Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

Amendment 235 withdrawn.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I gently remind noble Lords that, as stated in the Companion:

“Members … pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and”


should not

“respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving”,

or pressing,

“ the amendment”.

Speeches appear to be getting longer at this point. I respectfully urge noble Lords to be brief so that we can continue to make progress and get to the votes.

Amendment 236 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the development corporation parts of the Bill are the best parts of it, and my intention is to make the best of that and to support it. I came here with an open mind, not really knowing whether I was going to press the amendment but. in her winding. the Minister said two things which I am uncomfortable with, so in due course I wish to test the opinion of the House. The first was that there is an apartheid in this country in so far as development corporations are concerned.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The noble Lord made his speech earlier. We do not need to rehearse what has been said during the debate—I spoke on this issue at the beginning of this particular debate. Perhaps he can let us know whether he will move this to a vote.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I am getting there; I just wanted to give the two reasons. The first was—

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for the debate and the noble Baroness for moving this amendment. Obviously, trees and the natural environment are very important to all of us, especially the Government. Trees offer profound environmental and societal benefits; they are instrumental in our efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, they support human well-being, and they provide important habitats for wildlife. We have considered the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, which seeks to establish a new category of “heritage trees”—those of exceptional historic, landscape, cultural or ecological significance—and give them additional statutory protection.

As mentioned in previous debates, the tree preservation order system remains a vital mechanism for safeguarding trees and woodlands in England. Local authorities are already expected to consider the historic, cultural and ecological value of trees when making such orders. Local planning authorities are required to notify relevant parties when an order is made, and they are empowered to encourage good tree management, particularly in the context of making planning decisions. Enforcement powers are available to local officers and it is a criminal offence to cut down, uproot, wilfully damage or top or lop so as to destroy a protected tree without written consent from the authority.

We also recognise the value of trees in planning policy as a core component of natural capital. It is our position that trees should be incorporated into new developments wherever possible, and that existing trees should be retained. Furthermore, development that would result in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland, or ancient or veteran trees, should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.

Given these existing provisions, the amendment does not, in our view, offer sufficient additional protection to justify its implementation. The creation of a new category of heritage trees risks introducing confusion and placing an additional burden on both Natural England and local authorities, without delivering commensurate benefits.

In light of these considerations, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the response. I will not be testing the opinion of the House, because I have a sense of clarity as to what the outcome would be right now. However, I do feel that there is a need to push for greater rigour and content within a Bill of this nature, and we will look to see whether there is further work that we can do to perhaps get it into a nature Bill in the future. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I shall not press this amendment to a vote—we have a lot of business to do—but I am not convinced that the noble Baroness and, inter alia, Natural England as the advisers, have really understood the importance of getting this contractualised, of the enforceability and of considering what might happen not just this year or next but in 80 years and in the intervening period, given the changes of ownership, succession, bankruptcy, sale—who knows? Section 106 may not be perfect, and I accept the noble Baroness’s point about the unilateral undertaking —we are on Report and not at Third Reading. However, I think we should come back to this at Third Reading rather than just leaving it to Natural England.

I have been involved in this space for three and a half years as a person with significant interest in Norfolk Environmental Credits Ltd, the company established by all the planning authorities in Norfolk. We have had to dig deep, take the best advice and try to game all the scenarios to ensure that, ultimately, the promises made by those delivering these conservation measures can and will be delivered for the entirety of the period. The Bill is deficient because it does not seek and frame that enforceability.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

The noble Lord said at the beginning that he would not be pressing the amendment to a vote, so that should be sufficient, without needing to rehearse the debate yet again.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord and shall wind up. The noble Baroness and I have a meeting next week, when I hope that we can develop this point further to see whether the Government may somehow address these concerns at Third Reading. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I have spoken about the lifetime of the EDP and the enforceability of measures, but now we get to the price to be charged. I will amplify some of the points in Amendment 141. There are very large sums of money and long periods to be considered here. I do not really care whether MHCLG or Defra has drafted all this stuff as none of them really understands how to discount a cash flow. That is clear. If you are someone who has bought a house from the developer on the basis that the nutrient neutrality obligation has been washed away, hidden in the price of your new home is the market rate for mitigating a new dwelling-house, which in Norfolk is somewhere between £5,000 and £15,000. That is quite a sum.

In Committee, noble Lords, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, multiplied present prices paid by the number of mitigations in a scheme, got to multi-million pound sums and wondered what would happen to the profit. Well, if only. The profit really depends on the annualised cost of providing the measures, not in one year but over 80 years discounted back to the present value, and none of this understanding is in the Bill.

I know as part of Norfolk Environmental Credits, which I founded on behalf of the local councils, that notwithstanding that we have sold more than £10 million- worth of mitigations, the balance sheet value is zero because of the way that international accounting rules require us to discount the revenues against the costs over the whole period for 80 years. There is no corporation tax to be paid or profit to be booked, only risks and liabilities to be hedged, keeping our fingers crossed that inflation and interest are kept on top of until the last few years, possibly as far away as 75 years’ time, when we will all be dead and the money nearly exhausted unless, of course, the provider has not got his sums right, in which case he would have gone bust years previously. None of this is contemplated by the Bill.

We discussed this in Committee, but there is no more detail here on Report. I think it would be sensible for the Bill to contemplate some benchmark accounting standards to value the upfront cash contributions against the tail liabilities on a consistent basis. The reason is that if we do that and get a level playing field, we will get private operators innovating and competing on the same basis to drive costs down, while still maintaining the obligations. The Bill is silent on all this and, as a result, we will never get the leading private markets in nature mitigation going, which will be a missed economic opportunity for our nation.

What consideration have the Government given to providing a consistency of accounting approach, coupled with the enforceability I spoke of on the previous group? The Bill is long on aspiration but conspicuously silent on the legal, contractual, commercial ways of achieving these objectives. Without commercial contractability, we are never going to get delivery. It is bound to fail unless these things are belatedly considered at Third Reading, but it is very late in the day.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which relate to the regulation-making powers governing the nature restoration levy. It is worth highlighting that the Bill provides the framework, but the detail of how the levy will operate will be brought forward through regulations laid under the affirmative procedure, giving both Houses of Parliament an opportunity to debate them.

Amendments 141 and 175 would preclude Natural England including the cost of purchasing land in the nature restoration levy and prevent Natural England spending levy income on land acquired by compulsory purchase. The nature restoration fund has been designed to work on a cost recovery basis. Given the potential for EDPs to address a wide range of different matters, there may be circumstances where the acquisition of land under CPO or by negotiation is required to deliver the most appropriate and cost-effective conservation measures. Ensuring that these costs are able to be covered by the levy will support Natural England to deliver against the overall improvement test for an EDP. While I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns around the use of compulsory purchase, allowing for these powers is crucial to ensure that there is certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, land can be acquired to deliver conservation measures and these costs are recoverable. Consultation on each EDP will provide the opportunity to scrutinise the measures to be covered by the levy and, as an additional safeguard, compulsory purchase powers can be used only with the approval of the Secretary of State. With this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.

Limiting the ability of Natural England to reserve money for future expenditure as proposed by Amendment 176 would constrain Natural England’s ability to plan for the most efficient conservation measures and prepare for unforeseen circumstances, including deploying any necessary back-up measures. This amendment would also undermine the ability of EDPs to cover the costs of ongoing maintenance and upkeep of conservation measures.

Amendment 177 seeks to ensure that regulations will include provisions about the return of any money that is no longer needed for delivering an EDP to the parties that appeared in that EDP. As mentioned in Committee, the scope of the regulation-making powers in Clause 71 is already sufficient to allow for the appropriate management of any unspent funds, as well as allowing for any necessary refund procedures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Before the Minister sits down, can I ask him in plain English to clarify a couple of questions? First, am I right to understand that unspent levy money paid by a developer will not be returned to them but will just be kept by Natural England to spend as it sees fit? Secondly, could there be a situation where a developer paid the levy and then was compulsorily purchased and his or her own money was then used to buy the land off them under compulsory purchase? That seems somewhat inequitable to me.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I will write to the noble Lord on those two issues, if that is possible.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot say that I heard satisfactory answers to many of the amendments in this group. I certainly do not feel satisfied that there will be a way for a developer to make a partial contribution to the NRF and to do what he can on his own site. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her Amendment 130, which would basically resolve this problem, as it would many others in this part of the Bill.

The point from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, about the charging schedules was extremely well made. I think the House is well aware that this is a planning Bill and this section of it relates to Defra. It is encouraging that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, informed the House the other day that this part of the Bill would be governed by the Secretary of State for Defra, which gives some optimism that the charging schedule might relate to nature when it is laid. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

The private sector has a role and could work in tandem with Natural England, but warm words mean nothing unless they are committed to law. The Bill needs to explicitly state that the private sector has a role to play and, importantly, that Natural England has a statutory duty to assist competition in this space, even if it is against its own narrow self-interest. Amendment 182A talks about provision of guidance and, even at this late stage, I invite the Minister to explain the nature of the guidance that might be implemented for the encouragement of private industry, with the regulatory guard-rails, and the need to encourage Natural England to help rather than hinder private delivery in this space.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first address the amendments in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, which seek to amplify the role of farmers in providing nature services in respect of Part 3 of the Bill, as well as probe the consultation requirements for EDPs for specific groups, including farmers, landowners and fishing businesses.

I begin by reiterating that Natural England will, of course, work with local landowners, private providers and farmers in the delivery of conservation measures under EDPs. The Bill has therefore been drafted to enable delegation and partnership working with third parties. This may apply both to the development of EDPs, including ecological surveys and impact assessment, and to the undertaking and monitoring of conservation measures. EDPs represent an opportunity for growth in nature services markets and revenue diversification for farming and land management businesses.

As committed to in Committee, the Government will publish guidance for Natural England regarding the role of the private sector in EDPs. This will be clear that open and competitive procurement of goods and services is typically the best way to secure value for money and innovation. We will expect Natural England to preferentially adopt competition procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, recognising that in some instances direct delivery will be necessary. While I applaud the noble Lord for acting as a champion for the interests of farmers, I hope this explanation provides sufficient assurance that there is a clear role for farmers and landowners in making the NRF a success.

Regarding the noble Lord’s amendments relating to consultation requirements with specific groups, as he will be aware, every EDP will be subject to statutory public consultation to ensure that everyone with an interest in an EDP has the opportunity to comment. These responses will be shared with the Secretary of State when they are considering whether to make an EDP. This consultation can run for no fewer than 28 days and can be extended through regulation. We understand that different sectors will have specific interests in EDPs, depending on their content, as each EDP will vary based on location and the issues it addresses.

Of course, we recognise that farmers and the fishing industry are particularly important sectors, and their views should be heard. However, given the large number of farming and fishing businesses that we have, it would not be practical, or helpful, to legally require Natural England to contact each one directly and personally during the formal public consultation. Nor can Natural England require any private business to respond to a consultation. We believe the Bill strikes the right balance—ensuring public consultation and engagement with the responses from landowners and businesses forming part of the Secretary of State’s consideration of each EDP. With this explanation, I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.

I turn finally to Amendment 182A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, which seeks to introduce a requirement for Natural England to pay another person to deliver conservation measures and the related monitoring measures that are required within an EDP. As I have set out previously, we are clear that Natural England will work with third parties and private providers when delivering conservation measures and associated activities under the NRF such as monitoring. As I have set out, we agree with the noble Lord’s intention to ensure that private markets and other expert organisations can support the roll out of the nature restoration fund through delivering conservation measures. However, while we expect Natural England to adopt competitive procurement approaches for EDPs wherever possible, there may be some instances where direct delivery will be necessary and appropriate. We would not wish for the legislation to remove this option where it would deliver better value for money, better environmental outcomes or both. With this explanation, I hope the noble lord will not move his amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for sticking to his brief, but I think there was not enough there to satisfy certainly these Benches—enabling private sector engagement, instead of requiring it, and not being willing to have it written on the face of the Bill are not reassuring. Direct delivery in certain unspecified circumstances does not seem to us to be a guarantee of private sector engagement in these EDPs. The noble Lord helpfully mentioned the guidance that would be delivered. We discussed this in Committee and the noble Baroness the Minister, who is in her place, indicated that she would provide that draft guidance when it was available. I very much look forward to that.

While I am very happy to withdraw my amendment for now, I should make it very clear that, if the noble Lord, Lord Curry, does decide to divide on this, he will have the support of our Benches.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, will join me in thanking all noble Lords who participated in the debate. I particularly thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Maclean, and the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Jackson, for their support for my amendment.

I want to make it clear to the House that I have spent many hours in the Public Bill Office discussing various iterations of this amendment to ensure that it is absolutely in scope for this legislation. I absolutely assure the House that this amendment replicates exactly the procedures already in legislation in relation to alcohol licensing. I assure all noble Lords that local authorities around the country support passing this amendment as quickly as possible, and that Ministers and the Prime Minister have categorically said—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Is the noble Lord going to push his amendment to a vote or withdraw it? We are at that stage now.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

We are at that stage, but I want the House to be aware that there is support from all quarters to ensure that this is passed. The Minister has said that she does not accept my offer of further discussions to see whether we can find a way forward before Third Reading. She has not accepted the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I am disappointed that the Front Bench of the Conservative Party does not appear to be listening to what Conservative Back-Benchers are saying. Since there is no opportunity to bring this back at another time, the time for decision is now. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, given that time is short, I will contain our remarks to the standout amendment in this group, Amendment 130, moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. It is a means to address a fundamental question we all have on the Bill: how do we help the Government deliver the win-win for nature and the economy by giving developers certainty about this new process, given that we are moving away from an established process which has served for many years, while at the same time ensuring that the environmental protections we want are locked in? The approach taken by the noble Baroness is to curtail the scope of this new process by saying that an EDP can happen only where it has been shown that those approaches will work, benefiting conservation at the strategic landscape scale.

I have to say that we, as Liberal Democrats, thought long and hard about supporting this amendment. It is our contention that we should always follow the science, so if there were scientific evidence that there could be conservation benefits for a species, for example, it would normally be our position to support that. Therefore, this approach to curtail it by area rather than evidence is not one that we would normally support. But as noble Lords will see, after thinking long and hard, we put our Front-Bench name to this amendment. The reason is that we are not convinced at this point in the debate that there are sufficient safeguards about how that scientific evidence will be considered by Natural England to ensure that the environmental safeguards that we all want will be in place. Therefore, we on these Benches will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say in response to this amendment but, if the noble Baroness is minded to move to a vote on it, at this point in time, we would support her.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, the usual channels have agreed that we should pause now to allow for a short break before Oral Questions at 3 pm. Although unusual, I therefore beg to move that the debate on this amendment be adjourned, and we will return to it later this afternoon.

Debate on Amendment 122 adjourned.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Scottish legislative consent granted, Welsh legislative consent sought. Relevant documents: 28th and 35th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we start the first group, I remind the House, as I did last week, of important guidance on Report, which will, I hope, help proceedings run smoothly.

First, I note paragraph 4.23 of the Companion, which states:

“Debate must be relevant to the Question before the House”.


While debates on the Bill have been important and no doubt interesting, a number of earlier contributions strayed into wider topics not directly relevant to the amendments in the group being debated. I urge all colleagues to follow this guidance so that we can maintain effective scrutiny, while allowing us to make good progress in good time.

Secondly, I remind noble Lords of the Companion guidance in paragraph 8.82:

“Members … pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving”


or pressing an amendment. Speeches appear to be getting longer, and if noble Lords were to follow this guidance closely, we would be able to get on in a more timely manner.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can I clarify that 67 government amendments, I think, came in very late to the Bill? They have therefore not had a Committee stage. I hope he and the Minister will accept that some of those will need Committee, as well as Report, discussions.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

It is Report and all I would say is that, as long as the debate is relevant, we have no problem with that.

Amendment 84

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this amendment was debated last week, but I would like to remind the House what it was about. Basically, it is about not losing—[Interruption.] Am I not allowed to say that? The Whip is shaking his head at me. I will rattle on until he stands up and shouts. In essence, this is about the recovery of storm-water, surface water and flood-water that otherwise rushes into our systems and is then totally gone. What we could do is catch that water and use it—instead of using extremely expensive tap-water—to wash cars, fill up paddling pools and so on.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I say to the noble Baroness that we debated this amendment last week. The Front Bench does not have the right of reply at this stage. We ask her whether she is pushing the amendment to a vote or withdrawing.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord the Whip. I would like to test the opinion of the House on this incredibly important issue.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall just make a quick statement before we continue. Before the first group is debated, I remind the House of some important guidance on Report stage, which will, I hope, help proceedings run smoothly. First, I highlight paragraph 4.23 of the Companion, which states:

“Debate must be relevant to the Question before the House”.


Debates on the Bill have been important and no doubt interesting, but a number of contributions on the first day strayed into wider topics not directly relevant to the amendments in the group being debated. I urge all colleagues to follow this guidance so that we can maintain effective scrutiny while allowing us to make good progress in good time. Secondly, I remind noble Lords of paragraph 8.82 of the Companion guidance that Members

“pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving the amendment”.

Speeches appear to be getting longer. If noble Lords follow this guidance closely, we will be able to get to votes in a more timely manner.

Clause 33: Compulsory acquisition powers to include taking of temporary possession

Amendment 47

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, contrary to my noble friend, I support Amendment 62—in part. The “in part” is because I do not want climate change to freeze out biodiversity, which is ultimately far more important for local authorities, which have specific biodiversity duties but no legal climate change responsibilities. The other reason that it is in part is that, while some of the training is meritorious, it need not be mandatory.

I was privileged to serve on the board of Natural England for almost seven years and on the extraordinary Joint Nature Conservation Committee—the official adviser to the four Governments of the United Kingdom on all matters of biodiversity, both in the UK and internationally. All the top experts in both organisations said that, if we could go back to the drawing board, there would not be two UN conventions—one on climate change and one on biodiversity—but just one. Our chairman, Tony Juniper, consistently said that they were two sides of the same coin, and I entirely agree with him, even if agreeing with Tony may antagonise some of my noble friends around me. The point is that, if we saved our peat bogs, planted enough of the right trees in the right place and stopped ripping the ocean floor apart, we would save so much carbon that we would not need to put our industries out of business, inflict heat pumps on households and penalise anything that produces carbon.

The consequences of those two conventions are that all NGOs and Governments have focused heavily on climate change and that biodiversity gets a poor look-in, and that is a tragedy. With a tremendous amount of political will and with horrendous expenditure that will impact every person, it is possible to reverse climate change eventually. However, we are losing species in the world at a phenomenal rate and, when a species is gone, it is lost for ever. Forget these gimmicks of restoring mammoths, since most of the species being lost are the unsexy flora and fauna that may be vital to future human existence.

I come to the point of council training. The UK has lost dozens of species; even hedgehogs are critically endangered. Also endangered are water voles, turtle doves and farmland birds. Local authorities need to be aware of that, and training for councillors on biodiversity is quite important, in my opinion.

I cannot find any legal duty on councillors to take climate change into account when making decisions. I researched this in case my memory was failing, and the only law on climate change is the Climate Change Act 2008, which was amended in 2019 to add the net-zero requirement. All the requirements of the Act relate to action by central government not local authorities.

I understand that local councillors need to be trained in the legal matters to be taken into consideration when determining a planning application—nothing more, nothing less. My concern is that more than 300 councils have declared a so-called climate emergency and 85% of them have adopted climate action plans, which are all inconsistent with each other. Many of these plans are showboating; some are meritorious, such as Wirral Council’s tree-planting policy, but it is not a legal requirement. Councillors should receive training in strictly only those matters that are legal requirements to be taken into account in planning applications, not in things like Waltham Forest’s policy to divest its pension fund from fossil fuel companies.

We have a completely different scenario with biodiversity, since we have lots of legislation on biodiversity that needs to be taken into account in deciding planning applications. I will not go into it all, but the key elements for councillors are contained in my noble friend Lord Gove’s marvellous Environment Act 2021. It is a watershed Act.

The sections that I will briefly mention now will deliver nature recovery for the first time, provided that the Government do not cut the funding. The key item is local nature recovery strategies, which councils, NGOs, Defra and Natural England consider to be the main vehicle to bring about nature recovery. All 48 designated areas have now completed their LNRS plans, I think, but only five have been published so far. I believe that the rest are due to be finished by the end of this year. The success of the strategies will depend on farmers and landowners doing their bit through ELMS, and it is a tragedy that the Government are cutting ELMS funding.

I suggest that training for local councillors needs to focus on the 2021 Act. The main sections are as follows: Sections 98 to 101 on biodiversity net gain; Sections 102 and 103 on the general duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity; Sections 104 to 108 on local nature recovery strategies; Section 109 on species conservation strategies; Section 110 on protected site strategies; Section 111 on wildlife conservation licences; Sections 112 and 113 on habitats regulations amendments, which might possibly be for councillors; and Sections 117 to 139 on conservation covenants, which they might come across. There may be other things, but I suggest to the House that these key issues are what local councillors should be informed of and trained on.

I am intrigued by proposed new subsection (b) in the noble Baroness’s amendment, whereby councillors would be trained in “ecological surveying”. The only training that they need is to be able to read and understand the technical ecological reports they might receive, not to do the surveying.

I turn to the mycological bit. As far as mushrooms are concerned, I initially assumed that this was one of those in-jokes we used to have in government that councillors and Ministers were treated like mushrooms by their civil servants—that is, kept in the dark and fed a lot of bull stuff. Of course, I can understand the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, being interested in mushrooms. If she invites me to dinner, I hope she will not serve me mushrooms, being an Australian.

Seriously, however, I am concerned about the huge increase in the last 12 months of trendy Tik-Tokers deciding that foraging is the latest fad and stripping woodlands of far too many mushrooms. That has happened in just the last 12 months. Many years ago, when I was food Minister, I became friends with the wonderful chef, Antonio Carluccio, and had various meetings with him. He was a mushroom afficionado. After a four-course lunch consisting of a mushroom starter, a mushroom amuse-bouche, a mushroom main course and a delicious mushroom pudding, he presented me with an official Italian mushroom picker’s knife. Italy takes fungi seriously. It had a little curved blade; a centimetre scale, so that no ceps were cut under 4 centimetres and others at no less than 2 centimetres; and a little brush at the end to clean off the dirt. Antonio drummed it into me that mushrooms should never be washed—

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Can I ask the noble Lord to stick to the amendment? Italian mushrooms might be a very important issue, but as far as this amendment is concerned, it is very discursive.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I take the Whip’s comment with a slight pinch of salt—albeit not on my mushrooms. The amendment refers to mushrooms, and I am citing an example of mushrooms because it is relevant to the debate. If we were working normal hours, my remarks would probably be shorter, in view of the timescale. Since the Government have deliberately added an extra three hours to this debate, my remarks, which are still only seven minutes’ long, are quite relevant and apposite.

I conclude by saying that there is some merit in what the noble Baroness has suggested in these amendments, particularly on the biodiversity training, but we should leave aside the rest of it.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

Amendments 75 to 83 not moved.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, the Question should be that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, I was just too keen, after sitting on the Bench since 11 o’clock this morning.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing forward Amendment 21. Ensuring that planning consent adequately considers environmental protections is vital and must not be overlooked. However, we are clear, and indeed passionate in our conviction, that the implementation of environmental delivery plans in their current form is deeply problematic. As drafted, the policy risks riding roughshod over our current environmental regime. We must also not forget the interests of farmers and land managers, who are, after all, the principal stewards of our natural environment. My noble friend Lord Roborough will speak in more detail on this topic and develop our position further from Committee in the coming days. My noble friend Lady Coffey is right to highlight how a local environmental delivery plan will interact with a nationally significant infrastructure project. The Government must be clear on how this will work in practice and what they intend to consider when reviewing the impact of these projects.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to ensure that any applicable environmental delivery plan, or EDP, is taken into account by the Secretary of State when making a decision whether to grant permission to a nationally significant infrastructure project.

I can assure noble Lords that the way in which EDPs will work in practice means that this amendment is not necessary. Meeting the relevant environmental obligations with an EDP, just as when satisfying them under the current system, is a separate part of the process to the granting of permission. When a promoter commits to pay the levy in relation to an EDP, the making of that commitment discharges the relevant environmental obligation.

I emphasise again that it will, aside from in exceptional circumstances, be a voluntary decision for the promoter of a nationally significant infrastructure project to decide whether they pay the levy to rely on the EDP. This means that while the Secretary of State will need to consider a wide variety of matters, for the purposes of these decisions, the EDP will not be a consideration other than as a way of reflecting that the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature will have been addressed. It does not need to be considered beyond that in the decision to grant permission. This notwithstanding, the Secretary of State may already have regard to any matters which they think are both important and relevant to their decision.

I therefore hope, with this explanation, that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I was clearly hoping for a little bit more than that from the Government—but I am also conscious that we need to get into the real nuts and bolts of the EDP in practice, which we will consider later. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, as we said in Committee, Amendment 22, from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is a clear and well-intentioned proposal that raises important questions about how individuals can share their concerns relating to NSIPs. However, as we noted previously, establishing independent bodies through amendments is not straightforward. The former Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, addressed that point, and the Government have set out their enthusiasm to work with organisations that support whistleblowers. We will hold the Government to account on that assurance and continue to work with your Lordships’ House to ensure that whistleblowers are protected.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, proposes that the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority—NISTA—be given a new responsibility to receive, assess, investigate where appropriate and oversee whistleblowing disclosures related to nationally significant infrastructure projects. The amendment seeks to ensure appropriate protection for whistleblowers and co-ordination with relevant regulators and planning authorities.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue and have listened carefully to her remarks. While I recognise the intention behind the amendment, I must say again that I do not share the view that there is evidence of whistleblowing being a current, widespread concern within the NSIP regime. As she will know, there is already a well-established framework of prescribed persons and bodies to whom whistleblowers may turn, independent of their employer, as provided for under the Employment Rights Act 1996. They include organisations covering areas such as environmental protection, health and safety, transport, utilities and local government, which are of direct relevance to NSIPs.

Adding NISTA to this list would duplicate existing functions already carried out by regulators, such as the Environment Agency, which have the appropriate expertise and statutory powers. Given this existing framework, we believe that adding another body to the list would create a duplication of roles and, in any event, would not require primary legislation to achieve, as new persons or bodies can already be prescribed through Section 43F of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In the light of this, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am saddened by the Government’s response. The next time we have a major project and there is a major scandal, they will have to take ownership of it. They looked at the framework that delivered us the problems on HS2. The names of the whistleblowers are now public: Doug Thornton and others reported that financials had been distorted, misrepresented and covered up, which delayed the making of a series of appropriate decisions on HS2. In the end, they were fundamental in requiring the truncation of what had been a much larger scheme. Crossrail is a similar example. Until about eight weeks before it was due to open, nobody in political decision-making knew that the project had fallen into deep trouble. It ended up being delayed by four years and was £4 billion over budget. This is repeated again and again. We have had similar problems with Hinkley Point and many other projects. That is what the current framework, which the Minister defends, actually delivers.

If the nettle is not grasped, we will see the same experiences again. Even if it is in only 10% of the projects that are anticipated for the future and that will be relevant to the growth agenda, the consequences will be significant. The existing framework, no matter what it says on paper, has demonstrated that it is unfit. Look at the Post Office scandal, the contaminated blood scandal, the issues in the NHS, the PPI scandal and the series of financial scandals—the framework does not work.

I ask the Minister to take the issue away, speak with some of his colleagues and see what can be done to make sure that, at least within the context of infrastructure, there is an effective channel that works. It must provide protection for whistleblowers in a real way, not just on paper, and lead to the necessary investigations. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this is a significant proposed new clause, which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, spoke to in Committee, where he made broader remarks on the functionality of our planning system, which he has repeated today. I recall the comments about the length of time it was taking to get a bypass round Stonehenge, and my comment that it will take longer to build that bypass than Stone Age man took to build Stonehenge.

We agree with the issue that the noble Viscount is seeking to address: that the planning system does not work all the time for these large national infrastructure projects. They take too long, the costs go up and deliverability goes down. So I have immense respect for those who have taken the time to draft this new clause reflecting some of the comments made in Committee—I really appreciate the time that that has taken. The noble Viscount proposes that each order determining an application to be a critical national priority must be presented to Parliament as a full public Bill. Paragraph 3 of the proposed new schedule then sets out a petitioning process, a counter-petitioning process and a reporting process. The remaining parts of this lengthy amendment provide a highly detailed description of how such a Bill would progress through a Joint Committee and then complete its passage.

However, we do not consider that presenting a Bill to Parliament with all the associated procedures would be a proportionate proposal. We are somewhat sympathetic to confirmatory Acts in areas such as nuclear, but this is a prescriptive amendment and therefore one that we cannot support, even if we understand the issue.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount for Amendment 23, which builds on a previous amendment tabled in Committee. It proposes a process for projects designated by the Secretary of State as “critical national priority”, where development consent orders would come into force only once approved through an Act of Parliament. This amendment seeks to bypass judicial review and insulate these projects from challenge and thereby speed up the building of infrastructure.

Although the provision does not directly alter the judicial review process itself, it uses parliamentary process to significantly reduce the public’s ability to challenge government decisions on these types of critical projects. This amendment proposes a mechanism for the Secretary of State to designate certain classes of development as “critical national priority”, based on identification in a relevant national policy statement.

It is important to remind the House that this status already exists and is actively applied—for example, to renewable and low-carbon energy projects through the energy NPS, to strengthen the need case for such infrastructure. However, this amendment seeks to go much further. I cannot support it for a number of key reasons. First, the proposed ouster in new Section 118(1A) would shield decisions from judicial review even where they were unlawful. For this reason, it is an approach which the courts have historically resisted. Given that this would be applied to some of the biggest and most controversial schemes, it is likely that challenges would be lodged in respect of the confirmed DCO, thereby undermining the time savings sought in the first place.

Secondly, the amendment would result in a constitutional confrontation between Parliament and the courts. This may result in questioning of well understood constitutional conventions, inviting further legal uncertainty.

Finally, there are serious practical impediments to the amendment. It would introduce a new, truncated parliamentary procedure for applicants to undertake after having completed the DCO process. It risks creating confusion and slowing the delivery of our most important projects by layering parliamentary procedures on top of an already rigorous regime. That adds more work and uncertainty for applicants—particularly detrimental for our largest projects—at a time when clarity and efficiency are essential. We recognise that the amendment is driven by valid concerns that lengthy legal challenges delay projects and add costs. However, the right approach to tackling this problem is by still enabling legal challenges but supporting the courts to handle them efficiently.

Further to our commitment to implement the Banner review and limit the ability for meritless cases to return to the courts, the Government recently decided to go further. On 15 October, they announced their intention to work with the judiciary to implement further procedural changes to ensure that NSIP cases are dealt with more quickly and consistently. The changes include introducing clear target timescales for NSIP cases in the High Court, aiming for a substantive hearing within four months of the application. We are also making it clear that NSIP cases in the Court of Appeal should be handled by judges with appropriate planning experience.

Together with the recent reforms, these further procedural changes will help make the judicial review process for major projects quicker, clearer and more predictable. I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this amendment and for the thoughtful debate that it has prompted.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

I am somewhat disappointed by that response, because we face a crisis. There is nothing in the Bill or forthcoming that will address the crisis adequately. However, I must defer to the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to ensure that small-scale renewable energy products are prioritised by the independent system operator and planner. As the noble Baroness knows, we on these Benches are very concerned about energy prices and want to see Ministers taking a pragmatic approach to delivering the energy infrastructure that we need.

I know that there is a particular interest in renewables, but we need to take a whole-system approach, tackling policy costs as well as the marginal costs of electricity. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the current support for renewables at a smaller scale, and it would be helpful for the House to know what plans the Government have on smaller renewables.

Although we feel that Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is too prescriptive, it raises an important question about planning our energy supply for the future. Clearly, local needs should be taken into account. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Amendment 24 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, though well intentioned, is not necessary to achieve the desired outcome of greater support with the grid connection process for smaller renewable energy projects. The amendment seeks to require the independent system operator and planner to prioritise support for smaller renewable energy projects when they apply for a grid connection. I recognise the noble Baroness’s helpful attempt to support smaller renewable energy projects. The Government appreciate the important role that smaller renewable energy projects, such as rooftop solar and community energy, can play in meeting our clean power mission, reducing energy costs and engaging communities in renewable energy.

Along with the independent energy regulator, Ofgem, the Government also recognise that more needs to be done to support smaller electricity network connection customers, including renewable energy projects, but this is achievable within the regulatory framework without the need for primary legislation. Indeed, Ofgem has already proposed stronger incentives and obligations on network companies to provide better connection customer service. Following a consultation earlier this year, it expects to publish further details and next steps in the coming weeks.

The amendment’s wording would also not meet the desired outcome. Section 16 of the Electricity Act 1989 requires electricity distribution network operators to connect customers. The amendment would place an obligation on the independent system operator and planner only in terms of the way in which the duties under Section 16 are complied with. However, the independent system operator and planner has no duties under Section 16. Given the legislative unworkability of the amendment, and given work already under way to support smaller renewable energy connection customers, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw it.

Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to require the Government to commence a programme of research and analysis on the imposition of a statutory duty on local authorities to produce local area energy plans, and publish a report on their findings; and to require the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to make a formal policy decision on a statutory duty within two years. We recognise that the amendment moves the debate on from Committee so that an immediate burden is not placed on local authorities to produce a local area energy plan, and nor are the Government required to immediately produce national guidance for local authorities on local area energy plans. The amendment places this work in the context of planning for electricity infrastructure, but the approach set out in the amendment risks constraining and duplicating work already under way, and it may constrain the way the Government continue to work in partnership with local government.

The overall approach to this work is being undertaken jointly with local government through the ministerial Local Net Zero Delivery Group, which meets quarterly. This is co-chaired with the Local Government Association. The group has discussed the development of a framework for local government to provide more clarity on the roles and responsibilities for net zero and energy. This group will need to reflect on the role of local government on energy planning and net zero in the context of the warm homes plan and Great British Energy’s local power plan, both due shortly.

The kind of research envisaged by the amendment is already under way. This has been commissioned by DESNZ from local government officials working in local net zero hubs. This includes preparing guidance for local authorities on what they need to do on energy planning to prepare for the regional energy strategic plans that Ofgem and the National Energy System Operator—NESO—are producing. Ofgem and NESO are looking to consult on the approach and methodology later this year. They are also developing guidance and tools for local government to help it specify and procure high-quality data to support energy planning, with outputs due by January 2026.

In conclusion, we do not believe that primary legislation is the right place to set out in such detail a programme of work to review local energy planning. We are sympathetic to the points raised and agree with the point made in Committee about the importance of including local understanding in delivering the bigger picture on energy planning. I hope I have been able to give some assurances that the Government agree that local involvement in energy planning is important and that the kind of work the amendment envisages is already under way.

I must stress the need to review local area energy planning in the context of ongoing work and other policies and strategies as and when they are published, rather than to the timetable and in the way set out in the amendment. Preferably, this should be in partnership with local government, reflecting needs and approaches. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is satisfied with our response and will consider withdrawing her amendment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and everyone who has taken part in this short but important debate. I was sitting here thinking of the volunteers who are undoubtedly sitting at home in front of their spreadsheets trying to plan for a local energy scheme, trying to make it work, trying to pull it all together, trying to solve all the issues. I hope they are at least feeling a warm glow, given the strong expressions of support for the principle of what they are doing from around the House, including from the government Benches.

The Minister said, essentially, that the drafting of my amendment is faulty and not quite correct. I am, of course, seldom, if ever, attached to the detail of the drafting. The point is that putting something in the Bill provides some sort of long-term certainty and security. The Minister said that there are regulations, and that the regulator is doing this, but we all know that what we need is long-term security of planning in our energy system, and that is simply not being delivered.

A phrase was used by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, that was important and deserves to be highlighted: “place-based solutions”. We often talk about the right tree in the right place; we also need the right energy provision in the right place, and that is what Amendment 46 was seeking to achieve. But we are where we are, and the debate has been had. I still hope we might see some movement from the Government somewhere down the track, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Before I respond, I send our best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for a very speedy recovery. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, his amazing contributions to our debates, particularly on human rights issues, are greatly missed and I hope he will be back with us as soon as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson—whom the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, ably stood in for—have tabled amendments relating to solar generation on agricultural land. This was debated at great length in Committee. While I appreciate the very strong feelings on this issue, the Government’s approach to these propositions has not changed.

On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, it is important that every project is submitted to the planning process which befits its impact, scale and complexity. The Government believe that large solar farms, even when they propose to use higher-quality agricultural land, are best dealt with under the NSIP regime. The NSIP regime is rigorous. Local engagement remains at the heart of the process. Developers taking projects through the NSIP regime must undertake meaningful community engagement before any decision is taken. The level and quality of community engagement, among other factors, will be taken into account by decision-makers.

In Committee, the noble Lord appeared to suggest that the involvement of Ministers in the NSIP regime undermines public confidence in its ability to assess the costs and benefits of solar projects. I reassure him and your Lordships’ House that all ministerial planning decisions must be taken in strict accordance with planning policy and the Ministerial Code. This is in line with the policy governing decision-making by local planning authorities. As a result, as I explained on the last occasion when we debated this, we would not expect the planning outcomes to change.

As I argued previously, the Government are fully aware of the benefits of returning control, where suitable, to local authorities. At the end of the year, we shall double the NSIP threshold for solar, enabling projects of up to 100 megawatts to be decided locally. There is only one solar farm above 100 megawatts at the moment, and that was decided through an NSIP process.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

By the previous Government.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to remind noble Lords that we have a large number of groups on this Bill to get through today. While this is Committee, I rise to remind noble Lords of the guidance in the Companian at paragraph 8.81 on speeches at the amending stages of Bills:

“Members taking part in debate at an amending stage should not use their speech simply to summarise or repeat at length points made by others. They should not make ‘second reading’ speeches or make discursive interventions which are not relevant to the amendment(s) under discussion”.


While there have many important contributions from all sides of the Committee, parts of our recent debates have strayed into Second Reading speeches and away from the amendments. So that we can make progress on the remaining groups, I therefore ask all noble Lords to ensure that their remarks on further amendments are relevant to the topic under discussion, and brief.

Amendment 185N

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The Companion says that, whether or not a noble Lord wishes to push their amendment to a vote, they have to be brief. We are going here into areas that are not affected by the amendments, and the noble Lord has been speaking for three minutes.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I have been commenting on the comments made by various noble Lords. I just wanted to be clear about how this is part of a wider issue of which this Committee and the country need to be aware. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment now but give notice that I may wish to bring it back on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, back in 2022, when the nutrient neutrality rules came in, it started a three and a half year hiatus that has prevented the building of new affordable homes, caused the bankruptcy of local architects, the closure of local builders’ merchants, the liquidation of many smaller builders and the folding of so many white van journeyman contractors—the plasterers, plumbers, groundworkers, roofers and tilers.

What was the basis of this catastrophe? As a council leader, I sought to find out. It did not take long to identify Natural England as the culprit. So I asked it for its reasoning. It advanced a theory that there was complete equivalence between the application of a single kilogram of phosphate anywhere in a catchment, regardless of the distance from a special area of conservation that needed protection under the regulations. It fundamentally refused to countenance the sort of risk-based approach that would be applied in any other walk of life or by any other regulator. Its approach was that the flushing of a lavatory directly into the protected Surlingham Broad was absolutely equivalent to going to the loo in Shipdham, over 30 miles away along a convoluted network of ditches, streams, tributaries and rivers before those rivers passed by the Surlingham Broad.

It is nonsense. I do not deny that there might be some infinitesimally small, theoretical riparian link between the lavatory in Surlingham and the toilet in Shipdham, but anyone who has studied for O-level or GCSE maths knows that the area around a point increases with the square of the distance, so the effect of the loo in Shipdham would be 30 times 30—900 times—less impactful; that is, if the water from that loo did not percolate into the aquifer, become assimilated into littoral plants, adsorbed on to soil particles or carried away in a farmer’s crops, in which case the impact would be significantly less, and it is.

When I asked, the designated person said that as there are no major processes for permanent phosphate losses within the aquatic environment, the nutrient neutrality approach is to assume that all the phosphorus will at some point reach the site, albeit this may take varying lengths of time and therefore there is the possibility of it contributing to the eutrophication impacts now or in the future. You do not have to be a scientist to realise that this “bathtub principle” is poppycock.

I asked Natural England to provide me with the scientific evidence. It sent me a slim paper repeating its assertions, with a long list of academic references. So I read them. The academic references that Natural England said supported its position argued the reverse. They made it clear that there were major processes for the permanent phosphate losses from the aquatic environment.

As I said in the previous group, this is my specialist subject. Before I joined your Lordships’ House, I gave written evidence to the Built Environment Committee on this point. I will not list all the ways in which I said that the scientific papers contradicted the Natural England stance but, in summary, it disregarded a whole range of natural mitigation factors, including: confusing adsorption with absorption; denying percolation to the underlying aquifer; ignoring the precipitation of phosphates in the calcareous soils that are found in the Yare catchment and along the River Wensum; the related effects of high soil pH in locking up phosphates; the effect of dilution by rainwater and the flows out to sea; and the incorporation and deposition of organic manures in the crops and along the brooks and streams.

The ban on housebuilding has been advanced on a completely unscientific, false premise, and one cooked up by Natural England. In short, Natural England’s interpretation of the scientific literature was misleading and mendacious. Its justification used selective quotation to misrepresent the balance of evidence.

Under the regulations, the test is one of significant harm. Natural England has misdirected itself and advised Ministers to substitute “significant” with “any”. How can it be trusted if it acts in this way? Its misrepresentation of the risk of the flushing of toilets in new homes has allowed it to prosecute a war on the housebuilding industry without justification. It is the enemy of growth. I can hardly believe I am going to say it, but this is probably the once and only time I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because she has fingered Natural England in the article in the Times referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as the enemy of growth.

Further, I then scrutinised Natural England’s nutrient calculator, which I found to be loaded with flaws and poor assumptions.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

Which amendment is the noble Lord referring to?

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I am talking to all of them—particularly those in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey but also Amendment 333.

There is more. I scrutinised Natural England’s nutrient calculator. It used the wrong digital elevation model. It used the wrong areas of influence on sewage treatment works. No allowance was made for excess capacity in the sewage treatment works. I am going to come to a very important point in a moment. The incorrect number of residents per property was assumed, which is significant where there are holiday homes. It assumed much greater water consumption for each house than we knew to be the case. The numbers for manures coming from outdoor pig units were underestimated by somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000 times, by reference to Defra booklet RB209. Suffice it to say that the calculator is orders of magnitude adrift.

There was then a completely arbitrary 20% buffer applied over and above the calculated number for no justifiable reasons. It was all very shoddy. The dodgy statistics have resulted in an extra £5,000 to £15,000 extra tariff per home for every house built in what is essentially the entirety of the district in which I live and its two neighbours.