise. The noble Lord asked quite a lot of detailed questions about the levy and if he will bear with me I would like to write to him on those particular issues.

Turning now to amendment 320, the noble Lord the Earl of Caithness in his amendment has asked for the body to put in after person. I can just confirm the meaning of another person in this context includes bodies already. That is already in there. Because that is the default position under the Interpretation Act of 1978. I hope that reassures the noble Lord. I believe the bill already delivers the spirit of the noble Lords amendments and kindly asking to
18:46
18:47
None Portrait Amendment: 321 The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move amendment 321. We turned the important question of the turned the important question of the powers entry for the dominant state operator. I find this rather terrifying, that a bill can be put before your Lordships House by people who seem to be so out of touch with the real world. When one looks at subsection 3 of paragraph, clause 77, one will see that the statutory undertaker, in this case it is most likely to be Forrest England, gets 21 days notice, whereas in any other case, the notice is 24 hours.

I can understand that Forrest England do not go and visit their trees very often if at all. They probably don't need much management once they get going, and perhaps with a felling exercise. And they will go home at a set time with their families. They are going to get 21 days notice for the benefit of that position. The farmer, on the other hand, will be working on their farm probably from six until 9 o'clock. They come home and start to do their emails and they suddenly find they have Natural England coming the next day.

And there is absolutely nothing they can do. So why is there this prejudice against non- statutory undertakers? Why are they given such a short time? While on this part of the bill, can I ask the noble Baroness some more the noble Baroness some more questions? In subsection two, the powers may not be exercised in relation to a private dwelling. Are they exerciseable in regard to a garden? That is a concern. In subsection 4, wise not notice required for a second or subsequent visit? Surely it is only courteous if you are going on to somebody else's land and, if it is a farmer's lands, they might be combining or sowing or getting cheaper cattle in, sheep or cattle in four inoculations, and have Natural England suddenly turning up.

With the noble Baroness like it at home? She's about to get the train down to your Lordships House and Natural England say you can't do that because I need to speak to you now. I think this could be redrafted to be a lot better. The final point I would ask that the Minister is the question of the notice in writing. When I was a surveyor, that was all you could do, the letter in writing. Could the Minister tell me where the writing does include emails and social media? Because it does come social media? Because it does come through in written form on machines, but is it going to be a signed letter like the Minister said to us this morning, or can it be done a different way? Lots of questions it would be very helpful for some answers.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 77 line 10 insert the words 21 days.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to thank the Earl of Caithness and the noble Lord Lord Cameron for the excellent Cameron for the excellent amendments. Excellent because I was a co-signatory. These amendments seek to ensure there is consistency seek to ensure there is consistency in treatment between statutory undertakers and private individual undertakers and private individual land managers, as regards the powers of entry to be exercised by Natural England. Frankie this was an unwelcome addition to this bill and the other place, giving natural in an even greater powers than already envisaged.

I have referred for, or my noble friend has, to Natural England being turned into an England being turned into an authoritarian empire. This is clear. These amendments aim to require 21 These amendments aim to require 21 days notice be given for both sets of parties by Natural England to of parties by Natural England to enter and survey or investigate any land in this part of the bill. This would appear to be the least amount of respect that private landowners are entitled to. There are issues around biosecurity, animal disease, and species.

There is a real risk, and species. There is a real risk, given Natural England's activities across the country, there is
18:53
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
considerable risk involved farm they also have... Sorry. Funds may also also have... Sorry. Funds may also have livestock that pose risks to have livestock that pose risks to visitors and need to be kept away from roads and public rights of way. For those whose behaviour they still remain liable for top giving remain liable for top giving additional time it allows landowners and Natural England to consider the and Natural England to consider the risks around entry and sensible precautions that can be taken, and warnings given.

We in the Conservative party have always believed in equal treatment before the law, and the importance of the law, and the importance of public and private land ownership. These principles that we will always These principles that we will always continue to support. In rights we believe we shall have access to full stop I welcome amendment 321 and stop I welcome amendment 321 and 322. And I'm grateful for the opportunity to discuss in further opportunity to discuss in further detail. I hope that those who drafted this law did not take the drafted this law did not take the view that public sector good can be trusted, public sector bad they trusted, public sector bad they can't be trusted.

And I may say as can't be trusted. And I may say as an aside, if inspectors arrive at her farm and want to see her immediately and when she could no longer travel on the train with me, I understand that she would happily ask them to come in straight away. But I trust the government will take these amendments seriously. I agree with the underlying principles and await the government's response.
18:53
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I don't want to disturb the travelling arrangements between noble Lords who live in Cumbria of course. Turning to amendment 321 of 322 called for by Lord Cameron and ably moved by the Earl of Caithness, which would extend written notice period required before Natural England could demand permission to land. This can be set at 21 days. The undertakers in at least 24 hours for other cases. Whilst we greeted important adequate notice is provided, the provisions in the Bill as drafted are consistent with powers of entry in similar legislation.

In aligning with other legislation we are reducing the risk for landowners but recognising the justified difference in treatment between statutory undertakers such as utility companies, whose activities may be vital for public services, and so may require additional preparation to protect public safety, and to prevent disruption. The noble Lords may have made some very good points, and we will consider this further. It is worth highlighting the additional safeguards in the bill such as ensuring these powers cannot be used to gain access to private residences.

I believe it says residences not dwellings so I hope that covers the Earl of Caithness's point about gardens. It uses safeguards to further ensure powers cannot be used in any other manner other than for carrying out the functions under this part of the bill. The Earl of Caithness made a very good point about second or subsequent visit, I think we need to consider that further. The noble Lord Blencathra raised the point about notice in writing. I think he is right to point to the fact that this could be an actual physical letter or an email.

I think social media probably not because that would not be an appropriate way of communicating directly with the person concerned. With that, and the commitments to discuss this further, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment. withdraw the amendment.
18:56
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I think that is the most positive reply we have had from the government in 48, 58, 68 hours. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that. I feel she understands the point that my noble friend Lord Blencathra and Ayah after, and that is fairness. I was involved as a surveyor in giving notices to people, and there are circumstances where 24 hours is required. But this is not emergency legislation. There should be no need for Natural England, if they are doing their job properly, not be able to give a decent length of notice, and treat people in a civilised manner.

I'm grateful to the noble Baroness and I'm hopeful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to hear from her shortly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Lordships pleasure this amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships pleasure this amendment withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 222. Lord Cameron. Not Amendment 222. Lord Cameron. Not moot. The question is that clauses 77 to 81 Stan passed the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. content". The contents have it. Amendment 325ZA not moved imagine. Amendment 325ZA not moved imagine. The question is that clause 83 stand The question is that clause 83 stand part of the bill.

As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". Amendments throughout and 25 a to B moved throughout and 25 a to B moved formally. The question is these formally. The question is these amendments be agreed to. Sorry? 322A Moved formally. The question is that Moved formally. The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

I think I was at amendment 325A and 325B. Sorry about amendment 325A and 325B. Sorry about this everybody. The question is that amendment 322B be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendments 322C and 322D moved formally. The question is that these amendments be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the opinion say, "Content". Of the The question is that clause 83 Stan passed the bill.

As many are of that contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 325A and 325B moved formally. The question is that they be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is that clause 84 Stan passed the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 325C moved formally. The question is that this amendment be agreed to.

As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is that clause 85 Stan passed the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Clause 86 amendment 326, the Earl of Caithness.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just check that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just check that amendment clause 82 is amended stand part of the bill because I don't think that the bill because I don't think that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. Amendment proposed, clause 86,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 86, page 116, line 6, after 'another' insert 'appropriate'.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert 'appropriate'. Clause 82, I don't think we agreed clause 82 as amended.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed clause 82 as amended. IC, sorry. All right. The question is clause 82 as amended question is clause 82 as amended standard part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The contents have it. We are back at clause 86, I believe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

believe. We are now up-to-date on clause 86. My Lords, this group relates to concerns about the wide-ranging powers afforded, both to the Secretary of State and most importantly, NE, by this bill. 326- 332 seek to require the Secretary of State to have the regard to expertise of the person or bodies, giving greater accountability of the power to designate the person to take on NE's responsibility. We touch on a moment ago and I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will give a positive reply.

The amendment I want to draw attention to particularly as amendment 343, as this introduces a new clause, which provides independent oversight with administration of part three. This is important, as the bill currently invests power in a Natural England, that means they are both the regulatory and beneficiary, with limited ability for challenge. A point that we have raised in earlier amendments. I think it is important as well, because we have also talked about the ability of Natural England to perform its current duties, let alone the duties under, proposed under the bill.

I was at the launch of the IUCN UK peatlands report yesterday, and I talked to a lot of people. And everybody I talked to was concerned about NE's ability to do their job now, and with the financial pressures on NE, whether there is going to be any hope of them doing the work proposed under this bill satisfactorily in the future. So, I think outside increased oversight will support greater adherence to scientific evidence, to the subject of a number of amendments on this bill as well.

And the work that Natural England does. My Lords, there is also the absence of clarity on the bill and the transparency and accountability of NRF distribution, we touched on that, and again, that should be independently looked at. Amendment 361, which is grouped with this, is consequential on amendment 343. So the main point I come back to the minister, is this independent oversight of the administration of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

part three. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 86, page 116, line 6, after 'another',
19:04
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert 'appropriate'. My Lords, several of the amendments put forward by my noble amendments put forward by my noble friend seek to ensure that those to whom the Secretary of State may delegate power more precisely clarified. I support my noble friend's efforts to ensure the legislation as is clearly drafted as possible, so it may be enacted in a way that both the houses intend. Furthermore, under this act, Natural England are being conferred a variety of different powers. It is therefore important that those who are delegated these powers, whether individuals or bodies, are appropriate.

As a result, I'm supportive of my noble friend's amendments and I'm sure the government will provide them with the necessary attention they deserve. Amendment 343, also proposed by my noble friend, calls for the establishment of an independent body, to oversee Natural England's powers and duties. I suppose the principles behind such an amendment as transparency and accountability, are essential requirements for an effective government, and I'm supportive of some of the ideas included in the amendment, such as the request for information for transparent recording and independent monitoring.

And I hope the government takes this amendment seriously as well. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his amendment 328, that is a probing amendment to ascertain which people are envisaged by the government, to take on a responsibly diesel Natural England, and of this part, and whether they include the farmers and occupiers affected, I am sure the whole house will welcome the clarification on this question. It is something we have addressed in prior groups. Before I sit down, I really must commend my noble friend for being really on the ball and spotting that it needed to be, as amended, the clause had not been moved.

Nothing much gets past my noble friend and that rather worries me.
19:06
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
My thanks also to the noble Lord. The noble Lord has tabled a number of amendments, the Earl of Caithness, which seek to amend clauses of the bill. I will take these together, the role of Natural England, in implementing an ADP. Firstly, amendment three to six, three to eight, 329 and 331, the seek to ensure that only appropriate persons can be designated in this role and also seek to amend or clarify who can perform this role. Noble Lords are aware that Natural England is named in the face of the bill of the body responsible for the preparation and implementation of environmental delivery plans.

However, there may be instances where it is appropriate for a nobody where it is appropriate for a nobody to -- Another body to take on all of Natural England's role, it may be a scenario where it makes sense for different public body to do this role, for example, in the debate on Monday, I explained that, for example, the Marine Management organisation might take on the role for an EDP that applied to coastal waters. Clauses 86 and 87 provides the Secretary of State to make the necessary changes to allow another body to exercise the same functions as Natural England.

Any changes by regulations made by the affirmative procedure would receive the proper scrutiny of Parliament, which will ensure that only an appropriate body could be named. The bill has been drafted to allow this partnership approach, and that includes consulting with relevant local expertise. Farmers, for example, and land managers. We expect farmers and land managers will be able to benefit from the opportunities, to provide conservation measures, and so diversify their own revenue streams. Turning to amendments 343 and 361, which would establish an additional independent body, to monitor the success of EDPs in achieving the overall improvement test.

Establishing an additional body would increase the burden, and the cost of administration of the Nature Restoration Fund, the fund is to be implemented on a cost recovery basis. And this additional administration would increase development costs, through higher levy rates. And would divert money away from the environmental delivery. However, we do agree with the noble Lord that oversight is important. And the Secretary of State already has oversight of the Nature Restoration Fund. This includes final approval of all environmental delivery plans, following public consultation, and also the ability to amend or invoke an environmental delivery plan, even if it is not delivering as expected.

In addition, The Office For Environmental Protection may also scrutinise and report on all matters relating to the implementation of relating to the implementation of environmental law. Turning to amendments three to seven, 330, and 332, as set out earlier, the meaning of another person does include bodies already in line with the default position, on the interpretation act, 1978. And as we set out during the previous debate on Monday, we would only ever expect the designated public body, to fulfil the role currently filled by Natural England on the face of the bill.

I do hope I have done enough to reassure noble Lords about the safeguards, which ensure the benefits for development and nature, with Natural England fulfilling the role of preparing and intimate -- Implementing EDPs. But our intentions for who else can perform this role or otherwise participate in the delivery of EDPs. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her Baroness, the Minister, for her reply. Yes, I agree with her, one does not want to increase costs. But if it means that it actually if it means that it actually produces a better result for nature and a better outcome, then the costs are worthwhile. And I know the Secretary of State has a role in Secretary of State has a role in this. But the Secretary of State and Natural England are quite interlinked and I was looking for something, something slightly something, something slightly
19:10
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
something, something slightly setback. The OEP will certainly help, but they were highly critical of the original draft of this bill. And it is the criticism the format have sought to try and improve the bill. I'm sure criticism will be affected to try and improve the situation, if they think the bill is not working in the way that they want. However, my Lords, I would like to read what the noble Baroness says. Perhaps we will be discussing this between now and another stage.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn?. The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Three to eight, Lord Cameron, of Three to eight, Lord Cameron, of Caithness, not moved. 320 8A Lord Lucas, not moved. 329-332, not Lucas, not moved. 329-332, not moved. 333, Baroness McIntosh, not moved. 333, Baroness McIntosh, not moved. 333, A, Lord Lucas, not moved. The question is that clause moved. The question is that clause 86 standard part of the bill.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question now is that clause 87 stand part of the bill, as many as a -- As part of the bill, as many as a -- As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. ) content". The contents have it. ) Seven, amendment 334, not moved. We Seven, amendment 334, not moved. We now come to amendment 335.

They are not here. Sorry, Baroness Coffey.
19:12
None Portrait Amendment: 335 Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moving for Lord Randall. OK. 335. My Lords, I beg to move amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move amendment 335, tabled by my noble friends, Lord Grayling, cannot be here at this stage. I think the amendments that they propose in 335 and 336 is somewhat self-explanatory. It is important to have audits. And those considerations are getting the baseline for so I know we have had considerable debate, it is just the nature how it seems debates happen in this place, depending on the groupings on, I don't wish to necessarily detain the House excessively by covering ground.

My noble friends put in a significant amount of detail into who they believe, or what qualifications can anyone should have in terms of undertaking the audit also have an recognised -- Have a recognised economy. It has been a long-standing criticism of this part of the bill, that if you do not know where you start, how do you know where you are going and I think the government has sought to address some of those criticisms, but I think this is trying to put on the face of the bill, in particular, 335, the common starting point so that the significant overall improvement test, a significant material, wherever we entered, can be actually achieved.

In terms of clause 336, again, I think there are some technical elements in here, but in essence, what this amendment is seeking... I notice actually for the first time, I have seen an amendment in subsection 4, 336, thinking of an accessible manner. Because all government documentation should be accessible. But the details of the biodiversity mitigation decisions are very public for everyone to see. Recognising actually how difficult sometimes it is, how often they otherwise get rejected from a number of different bodies.

I think having this on the face of the bill has merit in that regard. I am actually now speaking to amendment 341 that I have table. It is rather straightforward. It is about allowing ponds. I am conscious that over two thirds of ponds that exist in England, from the late 19th century have now disappeared and they support species, providing a habitat for invertebrates, like beetles, damselflies, dragonflies, and they are a key hunting ground for the food, for flycatchers, warblers, many other birds that rely on insects for prey.

Including, of course, swifts, which we have debated at some length. Ponds are also vital habitats for amphibians, including toad, common frogs, smooth new, and the decline of pond habitats therefore has had a negative impact on the UK species abundance, with one in six species currently having an -- Facing extinction. They help to hold water wonderland, helpless -- Help the flow of water. And in period of drought, one access as a natural reservoir, storing water wonderland when it is scarce.

Creating ponds can require planning permission. I have received a briefing from the habitats of trust, they were positive on this, although they are concerned about potentially the size of what I proposed. What I've tried to propose in this amendment, outright, is something like 50 m x 50 m, so if we think about, in effect, the size of the Olympics women pool in Stratford, to give people a -- Olympic swimming pool in Stratford, for people to have a sense of proportion. In terms of it is not the case of suddenly having commercial fishing lakes or ponds or such things right around the country, directly as a consequence of that.

However, I am keen that they become the opportunity, as the Wildlife Trust in their briefing have commended, that it can actually help these are sustainable for. I would commence to noble Lords perhaps a visit to something called the Felix Novara cycle, which I accept would not be necessarily covered. But it is away about how one of our precious resources, water, which I referred to before and acknowledging the rights coming and acknowledging the rights coming It mentioned about It mentioned about making It mentioned about making it It mentioned about making it easier for farmers.

What I tried to do is a straightforward amendment that would enable this to happen. In terms of and very conscious if the government will make a decision on its resources, the nature friendly farming budget and seems to be set to be cut and one of these things I concerned about is ponds will not be managed and the wildlife and the success of the Felixstowe Hydro cycle did enormous things to go ahead or be considered when actually this is a mutually beneficial source of water for nature and farmers around the country.

When it becomes more expensive than the cost of doing a project you can understand why farmers and landowners might not be quite so content. In terms of removing unnecessary redtape, I think that would fit the bill. In terms of thinking through some of the concerns, apart from the one raised by the freshwater habitat trust about commercial fishing lakes or fish farms, I am sure that is something that could be considered and dealt with in terms of, but nevertheless I hope we can look at this carefully because we need to be as straightforward as possible for nature friendly farming and for nature to survive.
19:19
Baroness Grender Portrait Baroness Grender (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Insert the new clause pre- application biodiversity audit as printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I speak today on amendment 339 and 345 in my name each providing and 345 in my name each providing critical innovation for the protection of nature and heritage trees in England. If I could start trees in England. If I could start with amendment 339, this introduces world belt as a legal category in planning considerations and requires the Secretary of State to establish protections and in six months of the bill passage. The purpose is clear, wild belt designation would permanently safeguard nature rich permanently safeguard nature rich areas and their associated ecosystems extending well beyond the ecosystems extending well beyond the traditional boundaries of green belts or isolated wildlife reserves.

belts or isolated wildlife reserves. The UK faces a biodiversity crisis. The UK faces a biodiversity crisis. Only around 3% of England's land effectively managed for nature which is compared to the 30% by 2030 is compared to the 30% by 2030 target for habitat restoration. Current planning policy has lacked the tools for protecting sites in recovery although it has been actively restored to highly actively restored to highly illogical value. Amendment 300 Amendment 339 looks at local planning authorities and strategic bodies with guidance for identifying, providing and reporting on wild belt sites and promoting public access to nature rich spaces.

Resisting designations such as Green Belt and sites of special scientific interest creates new, joined up activity, crucially wild belt designation encourages the restoration and protection of not only water bodies and wetland and I'm delighted to be in the same group as Baroness Coffey standing up for ponds and trees today. The noble Baroness as well. In the long-term, it will help address habitat fermentation, support of net resilience and benefit public health. Knack draw England estimate says wild belts can save the NHS 2.1 billion annually through improvements to mental and physical health.

A testament to their broad social value as well as ecological value. Turning to amendment 345, the new clause establishes a heritage tree reservation orders responding tree reservation orders responding to a major gap in the law. Existing TPO focuses on amenity, heritage trees and those of significant historic ecological or cultural importance requiring innovative protection and clear statutory recognition and I doubt Baroness Tyler and Baroness Young and Lord Parkinson -- thank Baroness Tyler, Baroness Young and Lord Parkinson for their support.

The ancient tree for their support. The ancient tree inventory records over 123,000 ancient or veteran trees. There could be millions across the country indicating under recording and therefore associated risk. A single heritage oak tree can support roughly 2300 species. The harm lost roughly 2300 species. The harm lost to such trees has outsized impact on biodiversity. Amendment 345 gives planning authorities new powers to issue dedicated preservation orders and it sets higher penalty for any damage.

The shocking loss of the sycamore Tree underlines the need for this with the oak in Enfield which was raised by my noble friend Baroness Tyler. -- Sycamore Gap Tree. It would also require advertising of heritage status and legal obligations and long-term management. Amendment 345 creates a statutory register for heritage trees with Natural England responsibility for identifying, publishing and maintaining the list. This will promote transparency with consistent protection and proactive stewardship and not proactive enforcement after harm has occurred.

It would compel them to take reasonable care of heritage trees and reliable forecast in between setting a clear expectation. This tiny amendment is like an acorn if I could suggest which could be planted in the bill, might grow into a mighty oak spreading branches throughout the nation and protecting our heritage trees. I hope the Minister agrees. Minister agrees.
19:24
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
I rise to support the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the amendment put forward. This amendment looks at the heritage tree Private Members' the heritage tree Private Members' Bill that ran out of road at the Bill that ran out of road at the last ballot. It could be re-balloted last ballot. It could be re-balloted on every single occasion. The noble Baroness made the case that heritage trees are really important for history, culture and biodiversity history, culture and biodiversity but they have remarkably little protection and are threatened by development and deliberate damage development and deliberate damage like the Sycamore Gap tree, inappropriate management or neglect inappropriate management or neglect and lack of management.

They bring and lack of management. They bring protection to these trees and it was proposed by the amendment in the proposed by the amendment in the tree inventory. They showed signs of interest and asked the tree council interest and asked the tree council to investigate and report on the issue. The council submitted the issue. The council submitted the report in spring 25 and concluded trees of high social cultural and environmental value are only indirectly protected and with significant legal gaps and recommending the development of a robust, effective system to ensure they are safeguarded.

Poland and Italy have effective protection. Examples of social and cultural trees lost include things like the trees lost include things like the 300 year old hunting oak which was felled to make way for infrastructure in 2020. There is a tree in Hackney called the happy man tree which was tree of the year in 2020 but failed in 2021 to make way for a housing development. There are wonderful trees in Wellington which were favoured in the need of a jewel carriageway.

Historic culturally important trees and those with a biodiversity significance and not failing to be protected. The outpouring of grief and rage that rose from the felling of the Sycamore Gap tree shows how much the public values the trees and it was reflected in the sentencing. I asked the government in a written questions the progress made in implementing the recommendation of the tree council and the Minister Baroness Hayman replied in writing that we are carefully considering expert recommendations laid out in the tree council and Forrester research report as it will be important to balance our approach with existing priorities in our statutory obligations.

We recognise the value of our most important trees and consider all veteran trees to be irreplaceable. I want to ask, am I right in summarising her response to my written question as basically push off and we will not do more to proceed to protect them. Secondly, can she say if that is not the case if and when she will come forward with an action plan for the tree council and its research report, and if it is not going to respond to the tree council with an action plan, will she accept this amendment? I look forward to her response.
19:28
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 331 which refers to ponds. She was quite right to mention floods and drought, but what I would like to do is follow on from that and remind you about what happens. It is a loss of topsoil that is so damaging to farms. You can collect the topsoil farms. You can collect the topsoil before it does further damage. It does damage in different ways. Near a talks to you get silt going into the talks which destroys the environment of the talks to.

That chalks should not have salt in it. I remember speaking in the House last year about chalk streams and how a sudden thunderstorm turned a chalks to from being a crystal gem stream into a dirty brown river and the damage it was doing to the environment of the chalks. The water goes into a reservoir, a huge amount of topsoil is filling up reservoirs. You may look at it when it is full of water. Actually it is stilted up from years of run off to the adjoining land.

Having ponds that stop that must be a good idea. They can be cited in areas of unproductive farmland. The interpretation of the pond and my noble friend was right to mention this should be permanent or seasonal because with the recent flooding we have had their has been terrible damage to farmland and a pond would have stopped the damaged but it is not a permanent pond it would be a seasonal pond that would reduce the damage of farmland from the run-off of the heavy rain.

I hope the government will look at that amendment particularly carefully.
19:31
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
I rise to speak chiefly to the amendments in the green group like this but important and I briefly mention amendment 345. We have mention amendment 345. We have heard so many sad stories about the trees lost but it made me think of two magnificent specimens. The Chelsea Road helm and Vernon Road oak where communities had to put enormous efforts including risking arrest to save the trees and what that amendment would do would make sure those efforts can be put towards more constructive activities rather than defending what is already I'm going to cheaply speak to the amendment to my name, for local authorities to report on land determination.

I think it was the noble Lady in both groups, this is raising sales law, and the building safety bill, a levelling up of the regeneration bill, this is essentially an event I brought before. The whole thing for Zane's law has developed since then, but this is by way of probing amendment, to see what is happening, because there is actually a lot happening since the last time we discussed this, the noble Lady was then sitting beside me in opposition benches and expressing interest in the issue.

And it is also offering the government to suggestion for at least a partial way forward, because this is, I think, a very urgent issue and that has just been acknowledged recently in July, the mayor of London backed Zane's law, push very much by the London Assembly members, and just two days ago, at the TUC conference, emotion moved by the Fire Brigades' Union, and others. They all called for Zane and others. They all called for Zane is law. -- Zane's low.

Many noble Lords, since last time we discussed this in the House, it is named after the seven-year-old, Zane, who died in February 2014, in the flooding of the River Thames in Surrey. His the River Thames in Surrey. His parents, Kai and Nicole know that he was killed by toxic hydrogen cyanide gas from a former waste dump his father was left paralysed by that gas. That is not what the inquest says, but everyone knows that is a fact. And indeed Zane's parents recently had a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the truth about the campaign, and to see what can be done to finally set the record straight.

What this is about is about an issue that directly affects many people. And I note that actually, in June, I held the Zane's Law summit here in parliament, acknowledging that current UK regulations on contaminated land are grossly inadequate and a threat to the safety of many, particularly given the climate breakdown, rising sea levels, increasing rainfall and flooding. And that's a -- That summit heard from campaigners around the country with significant issues. The case of Zane is about a historic landfill closed off many decades ago, there are actually ongoing immediate landfill issues which are not being properly dealt with, which Zane's Law will deal with more broadly.

I have to acknowledge, and all credit to the government, that the environment secretary, Steve Reed, did come to the summit. And at the summit, he said the government knew there needs to be more transparency of contaminated land and the government is going to publish a new state of contaminated land report in spring next year. So, one of the things I'm looking for from the noble Lady today is their report and how that is going, the ratio of that process is really being made.

Under-Secretary of State see that that meeting, that the Department is developing land remediation Pathfinder scheme, to provide financial support for councils, to remediate land that is contaminated. So, this amendment, really, I am looking and hoping to hear from the noble Lady, the Minister, as to what progress has been made. We have course have seen a change of personnel in her a change of personnel in her department since then. Just to hear what is happening. I also want to raise a further issue, which has been raised with me and I understand if the noble Lady wants to write to me about this.

As the pressure of the campaign for Zane's Law is growing, I'm hearing reports landowners may be selling what they know to be contaminated land, even if it is not properly defined and fully understood, trying to basically dump it before further action is taken. And a question, does any agency institution or duty have, or have a duty to record and report or interact when there are such disposals or purchases? We know there is a big issue coming. How can we ensure that innocent buyers and innocent communities do not get dumped with land like this.

I come now to amendment 346, A, tabled in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Jones, this fits rather more closely in this group, talking about trees particularly. As the noble Lady, Baroness Grender, says, we are going backwards, in terms of biodiversity. And with issues around biodiversity. And with issues around trees et cetera. Now, I note that 2025 State of Wars and Trees Report, roughly 40% of our ancient woodlands, the UK's most biodiverse temperate habitat are being damaged by plantation forestry.

The restoration is a priority to meet the government's 2030 targets. In this truly is a shocking figure in 2023, 6 ha of damaged ancient woodlands were restored. The target for the year was 5,000. 6 ha, versus 5,000 ha. Now, it is really crucial that what this amendment does is actually created Roma creates a duty for any relating to forestland other parts of exercising of such functions. The forestry authority functions. The forestry authority and in many cases this will be the forestry commission, set out as a priority, the achievement of targets under section 123 of the Environment Act 2021 and the targets in the environment improvement plan, to follow also their duty under the climate change act.

Of 22,008. This climate change act. Of 22,008. This shows the steps were being taken for recovery and climate mitigation and adaptation. Now, this is an issue I think I may have also previously debated with the noble Lady the Minister. The Forestry Commission's current remote is outdated. Its primary duty, as established in the Forestry Act of 1919, is to promote Forestry Act of 1919, is to promote timber production. That is the job they are being given. There is only a vague conservation duty that was added in 1985, a long time ago.

That 1985 added lacks clarity and enforceability and does not align with the UK's environmental targets, so this is something we really need to do, simply to protect nature. And to act on the climate. If the forestry estate is open to this bill and eventually Act, it is vital they do not undermine irreplaceable habitats. So, updating the Forestry Commission's remit is timely, necessary, and as we know, widely supported by the public and the conservation sector. conservation sector.
19:39
19:41
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to address the amendments in this group. There are some important amendments here. They raise interesting concepts. Some amendments appear, apparently, sexy but may have had more difficulty implemented them. This is vital to ecosystems, which in turn provide water and food, it holds significant cultural, aesthetic and economic value, supporting industries such as tourism and agriculture for I want to thank my noble friend, Baroness Coffey, for moving Lord Grayling's amendments, concerning biodiversity. Amendment 3356 to ensure a biodiverse audit is incorporated into the planning application process or application for development.

I recognise the potential merit and integrating considerations at this stage in the considerations at this stage in the planning process, and I hope the government will correct me if I am wrong, while I agree entirely, as far as EDPs are concerned, one must turn to in order to have the beginning, before one can say whether it has improved or stayed the same, but my noble friends amendment here Mayfair generally the planning applications and the balance has to be struck there. I can see the benefit of doing an environmental beforehand, it might speed up and cost less.

On the other hand, it might also speedup and cost less, want to know what the government's thinking is. Before I joined Natural England, I understand, about weight years -- Eight years ago, Natural England reached out to HS2, saying I know you will be doing work on the road, coming across biodiversity problems, talk to us in advance and see if we can sort it out and I understand Natural England said we do not need you involved in this, we know what we are doing.

While not involving Natural England in the early planning stage, they ended the back problem and that is when then, not Natural England, HS2 then invented the £110 million tunnel, so there can be merit in getting the nature bodies and the developers involved in Natural England early on in the planning stage. Amendment 336 calls for transparency and mitigating decisions for some of the amendment were to pass, the government would be required to publish a statement, setting up a scientific basis for the decision.

Government accountability is a principle which members on both sides of the House agree and I thank my noble friends for the contributions and my noble friend, Baroness Coffey, for moving the amendment. I also wish to thank my noble friend, Baroness Coffey and the noble Lady, Lady Grender, for their amendment contributions. These amendments seek to provide important protections for potential world belt areas and their associated ecosystems. Now, I particularly like my noble friend's amendments on ponds. I think they are an excellent idea, and I would be interested in a government do not accept them, I would like to have a good reason why.

In heritage tree preservation orders, I can tell the House that on 27 September 2023, I was driving back from Newcastle, along Hadrian's Wall roots, my wife was driving, I was sitting in the passenger seat, giving my usual expert guidance on how to drive, as men often do. And we have -- She said we have driven past this For years, why don't we go look at it, I said you can if you like, but it is about the rain. That night, a few hours later, those swines cut the tree down and it grieves me I didn't try to stagger up to look at it.

My Lords, it is an iconic tree. The word iconic is not an amendment, the sycamore gap tree was of iconic significance. My only worry of this amendment, I like the concept, the only worry is the definition seems rather, Natural England is not geared up to do this. If this amendment were to pass, I suspect within one month, Natural England will have a million letters from people saying you must do this tree, the tree, they may say thank you very much, all in the register now, tick the box, they would have to investigate every single one, see if it is genuine or not and there would have to be a review process as people do matter tree be taken off the list.

So, I like the concept, I agree with the noble Lady, Baroness Young, some things be done, but I also agree with the noble Lady, Baroness Hayman, that we need to do it properly and find an easy way to do it. It protects all the right Greece trees but at huge bureaucratic cost. I thank the noble... Sorry, while belts, I am rather loaf to support another statutory protected landscape designation, we have the National Parks and the protected landscapes, and I want to say to the noble Lady, it's not as easy as it was in 1945, when John was driven round by his wife and within a month, click here National Parks.

I like that area, we will make that a National Park, Peak District, National Park. That is it. Now I can tell the House, it's possible now for Natural England to increase the size of a National Park by 5 m, without consultation of the consultation, and fairly different statutory duties and is it possible I think they do a nobody wanting this amendment without huge bureaucratic and costly exercise. However, I'm also aware outside some cities, to put it bluntly, there was a lot of scruffy land.

Which could benefit from being the world belt but once you leave it to the local planning authorities to make the Contamination issues are important and wary of the government attention. I look forward to the attention. I look forward to the response to their points.
19:47
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
I thank noble Lords for their contributions for the debate. I will for first talk about amendment 335 as we look at the baseline before it begins. Through biodiversity net gain developments already looks at statutory metrics as part of the planning application for town and act planning developments. They will be required and looking at naturally significant infrastructure projects. Amendment 336 is important for off- site biodiversity gains as a biodiversity and the net gain framework decision-makers need to make account of the biodiversity gain hierarchy which prioritises the on-site delivery of net gains.

This is distinct from the NRF, but we are not convinced of the statement justifying each off-site gain. The framework already requires a framework already requires a development to provide the use of on-site gains required as part of the approval of the on-site plan. It will be disproportionate to require decision-makers to prepare a further statement justifying the use and will add additional burdens and local planning authority for ecologists for little further ecologists for little further benefit.

Turning to 339 which I thank the Baroness Ford tabling. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear decision-making should enhance the environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. They are required to safeguard the permanence of habitat and ecological networks including locally designated sites and importance. And areas identified by national and local partnerships for restoration. The environment act of 2021 introduces the recovery strategy which is being rolled out across the country. We look to enable strategic authorities to The valuable existing areas for nature which are underpinned by protections in the planning system and areas that could become of particular importance for biodiversity.

Strategic planning authorities in the strategy into account when planning development in the levelling up regeneration act and the planning roof structure bill. Where is it appropriate for large areas of habitat to be concerned or enhanced, local area strategies will be requiring a mechanism to do so. It allows them to take action for nature restoration while also planning for development in the area. In February we published guidance setting out the role the restructuring planning system and exploring how we can best reflect them in policy through wider work.

The application of planning policy through up-to-date strategic development strategies and those that consider local nature recovery strategies ensures local people make decisions about where habitat enhancement could drive the best environment to outcomes. While I understand the intent behind this amendment and agree promoting nature restoration at scale is an important objective, the framework enables that this is already in place and for this reason I hope the noble lady will feel free to withdraw her amendment. A member 341 recognises that ponds that can deliver positive biodiversity benefits and we recognise them for farmers providing valuable solutions of irrigation in dry periods and the noble Lord mentioned the recent flooding and ponds can be really helpful.

Also, permitted development rights is an established member of the planning program and under and and cultural permit farmers can create reservoirs subject to limitations and conditions to manage and control impact while homeowners can create ponds in their gardens with committed development rights. These are brought forward through secondary legislation as members of the development order. Public consultation will ensure views from the public including those that will benefit from those taken into account and considers any potential proposal of how this might be mitigated.

The amendment seeks to provide the national planning permission across the whole of England regardless of the appropriate location such as land use for public creation or where it could increase flood risks. There are circumstances where a planning application is appropriate and on that basis we cannot support the amendment but I can assure noble Lords we will continue to look at the development rights and keep them under review. Turning to amendment under review. Turning to amendment 346, Baroness Bennett, while I understand the ambition to improve The The contaminated The contaminated land The contaminated land in The contaminated land in England The contaminated land in England are allocated responsibility to meet remediation and provides equal definition of contaminated land and laser responsibility for local authority and the environ agency for dealing with contaminated land.

Responsibilities include local authorities inspecting the land to identify where it may be contaminated and maintaining a public register as it is contaminated land. Local authorities and the environment agency are also required to ensure appropriate persons remediate these sites. Additionally there is statutory obligation to report to the government of the state of contaminated land in the area were nasty. DEFRA commissioned the environ agency in 1994 to complete a state of contaminated land survey and support and will release the survey to local authorities and I wanted to clarify regarding her question.

The previous secretary of state met with his family and it was from that meeting the state of contaminated land survey was commissioned and we are looking to go out to release it to local authorities to respond this month and then we aim to publish the report next year just for her information around that. Given the existing frameworks are embedded in existing frameworks are embedded in legislation guidance, these will require not to distract from local authorities and eyes see and appreciate the concerns of the noble Baroness and I ask her withdraw her amendment and I will take questions and I will get back to her in writing.

Turning to amendment 345, this wishes to promote the heritage which the noble Baroness introduced including further protection. The National Planning Policy Framework looks at national N ecosystem services that trees and woodlands provide, and a clear opportunity should be taken to incorporate trees into development and existing trees should be retained where possible. Development results in a loss of deterioration of ancient woodlands should be refused and unless there is reason and a suitable compensation strategy. Aside from that, a true prevention order and that is a key method of protection and authorities are expected to take into account the ecological value of the tree.

Local planning authorities notify those that encourage good management particularly when turning planning applications in force as they make it a criminal offence to... Without local authority and regarding the Sycamore Gap there has been a sentence. We look at the creation of a strategy of trees that could cause confusion and burdens on national England and local authorities without benefit. My noble friend asked about the tree council report and treat strategy which will be interesting.

Turning which will be interesting. Turning to 346 a, it looks to place additional authority with planning develop in an infrastructure protecting landscape and shares the aim of this amendment in coding the public body and nature conservation and biodiversity recovery however objectives of the amendment are embedded in statutory policy framework the forestry authority process, the national policy statement will apply and the overarching national policy statement stipulates that development and the section station take into account its potential impact of the region at local level including any adverse impact.

Furthermore forestry authorities Furthermore forestry authorities have bespoke duties that are critical to all lands and it is a statutory obligation laid out in the forestry act 1967 requiring them to balance the forestry specific duty of the conservation of natural beauty. While I welcome the spirit of amendment I do not believe it necessary to introduce this duty as an amendment and I ask that this amendment is withdrawn. Lord Lucas brought amendment 340 6C forward to move potential obstacles which may arise from the wildlife and countryside act and we recognise it is hard to clarify this when it comes to obligations in offences towards them, but where impact are unavoidable, development and activity can already be exempted as lawful action in the existing list of exemptions under section four of the act.

We will consider how to better manage interactions between protected species and development as part of wider efforts to improve the regulatory landscape. I hope noble Lords will be able to withdraw their amendments. amendments.
19:58
19:59
None Portrait Amendment: 337 Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am delighted to have reached this small but perfectly formed group of amendment in my name. 237, group of amendment in my name. 237, 342, and I thank Baroness Young for lending her support. Also Baroness Jones and I wish her a speedy recovery at home and also Baroness Willis and I grateful for their Willis and I grateful for their support. The... If I could declare my interest, I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for water and an officer of the all- party parliamentary group for flooding communities and I have reported on water with the Westminster foundation and I'm grateful to the support we have had with that.

I set out initially the contents of the amendments and then I will explain why the government should support them or possibly come forward with their own amendment at report stage. Turning to amendment 337 as the Explanatory Notes explains, developers have automatic rights to connect surface water arising from new homes to the public storage system. Irrespective of whether if there is capacity for this or not. Implementation of schedule three of the flood and water management act 2010 would end this automatic right to collect and provide a framework for the approval of the adoption of sustainable drainage systems paving the way for drainage systems paving the way for Currently, they are used inconsistently across the country, and it is increasing significantly and will grow with the increased housing development and other developments under the bill.

I would remind the House of the work of Samantha, who hails from the great county of Yorkshire, I am sorry that my noble friend, Lord Gascoigne, is not here to hear the virtues of Yorkshire this evening. Sir Michael Pitt came from East Yorkshire and is well-versed in the threats to flooding, and he honed in, both amendments reflect his recommendations, which have still not yet been implemented, I should point out that schedule three of the 2010 act has been implemented in Wales.

And in large measure is working a stream effectively there, which is another reason for us to implement it here. I think it was in June that the government brought forward its national standards for sustainable drains. And that is why, sustainable drains. And that is why, I believe amendment 340 was -- 342 is extremely timely. Introducing national standards for draining systems, by making the right to communicate with the public additional on having the compliance standards first. Changing the right to connect to the public sewer should be conditional one first having followed these new standards, and that will provide a more robust incentive for developers, to follow this guidance.

In absence of the implementation of schedule three of the flood and water management act 2010. Obviously my preference is the government will be minded to support both amendments 337 and 342. There is another omission that I hope the noble Lady will address during the course of the bill if it's not too late. As that, we have discussed it before, is surface water run off our road. Highway authorities, currently particularly National Highways are not held responsible for the service water, which runs off carrying all sorts of pollutants.

Adam goes into the combined sewers, forming potential floods. If I could take the amendments in reverse order, while I think they are needed, and why the government should support them. Amendment 342, service water flood risk in England has been significantly upgraded by the environment agency, with projections for further increases by the middle of the century. The overflow charges in 2024, numbered over 450,000 in number, lasting a combined 3.6 million hours. As I mentioned, highway run-offs is a major, and still unrelated problem, and water resources are a growing challenge the 5 billion ill of extra water day needed by 2050, compared to today.

Pollutions we have discussed earlier in the bill holding back. Suds addresses all of these challenges, simultaneously as they are designed well. The government recently introduced national standards, to which I referred earlier, setting out good practice, for sustainable drains. As I mentioned, the mandatory approach was recommended by the pitch review, following the summer of 2007 floods, when 55,000 people were flooded, seem to have visited most of them. 7,000 people needed rescue. 13 people died and half a million were without power, main powers and water.

This approach, I believe, was enacted in schedule three of the Floodwater Management Act but has not commenced. That tactic included as part of the legislation a modification of section 106 of the Water Industry Act, to make communication with the public bio developers a conditional one, not an automatic one. I am grateful for the meeting I had had initially with both the ministers present on the bench this evening, and that was with Baroness Hayter. I believe progress is there to be made, but I believe this is incredibly urgent, given the amount of housebuilding that is going to be undertaken within this bill.

I believe firmly, as set out in amendment 337, the sustainable drains for all you developers in England should be mandatory as set out in schedule three of the Floodwater Management Act, it is not rocket science, if Parliament has passed an act, we should be in a position to implement the act and the measures in it. Nonstatutory technical standards for the maintenance of souls, currently under review, as I understand from DEFRA, should include the requirement for systems to incorporate multifunctional benefits, as set out within the manual.

Planning policy should cover the automatic right to a new development, to discharge surface water, to existing public sewers should be removed, in accordance with the recommendation, within the 2008 review. My starting point is a very simple one. If houses are being built, which are contributing to the potential the flood, we should give the developers and the water companies are right to prevent it in the first place and I believe a mandatory use of SUDS would be a first and monumental step in that regard.

In recent debates, we haven't heard a great deal about green infrastructure. I would just like to add the green infrastructure should be the norm for homes and communities. Not just concrete infra structure, that a national register for significant sustainable drainage systems needs to be developed, to inform decisions, prioritise action, and proposed in the draft policy framework maintenance responsibility for green infrastructure, should be firmed up in the way the national standards outlines. I would just like to put on record the very real concerns expressed by the insurance sector, which we have not heard a great deal of during the course of the debate today.

If I could quote from Aviva, in connection with amendment 342, they are very keen that schedule three of the Floodwater Management Act be implemented. " In England, developers have the automatic right to connect surface water, rising from new homes to the public sewerage system. Irrespective for whether there is capacity for that or not." They believe that currently SUDS are being used inconsistent, raising the risk of flooding increasing. They believe that mandatory introduction also is, by permitting schedule three of the floodwater Management act 2010, is absolutely categorically needed.

Then the Association of Petition Sharers say, " Managing surface water flooding needs increased and urgent focus, due to the increased risk of service water flooding. And we are calling on the government to implement the sustainable urban drainage systems policy under the Floodwater Management Act, ensuring its information on all new build developments. Implemented in these measures will help address flooding and tackle water pollution, we urge the government to urgently progress with the necessary implementation phase under schedule three." To conclude, my Lords, the government conclude, my Lords, the government have perfect opportunity to actually ensure that the development, which is envisaged to supersede at pace under this bill, will not contribute to future floods.

But those implementing schedule three of the act, to ensure drains are mandatory. I do take the point put me in the meeting that the national policy planning framework is stating that souls should be built, -- That SUDS should be built, but that is statutory, and has no basis whatsoever and we shall see if that be written into the face of the bill. One of the reasons that Sir Michael Pitt argued they should be an end to the automatic right to connect, it should be for the water companies to decide whether there is the capacity in the water network, to ensure that the connection is safe and is not a full connection and will not lead to -- Not a false connection and will not lead to greater flooding.

This is needed to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protect the environment, further developments proposed under the bill. I urge to support them and I beg to move. Amendment proposed, after clause
20:11
20:11
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Given the noble Lady, Baroness Jones, my noble friend signed this Jones, my noble friend signed this amendment, I am going to rise very briefly to reinforce what the noble Lady has already said. I think picking up the points made by the noble Lady, Baroness Young of Old Scone, the point about laws being passed and then nothing happens. And that is a problem both in terms of industry. In this case developers. And indeed, local councils being left in a state of uncertainty.

Not knowing where they are going with this. People start to prepare, read up, think about it. And I should perhaps declare my position as vice president of the local government Association at this point. There is also an issue of something we discussed often in your Lordships house, an issue of trust with the government. A classic example of this is the deposit scheme that we are also waiting for, announced so long ago. Many people out there still believe that when a government announces something, it's going to happen, it's already on the way.

Properly more people believe once a law is passed, then that is going to happen. The fact that doesn't happen is a real problem with trust in government. I can trace my knowledge about drainage schemes to 2006, when the first Green was elected onto council. I can remember her talking excitedly about how important it was and how crucial it was to deal with local flooding issues, as well as environmental issues. And I hadn't yet learned the phrase slow the flow, but that is very much what urban drainage is talking about.

And I also recall visiting quite some years ago now, just for one final time, I'm going to bring up chalk streams again. A brook near Cambridge, and talking to local people concerned about a proposed development there, and what happened with the sustainable urban drainage scheme, and potentially how it was going to be managed. And what is really crucial about schedule three as it provides a framework for construction, but also to provide oversight of management, because the sustainable urban drainage schemes can very often cannot just sit there, they have to be managed in their lifespan, throughout the life of many decades.

If we don't have everything set out here, they require technical analysis, the inspections and the responsibilities laid out, as schedule three does. There we are really stuck with schemes being built are not being looked after and what is happening there.
20:14
20:15
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 337342, and I thank my noble friend, Baroness McIntosh, for noble friend, Baroness McIntosh, for her speeches on this tonight. I know these are issues she cares about deeply and I commend her for her hard work and I'm sure the House is united in agreement the environment is an important factor, worthy of consideration in any planning though, when we say my noble friend, Baroness McIntosh, I share her concern about building on the floodplain, travelling down from Carlisle to London every week.

Certain times of the year, I look at the window and see that scruffy low line in the water, six mostly today are building houses on it. I just wonder if someone, somewhere in government should do some thing about it. Thank God it's not me. Sustainable drainage systems can play an important role in encrypting the improvement of places and spaces will be live and work. Balancing the opportunities and challenges that influence the design and development communities. Amendment 33762 implemented schedule three of the flood and water management act 2010, with a hope to provide framework for the widespread approval and adoption of sustainable drainage system, there is an important issue, which requires due government attention, and I look forward to hearing the responses, to the amendment.

I think it was sometime in 1992, when I was environment minister, I wish example of sustainable drainage systems and how wonderful they were but I don't think much has happened since then. Amendment 346 to add weight to the government standards, forces drainage systems, making the right to communicate with the public conditional having applied the standards first. This will create a direct incentive for developers to follow guidance and extended seriously, I hope the government takes a amendment seriously as 1 Possible Way of enforcing national standards for sustainable drainage standards for sustainable drainage
20:17
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank Baroness McIntosh for tabling the amendments and for her thorough introduction. I take the opportunity because I was meant to say the other day would be noble Baroness Baroness Bennett take our good wishes for Baroness Jones who I hope is recovering quickly. I am sorry I did not do it in the previous session. Effective implementation of adoption maintenance can impact the reduce of maintenance on sewers but 87% creating headroom for additional developments that may not be possible with conventional drainage.

I have shared with Baroness Pickering, Baroness McIntosh before my have seen in Lord Lansley in Cambridge the responsible do make provision for ongoing maintenance of the schemes. We need to see sustainable development changing climatic conditions and wider infrastructure benefits and help tackle our water pollution problems. We have taken steps to improve the distribution and the update to the NPPF published on the 12th of December expanded the requirement to provide SuDS to all development with draining implications.

Although the NPPF is not a statutory document in itself, it is part of the statutory planning system. The ability to refuse a connection where it appears to prejudice the network or not meet reasonable standards. There is no automatic right to connect to a sewerage system. The independent commission is reviewing the water sector regulation system in England and Wales. The UK Welsh Government consider the report including if it has the support with the right to connect and that report should be factored in before considering potential legislative changes to section 106.

Despite this the government is committed to requiring standardised sustainable drainage and suds in new developments and looking at how to implement ambitions. The government publish nonstatutory international standards in June 25 welcomed by stakeholders as a positive step and we will consult on the national planning policy relating to decision-making later this year including policies on flood risk and suds and I will take back the coin from the noble Baroness about run-off because I think we could consider that at the same time and it would be useful.

Also we will consult on ending freehold estate including options to reduce the prevalence of private management arrangements for community action including suds. I hope the noble Baroness will hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendments.
20:20
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
I am grateful to all who have supported the amendment. Baroness Young echoed concerns about why the original legislation was not implemented. I thank her for reminding the House about the float scheme and the pilot scheme that I was closely associated with. I think we heard tonight where the reason for the blockage and delay is. I have to say we are going to do it but not yet. I believe there is a degree of urgency and bearing in mind as my noble friend from the Frontbench Lord Blencathra pointed out building on floodplains if your House is built on a floodplain since 2009 you cannot be insured.

The only insurance you can get is so pensive you cannot afford it. For a host of reasons I believe the time is now. I was told in the passage of the Levelling-up act that we would have to wait for a different opportunity. I believe the time is now. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

revert to the future state of the bill but I do withdraw the amendment. The amendment is withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is withdrawn. Amendment 338 already debated, not Amendment 338 already debated, not moved. Amendment 339 and 340. Not moved. Amendment 339 and 340. Not moved. Amendment 341, Baroness moved. Amendment 341, Baroness Coffey. Not moved. Amendment 342, Coffey. Not moved. Amendment 342, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. Not Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. Not moved. Amendment 343, The Earl of Caithness. Not moved. 344, Lord Caithness. Not moved. 344, Lord Lansley. Not moved. 345, Baroness Lansley.

Not moved. 345, Baroness Grender. Not moved. Baroness Bennett Grender. Not moved. Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, 346, Baroness of Manor Castle, 346, Baroness Jones. Not moved. Amendment 346 b-d Jones. Not moved. Amendment 346 b-d withdrawn. MM 346 DA, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ravensdale. This group of amendments I
20:22
Lord Ravensdale Portrait Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

This group of amendments I believe gets to the heart of some of the issues with this bill. It is so important to get Britain building again following the long stagnation in the UK economy since 2008. The Chancellor tells us growth is the problem, investment is the solution which I wholeheartedly agree with. There is a significant risk that part three, the centrepiece of the bill, is simply not going to deliver for infrastructure for complexity. The reasons are straightforward.

Part three may work for known issues like neutrality for a housing development where developers can club together and pay the fund, but infrastructure developments, habitat issues will not be known about in advance so there will not be time for developers to agree and implement for consent. There is options. They can twin track which could risk adding more bureaucracy, or they go the existing route. We know those issues, but they have been well publicised but less well- known are the years long delays to offshore wind farms with issues of compensation for environments and impact and the like.

We have had multi-year delays to the trio of the Norfolk offshore project, Norfolk Vanguard West, East, and other issues around compensation for undersea work. Even in areas where it is not present. That does not even include cutting the size by 40% and the generation potential in East Anglia of habitat issues with red throated diver. It put into the impact of OneWorld -- one while death per year. It will need an approach to develop for infrastructure and housing.

The housing, we have built approximately four gigawatts of new capacity per year over the last three years to meet the government clean power target that would have to be 50 gigawatts per year between now and 2030 from the government data and that is a quadrupling of the current build rate. A lot of that is offshore wind and I will be clear that that acceleration in build rate will not happen under the current regulatory regime. The foundation of all of this is habitat regulation which is important for the protection of nature, but have become overly burdensome because of caselaw over the years and an overly proportionate approach by the regulator in some cases.

Amendment 350 in the name of the noble Lord which proposes minor changes in the habitat regulation cracks original intended to protect nature strike a balance. This is being developed in consultation with planning lawyers, ecologists with decades of experience of taking large projects through the system and provides a menu of options. One of those is important as the statutory nature conservation bodies require developers to provide evidence against hypothetical rather than real risk. I am of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and it is the link between the science and research community and we work to ensure a science led approach to lawmaking and this is vital that we need to ensure we take a scientifically rigourous approach was the second part is overturning aspects of caselaw to get to a more proportionate approach.

Stating these effects cannot reduce adverse effects and stating mitigation measures can be taken into account when deciding to propose a project is likely to have significant effect and stating there is no need to redo habitat assessment to improve conditions under consent subject to habitat assessment. Finally, stating the consultation methods does not address the same type or scale on impact of harm caused or be in place before impact occurs which reinstates existing law. I will let the noble Lord fill in the details, but the package of measures in amendment 350 is a pragmatic, proportionate means of restoring balance to a system and is making it difficult to build infrastructure in the UK, but one of the key benefits of the proposal is it would have immediate benefit for a whole range of projects around the UK and it does not need additional regulations to be developed.

The impact is there straightaway. Amendment 346 da in my name is in the same aim and tax the problem from a different angle it seeks to recognise there are narrowly defined projects on the usual process. For example, we are building offshore wind which is vital to offshore security and national security, but is it acceptable because of the habitat acceptable because of the habitat Energy Security and national security in this way and we suggest that there could be certain classes of projects relating to national security Energy Security where the Secretary of State should have additional powers to allow projects to proceed and works to define their own compensatory measures.

Between amendment 350 and 346 we have a passage of options for the government that seeks to recognise the issues of infrastructure and the issues of infrastructure and ensure growth. And I will add amendment 46 on regulators because we must strike a balance between the impact of infrastructure on the local environment, but also the benefit of that infrastructure for the nation whether it is net zero, Energy Security, economic growth. We can strike the balance. We have heard rumblings on a second planning bill focused on infrastructure.

My observation is we cannot wait for another bill. We don't have the time. The government must seize the opportunity that the bill represents and ensure it delivers for infrastructure as it reinstates the development and immediate benefit. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Insert the following new clause with the printers printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for the amendments and he ably summarised my amendments and he ably summarised my amendments and it is important that we get back to what the bill is about, growth to what the bill is about, growth agenda. As the Explanatory Memorandum and policy background Memorandum and policy background states, we have a huge problem in
20:30
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
states, we have a huge problem in building the infrastructure we need to get this country going and growing again. The bill obviously is designed to help us do that I think the big question is whether the bid is sufficiently focused in order to give us confidence to regulatory system we have is not going to prevent the kind of rapid growth we need. And this is where there is some concern. My Lords, we are coming to the nuclear industry in a moment.

But it seems to me there is a big fundamental question. Why is the UK the most expensive place to build nuclear power stations? It is because we collectively have produced legislation to make it almost impossible for developers to come forward with viable propositions. And the question for me is whether this bill goes far enough in order to make sure we can see growth. And of course, my Lords, the retention, listening to debates about nature, of course there are some tensions.

You can't have it all ways. We can really go fast on the growth agenda. Without having some impact on the environment. It is just not possible. We have no chance of getting to Net Zero unless we decarbonise our energy infrastructure and do it as quickly as possible. My amendment 349 has been developed, and I acknowledge the assistance I received from planning lawyers, specifically Catherine Howard and also senior ecologist, Andrew, in the drafting of the amendment.

I mention environmental delivery plans, they are being developed as a way of preventing laws from blocking developers and I welcome that. But I think there are some real issues about how the habitat regulations are interpreted in this country. Why are other countries, with the same broad regulations able to allow major infrastructure projects through without the nonsenses we see coming from agencies like Natural England? And my Lords, Catherine Howard wrote this article, The Secret Ecologist Speak, ecologist and regularly engage with the environment agency, Natural England, Natural Resources Wales, nature Scotland, and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee's, otherwise known as S NCBs, as they work on behalf of the developers, seeking planning consent but also in behalf of planning authorities, the wildlife trust and other interested parties.

They have experience of the system from both sides. Currently, the law requires developers to prove a negative, that there is no risk of an adverse effect from a proposed project, proving a negative is almost impossible. The scientist will tell you that is the case. And further, the case law requires a precautionary approach taken to consideration of risk, where important information is imperfect, as it often is. The case law also held that the weight must be given to the views of the SABC in any decision-making process, so these make it very easy for them to block development, with little or no credible evidence for impact, the ecologist interview by Catherine Howard provided multiple exams where this has happened.

This booklet this has happened. This booklet In this process. This is compounded by the fact that my understanding, in many cases, the SNC bees appear to have a written objection is tested at hearing, so I wonder why that is, my Lords. In view of most ecologists, that were interviewed, it is that 15 years or so ago, when the SNC Bs employed top experts, it operated reasonably well despite the framework. The pragmatic approach was taken to proving there was a risk of adverse effect.

In recent years, the hollowing out of expertise of the SNCBs, thanks to the policy of the coalition government and then the Conservative government. It has given rise to necessary blocking or scaling back of development as well as failing to achieve better value for true compensation. The system is now run under authorities, rather than evidence, according to those involved. That is where you get to some of these high-profile cases, demands for acres of land to be fitted, creating salt marshes, in lieu of a deterrent.

The many challenges across the offshore wind sector, and other nationally significant project, which actually were to arise if the SNCBs were science led. The feeling among those ecologists interviewed is that in Europe, greater adherence to scientific evidence and common sense among regulators has largely avoided the problems the UK is grappling with. And I should refer back to Lord Banner's what I call commonsense amendments. In other words, the sense of proportion among the regulators is required. My amendment tackles some of the challenges.

It actually suggests very small changes of habitat renovations which would have a significant impact on the consent of such projects. And could sit alongside the EDP regime. My Lords, I am not suggesting that we should reverse the burden of proof. And I don't to supply the precautionary principle. What the amendment does is define scientific evidence and requires scientific justification is based on evidence of real, rather than hypothetical risk. The effect cannot constitute an adverse effect.

This was SNCBs arguing that even one fish or one but death is unacceptable. It cannot be right surely the major projects are blocked or scaled back to avoid such things. But they are. There is no need to redo habitat assessment for improved conditions under consent, it was originally subject to habitats assessment. Statement mitigation measures can take into account whether a proposed project is likely to happen as a given event. This will reverse the unhelpful European case of people over wind, which artificially requires this test to be applied, assuming no mitigation measures will be in place, something our own UK judges previously considered preposterous when tested in our courts.

Finally, state compensation measures did not address the same type or scale of impact as the harm caused, nor before impact occurs. In conclusion, I hope the government is listening. They clearly are across departmental discussions about these matters at the moment. My Lords, it does seem to me, the behaviour and performance of the regulators is very crucial to this. And the way in which they operate habitat regulations is really going to define whether we can really get these major infrastructure projects off the ground as soon as possible.

And I very much look forward to a constructive debate.
20:39
20:39
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I don't know where to start on this one. I must admit, if I had the noble Lord, Lord Hunt's in my hands this morning after reading the Telegraph article, he would no longer be here to press his amendment tonight. I am definitely not feeling comradely right now. We must get away from this polarisation. These amendments that are jointly in the name of Lord Hunt and Lord Ravensdale are worth considering, particularly in the area of infrastructure, but they are complex, and they need calm and informed judgement about them and analysis, before we go overboard for them.

And we will not stay calm, and we won't have orderly evidence-based judgement if we don't get the sort of article that reports to report the way Lord Hunt has been betraying this in various places, some of which he reflected this evening. The E NGOs are not on an ego trip, they are not against growth intrinsically. The regulators are doing their best job of their resources against the habitats regulations which were invented in order to stem this massive decline of biodiversity in this country.

Which threatens our existence. Every extinction foreshadows our own. And extinction foreshadows our own. And we really do have to get away from this belief that somehow everyone else in Europe implemented habitat regulations is to be good with less purity and far less up themselves, if you'll pardon that unparliamentary language, than we are. The idea is that is that I'm permitting the habitats directive, they are not trying to maintain and recover biodiversity, in an area recover biodiversity, in an area that is densely populated and is as much contested in terms of land use as this country is, particularly England.

And I think we have got to bear that in mind. We are trying to cram in a loss into a very small space of land, particularly in the south-east and around our coastal regions. So, let's get off the polarisation argument. The Telegraph pieces headed up critic in the economy, that does not foster good and sane debate. The anti-growth environmental quangos are blocking developers. Natural England has an anti growth mindset. I do not honestly believe any of these points. And it may well be that the noble Lord has been quoted incorrectly but from what he has said tonight, don't believe that full stops so it is unfortunate, if we fall into the trap, polarising growth against development, we are smart enough to do both, and there is real commitment across conservation and to do that.

So, let's stop winding up in an irresponsible way this debate. I was going to go on, but at this time of night, I will not, to many of the other reasons for delay in the planning system. Just simply to say when you talk to developers that are not on their soap boxes about the barriers they face, they are not solely environment barriers, there are many others I think that is an example of a poverty of the case that the noble Lord is naked in the way he is making it, not necessarily in his basic tenant, that he quotes the old Hackney example of the tunnel.

The problem was with HS2, not with nature conservation. If, as we had recommended 20 years ago, HS2 was called HM to, or MSU, medium speed two, it would have been possible to mightily reduce the cost of the whole project. By taking 20 miles an hour off the top speed, and allowing the route around all the things we have now spent a fortune

**** Possible New Speaker ****

compensating for. I didn't mention bats at all, mentioned my experience which is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very different. I apologise to the noble Lord for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise to the noble Lord for that, but the article in the Telegraph it was quoted he did talk about that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about that. I was at a conference yesterday, the Telegraph reported on it. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

headline is not my issue. I look forward to a detailed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I look forward to a detailed account from the noble Lord as to what exactly he did say that night at what in the Telegraph article he at what in the Telegraph article he would deny. Anyway, if we cut the would deny. Anyway, if we cut the speed of HS2, we would have not only tunnels, but we wouldn't have a huge tunnels, but we wouldn't have a huge amount of money spent on the destruction of ancient woodlands. destruction of ancient woodlands.

So, I simply want to say that let's not be unclear about this, Katherine Howard and her colleagues are very Howard and her colleagues are very knowledgeable, but they are clearly representative of the development representative of the development sector, and although their views are worth considering, they are not the only experts in this field. I don't believe that the extreme picture of believe that the extreme picture of nature conservation bodies as being representative and true, nature is dramatically in decline, the habitats regulations were invited to meet the issue, let's consider the approaching this amendment calmly and temperature cycle polarisation.

Because we don't, we will simply continue to trade off our nature in the interest of growth, when in fact we should be delivering both. we should be delivering both.
20:45
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise very briefly to respond to this group of amendments, basically to say I agree with Baroness Young and thank her for her contribution. I do fully recognise why both noble Lords have brought forward the amendments and I recognise wholeheartedly the points they are making about the energy and the factory to get on and build this stuff. In doing that, there is a balance and actually, if we don't transition to clean energy, there is an impact on the environment as well.

Obviously, there are some cases where these things come into contact and into conflict. We need to find ways to manage those. And it to find ways to manage those. And it I have to go with Baroness Young that actually we need to walk away from this polarised debate and recognise habitats are only one issue in a whole bunch of issues. In a weird way the bigger thing for me is the fact this bill could be doing more, actually, to help with infrastructure and there is a bit of a missed opportunity here which is perhaps why there is talk of another bill coming forward.

I am interested in how the government responds to this amendment. These are issues of balance but I do think painting all of the problems as habitat regulation and partly the way the noble Lords painted their canvas I think doesn't necessarily help the debate. I think more is to be done in terms of the government looking how we deliver infrastructure and that needs to be done, let's be honest, not at this time of night with four people in a room that would rather be at home, but through proper, proper look.

What I would take away from the amendment is actually in terms of getting clean power and being a crowded island and mounting habitat regulation and all of these issues, I think there is more to be done. Looking at what other ways we can help deliver infrastructure that we know we need, on the balance that nature is in decline and we are a small island nation and we need to work in this space in the spirit of cooperation on technical, complicated problems, but I thank noble Lords as it is important.

important.
20:48
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to the amendment in the group addressing the critical interface between planning law and sensitive natural environments as government under the habitat regulation. Amendment 350 which I have signed and I should have signed 349 as well and I support proposals in the habitat regulations placings habitat regulation in decision- making and that principle is vital. Planning decisions are mired in ambiguity and subjectivity which creates delay and window for opportunistic challenge. This creates a framework that extinguishes between material effect and gives due weight to credible science.

It offers clarity for developers and conservation bodies. We must take care of this language around them not requiring absolute certainty and does not inadvertently weaken precautionary safeguards. It is a fine balance and one that we will explore further. I am unfortunate not to have read the Telegraph today so I am comfortable with the amendment. The only thing from the introduction that Lord Hunt of King's Heath and I didn't agree with is nature has to suffer. A lot with is nature has to suffer.

A lot of the debate we are having is how we make sure nature suffers as little as possible and how we mitigate that in the hierarchy. These can be part of that and that goes into a broader debate which we have been discussing throughout the bill which is why we are doing part three at all. We started debating the groups in part three and offered amendments to deal with neutrality and couple of them would have released 106,000 houses immediately after the commencement of the bill and I'm not sure how they will release those how houses from Natural England.

The noble Baroness Lady Young looked at EDP's which I support and I think that between all of these amendments that I have brought up, Lord Hunt of King's Heath put forward today solutions which are better than part three in order to speed up development, increased certainty, reduce cost and I support these amendments.
20:51
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
First I need to move government amendment 340 9A which makes minor legislative fix when it inserts the habitat regulation. Coming to non- government amendment and the debate we have been listening to, a number of amendments have been taken by Lord Ravensdale and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and concerns the operation of habitat regulation. I would like to add detail to comments I made on the debate on Monday in response to the dis-application of the habitat regulation to a specific feature and impact identified in the environment of delivery.

This is important and relevant for the debate today. As I said on Monday, the dis-application already applies to the specific impact of development identified within the EDP. I wanted to set out how this would work in practice. If a development proposal comes forward there are three different impact of protected features including pollution, and impacts on dormice and there might be a couple that covered the area where it is located, and each addresses the impact on one of those environmental features strategically.

The developer may choose to discharge their obligation in relation to environmental impact covered by those through payment of the levy for each and the remaining impact will continue to be assessed in the usual way either through the habitat regulation assessment or by applying for a species licence. The other impacts addressed through the EDP, the remaining assessment will be more streamlined. What I would like to be clear about is it may be necessary to consider those not covered by the EDP and this is by design.

They are intended to be modular with each one addressing a specific impact or impacts. They are not intended to be a comprehensive way of addressing all possible environmental impact of development and I hope that helps to clarify. I would like to come specifically to amendment that we have just been debating and I know noble Lords have been concerned that they might opt for infrastructure and proposed the amendment to improve the existing system. Our focus in bringing forward the measure in the bill has been in ways to improve the planning process.

Case-by-case negotiations and mitigation of compensation measures slow down the delivery of much-needed housing infrastructure as explained in the introduction. The nature restoration fund allows developers to benefit from streamlined investment while delivering better outcome for nature. The bill is also clear that they can be brought forward to support nationally significant infrastructure projects. The government already plans to address many points made in the amendments by noble Lords through improved guidance and while I note the desire for an open conversation about wider reforms to the habitat regulation, noble Lords will recognise amendments of the type proposed go far beyond the NRF and would benefit from proper scrutiny and consideration and while many in the House favour the spirit of the amendments, legislating in this manner at a late stage of the bill would risk a period of significant uncertainty for full practitioners and look at the negative impact on development we wish to avoid.

Turning to amendment 346 da and I would like to thank the noble Lord for raising the issue of Energy Security and I would like to clarify through the over arching policy statement, nationally significant low carbon infrastructure is recognised as critical national priority, CMP infrastructure. In relation to such projects, the Secretary of State will start the presumption in favour of Grant of consent and it is likely that the need of this infrastructure will outweigh the original effect on all but the most exceptional cases and we are seeing positive impacts of CMP infrastructure.

The current overarching national policy statement energy also confirms where there is no alternative solution to mitigate the impact of the subject relation to assessment the compensatory measures are still required. Delivering compensatory measures is an important part of protecting our network of protected sites with those that are unavoidable with overriding public interest for offshore wind as Lord Ravensdale explained there are particular issues around the identification of compensation and the marine recovery fund will provide an optional mechanism which developers campaign into to discharge their environmental compensation obligations.

In additional to offshore wind, DEFRA is subjected to conversations on requirements and will reduce an infrastructure -- Statutory Instrument to look at these changes. Where the plan is in place under the nature restoration fund this enables developments to look at conservation measures and I will turn to MM 349 and 350 and amendment 340 9B tabled by Lord Lucas. These amendments fundamentally opt for many well established principles of the current regime and while the government understands and supports many intentions the focus is to establish the nature restoration fund and address the environmental impact of development, expanding the impact of the bill in this way with regard to the other amendments also risks introducing uncertainty and could potentially slow the consent of development.

Several of them raise questions about how they guard against environmental regression with the significant harm to sites and we feel significant changes to the habitat regulation assessment process would be better addressed following greater scrutiny including following greater scrutiny including from reflected stakeholders. They do raise a number of important points about the operation of a habitat regulation and take specific points the decisions should be made on the basis of scientific evidence and the habitat assessment should be applied appropriately and proportionately stop government amendment include clarifying both the Secretary of State taking account of the best available evidence when preparing, amending or revoking.

Introducing legislative definition of scientific justifications as proposed by these amendments needs careful consideration to understand the impact of such changes and avoid the risk of introducing unnecessary certainty and increased litigation in this area. The review we mentioned in previous debates also suggested reform to the habitat regulation and how it is applied while showing consistency for international obligation I can confirm we are looking at how to improve the implementation of the existing habitat regulation. We are preparing updated guidance on the process and the amendment looks at the encouraging of the proportionate application of the process.

The noble Lord Lucas also may wish to note the approach of the guidance making clear the flexibility that exists to screen out the effect where it is clear there is no risk of harm to the integrity of the protected site. I support much of what Lord Russell said in the approach he suggested but we must be more considered. We will continue to look at ways that these habitat regulations can be improved while protecting our most habitats and species at the same time as providing certainty in the process.

On that basis, I hope noble Lords withdrawal amendments but continue to work with us on this important matter. matter.
20:59
21:01
21:03
None Portrait Amendment: 346DG Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Conservative)
-

These costs are driven by many factors, slow resource of intensive consultations, 80,000 page consultations, 80,000 page environment impact assessment driving over specification on driving over specification on environment and safety grounds. We need the process to become much more need the process to become much more efficient. Amendment 346DG would allow the sector stay when determining an application for DCO to disregard regulations relating to environmental impact assessment, habitat regulations assessment or habitat regulations assessment or any of her mental delivery plan if this is considered necessary for the delivery of the nuclear power delivery of the nuclear power station.

It also requires the Secretary of state to bring forward regulations to put in place a more proportionate environmental impact proportionate environmental impact assessment regime for a proposed nuclear power station development. This will put an end to the practice of blocking or delaying national infrastructure and environment grounds alone. They ensure we cannot be held hostage to a system that prizes paperwork over progress and processor for power generation. The processor for power generation. The need for energy security is no longer a theoretical debate. It's a strategic imperative.

We are strategic imperative. We are presiding of the highest offshore wind auction prices in a decade. Demand for electricity is rising rapidly and the UK is still overly reliant on imported energy sources. The last nuclear power station to come online in this country was in 1995. Hinkley Point C, the only one under construction is now set to become the most expensive power station in history, not because the technology is flawed. Far from it, but because of bureaucracy. We've witnessed the absurdity of eight years of negotiations to install 288 underwater land speakers.

The infamous fish disco to deter a trawler's worth of fish from swimming into the water intake system. This amendment would put an end to that. No more paperwork that checks innovation and pushes up costs but more proportionate and violent impact assessment regime which will give A-level playing field for the UK nuclear industry. We must be clear, nuclear is safe, low carbon and has the smallest land footprint of any energy source said Doctor John Constable of the renewal energy foundation estimates wind and solar require up to 3,000 times more land to produce the same amount of power as nuclear.

And this matters. Baroness Young of Old Scone agrees we are a small island, in some regions solar farm applications orally covering up to 80% of available land and the governance plan will require even more. The seeming decision to scrap our 24 GW

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nuclear target... I don't recognise the figure she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

presents. He said overall. I said in some regions. regions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We've had figures bandied around about solar. The total figure covered at the moment is not .1%. In the total figure for the energy plan the total figure for the energy plan which goes up to 2030 is 0.8%.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which goes up to 2030 is 0.8%. And I repeat as I said, it's a % in some regions, not in all regions, not the overall figure for the not the overall figure for the United Kingdom land space. The United Kingdom land space. The Secretary of State's need for wind and solar seems to have blinded him to the mounting costs and spatial to the mounting costs and spatial limitations they could impose. The 24 seven digital economy, data centres and artificial intelligence, these are not served by intermittent power.

They need reliable baseload power. They need reliable baseload command that means nuclear. France, Finland, Sweden, nations with some Finland, Sweden, nations with some of the cheapest cleanest electricity in Europe or rely on nuclear. And the truth is this, nuclear is not the truth is this, nuclear is not the problem. Our system is. And why as we embrace more advanced nuclear technologies we must try and fix it technologies we must try and fix it now and this bill. The current regulatory regime puts documentation above the national interest, pretence that a legal checkbox exercise is the same as protecting the environment.

It's not. Making it near impossible to build a handful of nuclear stations and tightly controlled sites, we are instead forcing ourselves to cover more of the countryside with wind turbines and solar panels, and of course we all care about, deeply about the environment. Our national love of the countryside and our national heritage runs deep but a planning system that blocks low carbon, low footprint clean energy is self- defeating. It turns environment regulation into a tool of environmental harm. Cheap abundant nuclear is not a fantasy.

It's our route to energy sovereignty, to lower bills and powering a modern prosperous Britain. If we are serious about delivering the infrastructure that will enable growth, attract investment, support heavy industry and safeguard our national interest, then we need to be bold enough to cut through the red tape that is holding us back. Britain stands on the cusp of a new industrial renaissance we cannot reach it with a planning system stuck in the past. Particular as we embrace the new small and advanced nuclear technologies.

These amendments are a crucial step towards a future that is energy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

secure. Proposed after clause 87 insert the new clause as set out in the
21:07
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled list. I rise to support my Noble Friend in this amendment and make a plea in this amendment and make a plea for a simplified environmental audit for small modular nuclear reactors. I have in my hand here the speech I delivered on 22 October the speech I delivered on 22 October 2015 in the Grand Committees aiding in supporting my honourable friend Viscount Ridley on a small modular nuclear reactor. The debate was supported by everyone in the committee, and the environment minister said, " Totally in support of small modular nuclear reactors.

The technology is coming along rapidly and can be followed through." We were then told the Department for climate change had carried out a technical study which would inform the development of small modular nuclear reactors and that would conclude in 2016. What is happened since then? Absolutely nothing until June this year the government gave Rolls-Royce to go ahead. Rolls-Royce were gagging on the bit in 2015 to crack on with this, and I'm afraid the last Conservative government did that on small modular nuclear writers just as Tony Blair's government did that and building Hinkley Point C.

Include point which was initially costed at 3.3 billion went to five, 10, 18, 24 billion. I don't know what it is now, 13 40 billion. -- 30, 40. They can be positioned around the country, avoiding the need for huge cabling and pylons. Rolls-Royce were gagging in the bit and they now have approval to go ahead. Rolls-Royce have been building small modular nuclear reactors for 70 years perfectly safely. There are now nuclear submarines. Of course there is a difference between the nuclear engine one has any suffering and the modular nuclear reactor we have on land base, but the science is not what's apart.

It's like a car company able to build petrol engined then told to build a diesel engine. Yes, some of the components are different, the construction is different but the concept is the same. It's not rocket science. I was concerned to read the other day that the wonderful visiting of President Trump may involve a deal to get American small modular nuclear reactors. I say to the government the people of this country will not understand me have Rolls-Royce able to make these things and ready to crack on with them if we get one stumped from Westinghouse or GE Hitachi from the United States.

Let us make sure that British industry here which at the moment we have a head start with, let's make sure it keeps the head start by not putting in excessive regulation which the Americans might not have to do. And of course planning applications which could take years and years and years to build small safe modular nuclear reactors outside some of our cities. That's why I think we need decent fight environmental audit plan for the positioning of our modular nuclear reactors and then we can crack on and get the cheap clean power we need without over...

The windfarms aren't overly expensive but the government subsidy is now ridiculously expensive. I want everyone to build wind farms, its manifold Rome, considering the subsidy the government gives them. We will not need as many of those and won't need pylons all over the countryside. So I urge the government to consider not just my Noble Friends amendment by the possibility of a simplified system for modern small modular nuclear reactors.
21:10
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
I was tempted today to have a large scale debate on nuclear energy. I do think Noble Lords one that but if I could just broadly understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, and I'm really sympathetic to the thrust of what she's saying. I do however say to her and the Noble Lord Lord Blencathra that nuclear is part of the package. As the essential baseload on which we are then going to be very reliant on wind and sun. And the whole thing has to be seen together.

We have this huge potential now. Hinkley Point C is now making real progress. Final investment decision has been reached the Sizewell C. Lord Blencathra's absolutely right about the importance of the GBN's, the appraisal undertaken, the government support for Rolls-Royce, and the announcement this week of the agreement with the US, which is twofold. First of all its regulatory alignment, which means rather like in the pharmaceutical sector, where if one of the major regulators, US, UK or in Europe signs of a particular medicine, there is often mutual recognition, and clearly this is really important in meeting this point.

About reducing the amount of unnecessary bureaucracy in relation to regulation in the future. But the second point is the announcement by a number of US companies, particularly from the West Coast who wish to invest in AI, data centres in the UK, aligned to modern advanced modular reactors is fantastic news indeed. And in Lord Blencathra's point, I'm sure Rolls- Royce is going to be in a very very good position, but clearly it has to be open to companies to also invite other countries reactors as well, and I would suggest you don't want to put all your eggs in one basket.

The question then comes back to the issues we've been talking about recently. It is to weather the regulatory system we have collectively is going to be up to meeting this challenge. And I would just commend a report by Britain remain that was published yesterday, a conference that I happened to attend that caused such offence to my Noble Friend. But it's a very good report about the history if nuclear power development in this country. Had the lead Once upon a time. We foolishly throw it away.

We have a great chance to get back in at a very substantive no-show, but at the moment we simply have them costing too much. And the reason, there were various reasons. Over speculation -- specification for so we've had that before. Slow resource of intensive planning and permitting. We've had about the issues already about some of the environment protections. And various other reasons as well. And really I just wanted to ask my Noble Friend this, she knows that there is a Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce.

It was set up under the auspices of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. It gave an interim report in the summer. It's going to come back very soon with the substantive report. In the interim report, it said we have fundamental concerns about how regulation operates in practice with the most prominent being the system deemed to be unnecessarily slow, inefficient and costly. And I think the question I would simply put is that assuming this report comes out within the next few weeks, is it going to be possible to use this bill at report stage as a way of actually trying to deal with some of the regulatory hurdles.

I understand my Noble Friend probably can't answer that because first of all they've not received the report, and second, the government will have to consider how to do it, but I think consider how to do it, but I think Abbott just expressed the hope that we might be able to use this bill as a vehicle.
21:15
21:17
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arise very briefly to respond to this amendment. I thank Baroness for introducing it on behalf of Lord introducing it on behalf of Lord Offord of Garvel. To be honest we are not able to support this amendment for various reasons, I understand that it's probing amendment but it doesn't come across as a fully figured out and good way of doing things. I fully take the point about the announcement announced today on the back of trumps visit about nuclear small modular reactors which this amendment is about in terms of their importance for the economy.

Separately I have put an amendment to this bill about the need for energy efficiency for small modular reactors. It is important the while we grow the economy we make sure the new things we are building are actually energy-efficient and fit for purpose. We can't just keep having new power hungry technology and expect to get clean power at the same time. We cannot that the AIB's to get out of control. -- Let the AI beast. Just respond to the amendment I know it's probing amendment but the key thing here is the covenant has an ask for any of these powers, indeed the government has just recently updated a lot of their policies, so we've had an update to EN one and an update to EN seven as well, at no point during that time has the government requested any of these sweeping powers set out here.

Turning to the amendment proposes the Secretary of State may quote, if considered necessary and appropriate disregard the convention of habitats and species regulations, infrastructure planning, environmental infrastructure assessment 2018 and 2019 full stop that in itself is just a carte blanche for the Minister to go no -- go away and do whatever they want whenever they want. It's not good wording. Moreover the amendment slashes the page limits for environment impact assessment to 1,000 pages. Fully get that some of these documents are too long and that can delay things but 1,000 pages seems an arbitrary figure, thousand and one is not acceptable, thousand and one is not acceptable, and hundred 99 pages is.

-- 999 pages turned the consultation period to 21 days full stop again it just strikes of these things being vaguely plucked out of the air and not properly thought through. This could fail to undermine the ability of democratic accountability, of people being able to consult on these things, it also encourages, could incur significant legal risk. We got obligations under retained EU law, international treaties, all sorts of things like this. It also risks as we are transitioning to a completely new way of doing nuclear actually we are dispersing nuclear, having nuclear and run by companies, having nuclear and that is going to be more dispersed and situated inevitably closer to communities.

It is really important in terms of delivering that transition that we take communities with us and that we have as we deploy a new technology, that is done in a way that creates confidence and doesn't serve to undermine the very thing we want to do. Actually as we start to roll this stuff out it's more important than at any other point that we do this properly and appropriately. My worry is that rushing to these sweeping powers like this would do, could do the exact opposite of what the amendment intends to do.

And actually seek to undermine the confidence in this part of our energy transition. I'm not able to support this amendment, the other thing I just want to say very briefly, I've raised this myself in the House, whenever we have this conversation about nuclear we... It's always put in opposition to solar and solar is taking over the world, but actually this week we have had the Treasury itself has said that the long-term geological store the nuclear waste for historical legacy of nuclear waste has gone on to the red list and isn't deliverable.

Nuclear and comes with different issues, different benefits, but it also has begun associated costs that aren't always put forward. It has a long-term legacy, a historical legacy of highly radioactive waste that needs to be dealt with. We recognise nuclear as part of the mix but coming back to what I said about the previous amendment actually if the government feels they need more regulation in the space and they may well do, and these benches we will listen to that but that needs to be done in the round and as we transition to a new form of nuclear this stuff really needs to be done
21:23
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
very carefully. Point Point on Point on regular Point on regular Tory Point on regular Tory alignment. Point on regular Tory alignment. I like regular to align and to principle providing we reach the right level of agreed regulation. I'm fairly certain with everything I I'm fairly certain with everything I read the British regulators are perhaps over nitpicking over fussy here and have caused delays at Hinckley by double checking and Hinckley by double checking and triple checking the welding. I'm also fairly certain when I read that American regulators are shall we say American regulators are shall we say more relaxed, I wouldn't say sloppy more relaxed, I wouldn't say sloppy but they're much more relaxed.

If the regular treeline and comes about from British regulation experts talking to American regulation experts and reach an agreement I can live with that, what I could not live with is a political agreement live with is a political agreement on regular Tory alignment. I really admire President Trump the way he goes round the world fighting for American interests, stuff everybody else, providing American interests come forward -- first. My worry come forward -- first. My worry We offer a deal, OK Britain you will know tariffs on steel and whiskey, I can go long with that provided you accept American terms on regular Tory alignment for our nuclear reactors.

It's the political deal that worries me not any regular to alignment which could be brought about by the experts. I don't expect the Minister to be up to our school touched by answer or comment on that, I just like it up. I see Lord that, I just like it up. I see Lord Hunt of Kings Heath nodding at that and I glad we are in agreement on this point.
21:23
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I don't think I will get drawn into the geopolitical issues of international trade in the Planning Bill but I will address the points in the amendment. I'm happy to say that government shares Lord Offord and Baroness Bloomfield he moved his amendment ambition to make nuclear element faster and more cost- effective and Lord Blencathra's plea for SMRs. Baroness Hayman mentioned AMRs as well which are very important. We quite simply can't grow the economy in the way we want to without rapidly tackling the clean energy issue on all fronts, including nuclear.

That's not just about clean energy, it also provides us with energies and the lower energy prices that will not only help the businesses in our country but also the households in our country as well. It's really important that we get on with that. I do fear the solutions proposed by this amendment, I appreciate it's a probing amendment, would potentially invite problems of their own and risk undoing the growth we have seen in public support for new nuclear. Looking first at allowing the Secretary of State to disregard environmental impact assessment requirements where doing so would secure the provision of the generating station and economic efficient proportionate and timely manner, we should remember that environmental assessment of course includes not just impacts on wildlife but also takes account of the impact on communities like noise, air quality, human health and one.

Application for a new nuclear power station will include proposals for mitigation measures designed to limit or remove any significant adverse environmental effects it would have. This amendment could remove any requirements of those mitigation measures which simply means the significant impacts would not be managed. Like the noble Lord we recognise the environment assessment is in need of reform which is why we are already carefully considering how to bring forward environmental outcomes reports that will allow us to ensure EIA assessment is proportionate and reduce the risk that these assessments are used to unduly delay development coming forward.

In respect of allowing the Secretary of State to exempt nuclear power station project both from the habitation regulations and any requirement to pay into an EDP that could risk leaving and most important protective sites and species at risk of irreparable harm. Simply providing for these regulations to be disregarded is probably the wrong approach and risks removing the need for even the most commonsense consideration of environmental impacts and actions to address these. As I hope I have already set out to noble Lords in these debates the nature restoration fund will allow developers to discharge environmental obligations around protected sites and species more quickly and with greater impact, accelerating the delivery of infrastructure at the same time as improving the environment full stop the planning regime must support new nuclear so we have introduced a transformative draft National policy statement on nuclear, it's important therefore that both this policy statement and the overarching energy National policy statement are considered when deciding applications for new nuclear power This amendment would remove the centrality of these national policy statements in determining applications for those power stations which would only slowdown and confused the decision-making process.

The habitats regulations must be applied sensibly which is why the overarching energy National policy step that's already introduced the concept of critical priority projects. This creates a presumption that the importance of low carbon energy infrastructure is such that it is capable of amounting to imperative reasons of overriding public interest. We recognise we need to go further in the nuclear regular Tory framework, Lord Hunt refer to I believe, must avoid increasing costs where possible so we have launched a nuclear regular trade task for which will report later this year.

The government remains firmly of the view that when it comes to element and the environment we can do better than the status quo which too often sees both infrastructure delivery and nature recovery stall. I hope this explanation the noble Lord, sorry Baroness Bloomfield on behalf of Lord Offord will be able to withdraw the amendment. the amendment.
21:28
21:28
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Portrait Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Conservative)
-
-
Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn clause 88 amendment 346F Baroness Taylor. Moved formally. The question is that, question posed the new laws set out on the marshalled List. Question if the amendment is made. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Baroness Coffey amendment 347 not moved. Amendment 348. The question is that clause 88 as amended than part of the bill.

As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Amendment 349 Lord Hunt of Kings Heath not moved. The question is that clause 89 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Amendment 349 a Baroness Taylor? Question is that schedule 6A page 171 line 1 insert the words on the marshalled List. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content".

The "Contents" have it. Amendment 349B Lord Lucas not moved. Amendment 350 Lord Hunt not moved. Amendment 351 Lord Crisp not moved. The question is that schedule six The question is that schedule 6B the sixth schedule to the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. I think brings us to 351ZA Lord Lansley not brings us to 351ZA Lord Lansley not Amendment 351 to A Baroness Young.

Amendment 351 to A Baroness Young.
21:31
21:32
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Attend to insert the words as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed in the marshalled list. Strongly support the noble Baroness has said. In fact it would Baroness has said. In fact it would be preferable for 89 subsection clause 89 subsection two .2 to be removed from the bill. I turned to removed from the bill. I turned to my amendment. This is about the Secretary of State. I haven't had the chance to precisely identify where in Hansard ministers spoke to you that the other day. And this you that the other day.

And this morning. Sorry, this morning. So I morning. Sorry, this morning. So I just think... I don't think the Minister in any way Ms Buck the Minister in any way Ms Buck the other day. And the reason I say this, I don't want to do a long constitutional lecture. I should constitutional lecture. I should point out that right now I'm very point out that right now I'm very keen to monitor this legislation and see the second half of Liverpool beating Atletico Madrid.

Back to the topic, constitutionally any secretary of state can undertake the role of any other, so this where aspects of this come into play. aspects of this come into play. However, due to my experience and extensive of having many legal cases against me and other secretaries of against me and other secretaries of state when I was in government, there is often certain legal cases where it was the sponsoring department in effect that had ultimately conceived within the reality of legal cases, decision- making power.

All I'm trying to do with this amendment is to make it crystal clear that part three applies to the Secretary of State for DEFRA. Now the noble Lady the for DEFRA. Now the noble Lady the Minister mentioned earlier it will be accepted under certain circumstances or whatever. I think this just avoids any difficulty in that regard. For what it's worth, it's not a... Before he heard today from my sense that the Ministry of Housing isn't yet again blocking the commencement of other legislation, which is frustrating, but nevertheless it is certainly something I'm happy to discuss and come back to report, but I feel particular strongly about it, and would like this to be absolutely transparent on the face of the bill, but the people who suggest that whilst portfolios change and names change, there was already existing procedures in legislation, which effectively makes the changes automatically adjust, so in that regard I hope to in a future point of report move my amendment then.
21:34
Lord Blencathra Portrait Lord Blencathra (Conservative)
-
-
Arise to support my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey on this small but very important amendment, 356. It may seem a technical thing, but it goes to the heart of how this bill and the EDP will operate. Retired from the board of Natural England in December last year stop I've worked with DEFRA officials for the last seven years and I know the strength of the working relationship with Natural England, so the House will forgive me, I will speak for a little bit longer than my Noble Friend in moving her amendment.

When I discovered on Monday that the sector of state to which Natural England will be reporting on EDPs was housing a local government, I was appalled but I stand by my comments from Monday that no one in that department has any knowledge of biodiversity, wildlife and the countryside and cannot tell the difference between a that and a butterfly. And at the sum of my Noble Friends dislike Natural England and possibly DEFRA as well, but I say to Noble Lords at least DEFRA understood the legal position and duties of Natural England commander say to Noble Friends and members opposite and outside NGOs they seriously think the Department of Housing and local government understands the operation of the countryside and biodiversity? I can tell you of the fight we DEFRA had to get biodiversity again approved and passed the housing right past the objectives my objections of the levelling up is that then was.

But my main concern is Natural England as an NDP with complete operational independence in a large number of matters. There was a new secretary years ago who initially thought the Natural England was an executive agency under the command of DEFRA, like the rolling payments agency and large parts of the Environment Agency. Natural England does get some ring fenced funding which is controlled by DEFRA, e.g. The £15 the P restoration fund and the King's coastal path and a few other things, but most granted ages for the 250 legal obligations to England has to perform each year.

Many of these are boring and technical but our day job and have to be done like responding to tens of thousands of requests from planning authorities on planning applications which may affect nature. And I recall that the Noble Lord Lord Teverson's amendment was in group 7 where it was said that if the government gave Natural England extra funding for EDPs, then the Treasury will claw it back somewhere else from the Natural England budget so it squeezed from other vital areas. DEFRA understands the Natural England is legally independent in its operations.

Of course this ActiveSync and issue instructions to control in some areas but rarely do so. I cannot see any circumstances where DEFRA would order Natural England to prepare plans which could endanger or diminish an SI or protected landscape or any national nature reserve but would Housing and local government show the same restraint? I suspect that this ML MHCOG plant to take over control of nature was an Angela Rayner brainwave. I'm sure she and the Department for the Natural England and DEFRA had too cosy a relationship and DEFRA may not be trusted to drive through development plan so housing had to take charge.

DEFRA and Natural England do not have a cosy relationship but they've got a very good working relationship, and each understands the roles and duties of the other. One of the changes we Was to invite a very senior DEFRA official to attend board meetings. Yet no say in our decision-making and no vote, but he heard our thinking and when we asked him, he could give Hastie on government thinking. That was and is invaluable. He was the director general of environment and now the income Permanent Secretary.

A quiet and assuming modest man but with a superb brain and intellect and of prime importance, he cares about the environment and biodiversity. They thought the housing would be in the driving seat in debating Natural England on the preparation of EDPs fills me with dread. Not just for the effects on farming and the countryside buffer biodiversity as well. I wonder if the NGOs had realised that housing will be the realised that housing will be the masters here. I'd love to hear from the RSPB, the wildlife trust, the National trust, wanton trust in others where they are comfortable with Natural England reporting to the housing department on the operation of EDPs.

Let's briefly look at the ministers making the decision. I regret that the new housing Secretary of State Steve Reed whom I rather like to DEFRA issued a statement last week called built, they be built. And said he would unleash applets of measures in this planning bill. That does not sound like there will be much care for the environment and biodiversity. I assume he's got President Trump Macca had to cope with that from slogan. I much preferred he would use Ed Miliband's drill baby drill.

But no matter how nice they may be, the other ministers in the Department pack, bringing her, Chester have no country or biodiversity experience. Now turning to DEFRA, the new sector of state and agricultural minister don't have any rural countryside or biodiversity experience no matter how nice and decent they may be. Emma Hardy is quite good and Mary Craig is very good and has a track record of shadow DEFRA and the environment audit committee, but there is one minister in DEFRA who really knows her stuff and has represented a large rural area and understands the countryside and biodiversity, and she is sitting opposite us on the government benches.

She is our own glass, the noble Baroness stop I hope that praise does not kill off any further career chances for her, but I know in this House agrees with what I said. We face the situation in this bill that the only civil servants and ministers who know what should be in an EDP if we have to go down that route in the government department. I know that the ministers brimful say DEFRA will have input and will work in partnership with the MHCOG, but everyone knows that justice departments have input into the Treasury on their budgets, the Treasury dictates everything.

The other golden brawling governors department with money rules the roost. The DEFRA budget last year was 4.6 billion. The M HCl the budget was 25 billion. Five times greater. Make no mistake about it, if this amendment does not succeed, then all the expertise of DEFRA and its ministers will be sidelined, the country will be ravished by domestic be sabotaged as build baby build is unleashed on the Department which simply does not understand. And I do hope that my Noble Friend will return to this vital matter at report stage.
21:41
21:41
21:43
21:45
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Portrait Baroness Hayman of Ullock, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Labour)
-
-
I will first tend to amendment 351.A and B table wine in my Noble Friend Baroness Young, which would seek to require legislations containing consequential amendments under the power of clause 89 to be subject to the super affirmative procedure. Whilst I wholly agree it's crucial that regulations receive the appropriate level of scrutiny, the super affirmative procedure is intended to provide for those statutory instruments considered to be particular important or complex. I'd like to assure Noble Lords that any amendments made under this power would be limited to either consequential or technical changes that are required to ensure the I trust that noble Lords would agree that the use of the procedure for such amendments is not likely to be an effective use of parliamentary government time I would therefore hope he withdrawal -- she agrees to withdraw her amendments.

Amendment 356 tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Coffey seeks to require the Secretary of State responsible for carrying out all relevant functions under this part be nominated within the bill as the DEFRA Secretary of State. Lord Lansley actually said in an earlier debate that it would be unusual to explicitly set out in legislation which Secretary of State being referred to. The reason being that this could risk confusion down the line if for example departments and portfolios change. I take the point she made.

In addition it will generally be up to the government of the day to agree which Secretary of State is best placed to use which powers. Of course in the case of the powers in question we recognise the role the Secretary of State for DEFRA needs to play in the nature restoration fund and to reassure noble Lords and as I clarified this morning, this would expect us to, the Secretary of State for DEFRA leading on the consideration and approving on EDPs as it establishes itself.

However don't want to put this specifically on the face of the bill partly because of the precedent it sets, but also because there may be certain circumstances where it's appropriate for another Secretary of State to carry out functions under this part, I can't give the noble Lord an example because it's not something we are expecting to be a frequent thing, it would be something that would have to be looked at specifically at the time if there were particular circumstances meant another Secretary of State would have the knowledge and expertise required in order to make the judgement and assessment that we needed.

Just in case that could happen we don't want to remove the possibility by specifying the environment secretary purely in isolation on the face of the bill. I hope noble Lords will agree to withdraw their amendments.
21:48
Baroness Young of Old Scone Portrait Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank the Minister for her assurances about consequential technical amendments being the only things that are envisaged by this provision. And that it would only be used, the super affirmative process with more important for complex changes. I think that's fine when the government is in the hands of reasonable people but increasingly we got to anticipate the future government might not be as reasonable at all. This provision as currently drafted would leave open a door for substantial changes to any primary legislation that could be remotely associated with this bill.

I'm not seeing reds on the beds or whatever it is but I do hope the Minister I consider that we need to start thinking about proofing some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of our legislation against lunacy. Amendment is withdrawn and 351B

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment is withdrawn and 351B not moved. Clause 90 stand part of the bill. As many are of that the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Amendment 352 "Contents" have it. Amendment 352 Baroness Coffey not moved. Question is that clause 91 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it.

Amendment 353 not moved. Amendment 354 Lord Roborough not Amendment 354 Lord Roborough not moved. Amendment 355 Viscount Trenchard not moved. Amendment 356 Trenchard not moved. Amendment 356 Baroness Coffey mood. Question is that clause 92 stand part of the that clause 92 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have "Not content". The "Contents" have it. The questions that clause 107 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content".

The of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Amendment 356 a Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
21:50
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. We are nearly at the finish, all I want to do is make a plea to my noble friend to consider the benefit of consolidated act in relation to planning, law. As I've discovered in my imperfect dip into planning law for this bill, it is very complex, there is a labyrinth of acts and the overlap, cross refer, they've been amended by layers of primary and secondary legislation and the framework has become very complex.

Thinking about what this bill is all about which I believe is about growth, thinking about people who have to operate it in the field I have every sympathy for them. As ministers we all acknowledge consolidated legislation is a good thing and then we all fail to bring any consolidated legislation. I'm well aware it is my second mea culpa of the week. However I do think if we really want to sort out our planning system and consolidated legislation would be a very good thing to do.

It doesn't really involve much parliamentary time. Of course it involves the department in work and Parliamentary Counsel but the Law Commission is usually very well able to help. To achieve internal consistency you actually need to have pre-consolidation amendments and that's what my amendment also allows for. I just hope, I think that my noble friend is who have really shown huge stamina in getting through Committee stage, they have responded very sympathetically to many of the constructive amendments put forward just hope they might be able to say they will consider this.

I beg to move.
21:52
21:53
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. I'm grateful to Lord Hunt of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for bringing forward M23 fighters six a for the consideration fighters six a for the consideration of your Lordships house today. This proposed new clause would allow for pre-consolidation amendments to be made to planning legislation in anticipation of four future consolidation, sorry it's late isn't it. Its purpose as I understand it is to probe the desirability and feasibility of consolidating the extensive and at times unwieldy body of planning law when the noble Lord is absolutely right to raise the matter.

It comes at a timely moment, we hear hot on the heels of the first Planning Bill that the government may now be contemplating a second. As we have said from this Dispatch Box in a number of occasions if the government had proceeded to commence either in full or even in part the schedules and clauses already contained within the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act we might well have avoided the need for yet another bill in the first place. That brings me to the specific questions for the Minister.

First May I ask the Baroness to confirm whether there is any truth in the strong rumours circulating that a new Planning Bill is indeed on its way? If so well such a bill aimed to consolidate the many changes that have been made right across the of planning law in recent years? Does the government accept that consolidation is both needed and desirable not least to provide clarity and certainty to practitioners, local authorities and communities alike? Finally can the Minister tell us whether the government has considered what such a consolidation process might look like and under what timescales it might be realistically delivered? I look forward to the Minister's reply.

reply.
21:55
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank Lord Hunt for amendment 356 a and for highlighting the merits of consolidating our planning legislation as someone who has been on the second of it for a number of years I can absolutely see his point. He is not the first to consider this and indeed the existing legislative framework provides the government with sufficient powers to consolidate the planning legislation at an appropriate time. Specifically as Baroness Scott said commerce section 132 of the levelling up act provides the Secretary of State with broad and flexible powers to make regulations that amend, repeal or otherwise modify a wide range of planning related statutes.

We have no immediate plans to consolidate planning legislation in England, we do keep this under review as we recognise that consolidating planning legislation could offer benefits. Since the enactment of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the legislative framework has undergone numerous amendments and consolidation may help streamline and simplify the system. Whether comprehensive consolidation does need to be weighed against RICS of uncertainty and disruption particularly at the time when the government is prioritising targeted planning reform to drive economic growth.

Any move towards consolidation would require substantial resources as well and so we would need to be confident that it has clear benefits. At this stage we believe targeted reform is the best way forward but we are alive to possibilities consolidation office and I hope my noble friend and other peers with an interest in planning will continue to work with us. I hope therefore the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amend. feel able to withdraw his amend.
21:57
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful, can I say to Baroness Coffey that first of all the person she refers to is not advising me in relation to this amendment, secondly she should not fear, I realise it is a Henry VIII provision, but all it would, allows you to do is to have pre- consolidation amendments. You couldn't use it to for instance create a special pathway for nuclear development in the way Baroness Bloomfield. I hope I can reassure on that. Clearly her department and she herself recognises people in the field this can be very complex indeed and everything we can do to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make it as straightforward as possible is to be desired. Having said that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is your pleasure that the eminences withdrawn? Amendment by eminences withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. The question is the clause 108 and 109 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Amendment 357 Lord Hunt not it. Amendment 357 Lord Hunt not moved. Amendment 358 Lord Hunt not moved.

Amendment 359 Baroness Taylor moved. Amendment 359 Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. Moved formally. The question is that clause 110 page question is that clause 110 page hundred and 51 -- 151 at the end insert the words in the marshalled insert the words in the marshalled List. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Amendment 356 -- 360 Lord Hunt it. Amendment 356 -- 360 Lord Hunt not moved.

Amendment 360 a Baroness Scott of Bybrook not moved. I moment 360B not moved. Amendment 361 Earl
21:59
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

360B not moved. Amendment 361 Earl of Caithness.moved. Amendment 361 a Baroness Neville-Rolfe. I'm honoured to speak in the last

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm honoured to speak in the last group and to my amendments 361 a and 361B, encouraging SME builders. Onto amendments 363 and 364 on mechanisms for encouraging the speedy rollout of planning reform. Amendment 275 a which I was unable to speak to this morning belongs in the family with the first two amendments and I'm grateful to Baroness Hayman for her comments in my absence. I am especially keen to improve the position of SMEs, it's a theme of many of my amendments, in many bills before this House.

My SME amendments follow a constructive discussion we had one of the two ministers helpful briefing sessions. My concern is the new EDP under part three will further damage the position of smaller developers and construction firms, I would like to see guidance to Natural England to head off that risk. I'm afraid neither requirement to consider the viability of development in making regulations or the nature restoration levied by time of development quite does the trick. We know from the trouble over nutrient neutrality held religiously Natural England follow rules designed for nature protection.

At the expense of everything else. We need balance in relation to how they treat small developers and the smaller sites ballot is need. The truth is that SMEs contribute so much to local communities and local employment and can do so much more construction. To support my case perhaps I could quote from the government's own small business plan backing your business published in July. It says, if we can support more of UK smaller firms to reach their full potential significant prize awaits.

Exhilarating SME growth by just one percentage point per year could deliver -- accelerating. £327 billion to the UK economy by 2030. The plan also talks about skills and apprenticeships, late payments and finance, and procurement from small funds that scenario where Lady Hayman of Ullock and I worked on constructs together during the Procurement Bill. However this is a problem, the section it in the planning and infrastructure on page 2 is disappointingly light. It quotes the chilling fact that SME housebuilders share of the market has declined from 39% in 1998 -- The talks briefly transport local plans, however there is no sense of strong or specific support as mean builders of the huge opportunity for it yet.

We highlighted this from a cross-party perspective in the built environment committee's report 2022 on demand for housing. And both the noble Baroness Thornhill and the Noble Lord best played a crucial part. It's a golden opportunity if we can bring about a culture change at Natural England and in local councils in attitudes to SMEs. Turning to amendment 363, I'm keen to understand how the department is getting on with the rollout of its quiver of national policy statements. They should help to end uncertainty so vital to confidence in the building and infrastructure sectors.

Parts are still missing. If any are to be delayed, can the Noble Lord the Minister, lady Tellers which ones and why? The uncertainty created by agreement second planning bill is also worrying. Finally the Minister will know that I'm supportive of the speeding up of development enabled by this bill and the one-off growth opportunity that represents. The Noble Lord Lord Hunt of Kings Heath who sits on the government's benches, and I are one, and that's partly because of bureaucracy of planning regulations that has delayed nuclear development which forward had about this evening.

However I fear some elements of the bill, such as the arts pass for national England will slow the line down and I'm very worried about the slowing down. Can the Minister head of the blockage that this amendment puts on commencement of the bill by listing the provisions that will speed things up alongside those provisions that will lead to further delay? And convince me and this House the net effect of the bill is very positive, as the government has claimed.

I beg to me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 110 page 159 line 25 page 159 line 6:25
22:04
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
page 159 line 25 page 159 line 6:25 J insert the word is printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

SME builders pay a very may play

**** Possible New Speaker ****

SME builders pay a very may play a very important role in the housebuilding sector of the country because they are able to build on because they are able to build on the small side, -- sites, often need the small side, -- sites, often need to be redeveloped or within villagers or small townships. And we villagers or small townships. And we need to encourage SME builders because they add variety to the because they add variety to the range of housebuilders that we rely on in the country.

It does seem to me that there has been too much of me that there has been too much of an emphasis throughout this infrastructure and planning bill on infrastructure and planning bill on the major House developers on the the major House developers on the basis I guess that they are the only source of the very large numbers of source of the very large numbers of housing units that the country housing units that the country requires. And I know throughout the bill also that the government has bill also that the government has attempted to support SMEs, though I am not sure that that has been sufficient.

So the noble Baroness Lady Neville-Rolfe has a really Lady Neville-Rolfe has a really important point to make about SMEs. As always in planning, it's the balance between encouraging SMEs at the expense may be of some of the regulations regarding environment. Hall relying too heavily on the major House builders who will be able to cope with the growing need for consideration of environmental responsibilities. So I look forward to what the government is going to say about this.

But encouraging SMEs builders is really important. builders is really important.
22:06
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
We are nearly there. First of all I would like to begin by thanking all Noble Lords from across the House for their contributions to this bill. Overlong and often intricate debates, sometimes stretching well into the night, your lordships have engaged with candour, with insight and with seriousness befitting the weight of these issues. The cross-party spirit of scrutiny and the delusions show now committee stage has I believe genuinely strengthened our deliberations. Turning out of the final group of amendments on commencement, amendment 361 tabled by the Noble Lord Lord Caithness is a sound and reasonable one.

I shall not attain the House with another extended rehearsal on why part three is in our view both damaging and unnecessary. But let me be clear, despite the government's determination to plough ahead with this part of the bill, the opposition to it will only crystallise further when we reach report. Part three needs to go. At the very least, there must be an independent oversight of its administration. Without that the concerns raised in this House will only deepen. Turning to the two thoughtful amendments tabled by my Noble Friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe, both are practical and considered proposals which go right to the heart of the issues we have debated throughout the committee.

Amendment 363 would ensure that the Secretary of State updates all national policy statements before they act make the act can be commenced. This is vital. Out of date national policy statements do not provide the clarity or the certainty required for developers, planners or communities. Meanwhile amendment 364 would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes an analysis how each section in this bill will affect the speed of the planning process and construction before any provisions are commenced. If the central purpose of this bill is, as ministers insist, to accelerate planning and speed of delivery, then it is only fair to ask how will it achieve that objective in practice? Will it, for example make any real progress towards a former Deputy Prime Minister's target of 1.5 million new homes, a promise which under this government looks ever more distant as housebuilding rates continue to decline? I wish to conclude by returning to the point that I made at the start of committee stage.

This bill does not go far enough. It makes adjustments to processes, to roles, to fees, and training. But it leaves untouched the fundamental framework of planning, the very framework that needs serious, bold reform if we are to unlock the scale of housebuilding that this country so urgently requires. We now hear rumours of a second planning bill to come. If that's true, then what you Lordship's House has been asked to consider is not reform. But merely a prelude. There is an opportunity with this bill.

They had the chance to set a clear vision for the planning system that delivers for communities, supports growth and tackle the housing crisis head-on. Instead they've brought forward a piecemeal piece of legislation, more about tinkering at the edges than grasping the real challenge. The government has chosen to use up its remaining political capital on par-3 than building more homes, and the noble Baroness the Minister will soon realise that she and her department have wasted their energy on this bill. Before I sit down, can I repeat my thanks to all the staff in the House? The doorkeeper is, the technical staff, Hansard, they have all had to work very hard at nights when we have sat late in this bill.

And I thank them very much for that.
22:10
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Before I respond to the amendment, I would like to thank all Noble Lords who have taken part in the committee debates and the meetings that we've held around the committee stage of this bill. We've spent apparently 60 hours in the chamber debating the bill and covered 650 amendments. It's been especially valuable in this bill were Noble Lords knowledge and experience have helped us to shape this important new approach to planning, growth and the environment.

I want to thank the frontbench spokespeople who have shown great stamina and fortitude. And that's been really greatly appreciated. And I'd also like to thank all the outside bodies who have contributed to our debates in the House. I would especially like to thank all the officials who have worked on the bill and the processes in the House of Lords mean that our officials often have to work at very short notice on putting together papers the frontbenchers, and also staff of the House who have worked often very long hours on the bill.

Can I also give my personal thanks to my fellow frontbench government spokespeople, Lord Khan, Lord Wilson, and Baroness Hayman who have supported me so ably on the frontbench during the committee stage of the bill. I'm extremely grateful to them for their support. So as we come to this last group, this final group of amendments, the commencement of the legislation, and amendments tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe, and I would like to thank her for her support and the agenda that this bill is aimed at tackling.

As we've made clear throughout the committee sessions, our planning and infrastructure bill will play a key role in unlocking economic growth, and we must progress to implementation as swiftly as possible in order to start reaping the benefits of these measures and getting shovels in the ground, including shovels operated by SME builders. And I think my Noble Friend Lord Livermore did quite yesterday the fact that this bill has already been assessed to be giving a great contribution to the economic growth we all want to see.

Turning first of all to amendment 363, while I commend the intent of bringing all national policy statements of today, we must resist this amendment because the clauses in the bill already addressed this through the introduction of a requirement for all NPSs to be reviewed and updated at least every five years. These clauses include transitional requirements, the most stringent of which require the NPSs which were designated more than five years before the date when the clauses came into force, and have not been amended to be brought up- to-date within two year period.

Delivering the commencement of the rest of the act my delaying until such time as all NPSs have been updated would be therefore unreasonable and have detrimental impact on the objectives of this bill, stalling delivery and growth in our country. Amendment 253 also seeks to have all remaining sections of the bill come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State made by regulations appoint. Commencement regulations in this amendment are to be subject to a negative resolution. The commencement of each section of the bill has been carefully considered with regard to the specific issue and relevant circumstances to determine whether that provision should come into force on the day the act is passed or a set period beginning with the day on which the act is passed or on such a day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.

This bespoke consideration should not be displaced by a blanket rule requiring commencement regulations, they don't believe there was any reasonable basis for requiring all commencement regulations to be subject to the Negative procedure rather than a generally standard procedure of commencement regulations, not being subject to any procedure. Moving to amendment 364 come this month and would require the second state to publish analysis regarding the impact of each section of the bill on the speed of the planning process before we can commence any of its provisions.

I appreciate the noble Lady's intention behind this bill my amendment and we aligned in that we won this belt have as big an impact as possible in unlocking growth and accelerating to filament across the country. However we fully published a full impact assessment on the bill, including analysis of how each measure will impact on the planning system. And this analysis showed as I mentioned earlier that the economy could be boosted by up to 7.5 billion over the next decade by this progrowth legislation. And we should not look to delay the importation of these clauses and the reaping of the bills benefits across the planning system.

We are confident that this bill will streamline and turbocharge planning processes, for example our analysis of the bills reform to the pre-application stage of the NSIP regime shows these changes can produce the typical time of projects spent in pre-application by up to 12 months produce. A dramatic acceleration of the current system and to the delivery of major exam infrastructure and demonstrates clearly how this bill is going to get Britain building again. But these reassurances have the noble Lady will withdraw her amendment.

Moving to amendments 361AB regarding interactions between the NRF and SMEs, first of all I thank the Noble Baroness for raising the support make this important matter and provide the opportunity to set out how we are going to work with SME builders. Let me start by rotatory the NRF doesn't create new environment due to some developers but instead provides a streamlined alternative approach for them to One developer chooses to use and EDP they will have clarity that the relevant legal environmental obligation is discharged through the payment of the levy.

This de-risked development as once payment is Ray -- made the Responsibility for getting the measures shift to Natural England and there is transparency baked into the model as EDP's inclusion in charging schedules setting out the must of the levy. That will allow developers to plan for a known cost rather than having to wait for the outcome of individual assessments to know the cost of meeting the relevant obligation. From the start of this process the government has been clear that the aggregate cost you developers should be no greater than the status quo, that is why clause 67 requires the Secretary of State in making levy regulations to ensure that conservation measures can be funded in a way that doesn't make development economically unviable.

We do also have a package of support for SME builders that goes alongside this bill with the aim of making it easier for them to increase the considerable contribution they were ready make the building in this country. There is also an opportunity in designing the levy to tailor the levy rate to different types and scale of development which will further ensure the NRF is used in a targeted way, to support development while ensuring we better secure outcomes for the environment. I hope with this explanation assurance that SMEs have been at the forefront of the government's mind when designing the NRF that the noble Baronesses content to withdraw her amendment was as we come to the end of deliberations on the bill I do once again thank all noble Lords who have taken part and I look forward to being able to build baby build.
22:18
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
Thank those who have spoken from the Front Benchers and I thank the Minister for some of her reassurance. I will look carefully at Hansard, I don't think we are quite there are Natural England because you've got the choice of the existing system which has its problems, or the new system that also has problems potentially, so if we can make sure that the SMEs actually have an easier time I think that would be a great plus. In the passage of this bill.

In terms of commencement obviously my amendments were exploratory and I beg leave to withdraw. Them all. But do look withdraw. Them all. But do look forward to better information on the NPS is, the schedules of when they're coming forward and so on as part of dissemination on this bill, I think people need to understand the whole picture as the noble Lady has acknowledged on a number of occasions. I beg leave to withdraw my amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Men and 361 a is your pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 361B not moved 362 Lord Lansley not moved. Amendment 363 Baroness Neville-Rolfe not moved. Amendment 364 Baroness Neville-Rolfe Amendment 364 Baroness Neville-Rolfe not moved. The question is that clause 110 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. The question is that clause 111 stand part of the bill.

As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. That this be the title of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. That concludes the committee's proceedings in the the committee's proceedings in the House will now resume -- and the House will now resume -- and the The Committee of the whole The Committee of the whole House The Committee of the whole House to which the panning and infrastructure Bill was committed has gone through the same and directed me to report it to your Lordships with amendments.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. About to move that the House do now adjourn.
22:27
None Portrait Legislation: Planning and Infrastructure Bill – committee stage (day 8) - part one
-

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 17 House of Lords - 17 September House of Lords - 17 September 2025.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page