Environment Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 17th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

I thank the hon. Member for Putney for tabling the amendment. I understand entirely the desire to ensure an appropriate level of scrutiny when this delegated power is exercised. The clause creates a narrow power for the Secretary of State to maintain a list of the most harmful chemical substances that could enter watercourses and sets out measures to monitor and tackle them, keeping pace with the latest scientific knowledge. This is a key aspect of our wider regulations that protect and enhance our water environment. The exercise of the power in the clause is subject to consultation with experts in the Environment Agency who provide scientific opinion and have a statutory duty to monitor water.

I highlight the fact that the Secretary of State will take into account the latest scientific evidence when updating lists. In addition to the EA, a lot of that evidence comes through the UK technical advisory group, a working group of experts drawn from the environment and conservation agencies for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland who already derive threshold values for UK-specified pollutants, which are monitored for the purposes of contributing to the ecological status of our surface waters. A statutory consultation requirement could not be placed on the UK technical advisory group as it is not a statutory body, but it offers valued expert advice. The Secretary of State must also consult any person or bodies appearing to represent the interests of those likely to be affected by these provisions.

I understand that the amendment seeks to increase the level of parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of the power by upgrading to the super-affirmative resolution procedure, as the hon. Member for Putney mentioned. As we have mentioned, this procedure is used extremely rarely for statutory instruments that are considered to need a particularly high level of scrutiny—for example, legislative reform orders under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which could be used to abolish, confer or transfer statutory functions or create or abolish a statutory body or office—so we do not feel that that would be appropriate.

The hon. Member was concerned about a lowering of standards, which is absolutely not the case. I know that she has a particular interest in this, and I was so interested to hear earlier that she worked for WaterAid. Lots of Back Benchers engage with WaterAid—I did—when it holds events in Parliament. It does really good work. The wider regulations require the EA to have an extensive and robust monitoring regime for chemicals in the water environment and refer to the priority substances as those that must be used to assess chemical status in surface waters. The EA will monitor for new and emerging harmful substances through an early warning system and, in consultation with the EA, the updates to the list will be based on the latest science and monitoring data, which currently suggest a potential increase in the number of substances of concern, rather than a reduction. An eye will certainly be kept on that, because it is so important.

Although I fully acknowledge the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, a super-affirmative, or indeed a standard affirmative, resolution procedure is wholly disproportionate in this instance. This power can be used only to make relatively narrow changes to existing transposing legislation for the purpose of updating certain water quality standards. The power does not extend to changing the wider regime for assessing and monitoring water quality, which is enshrined in the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations 2017. An update to the list of priority substances involves highly technical discussions, as I have mentioned, around emerging pollutants and their threshold values, measured in micrograms per litre, and sophisticated monitoring techniques, including biota testing.

I hope that clarifies the position, and I therefore ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

As the Minster indicated, the name super-affirmative suggests that this is not an everyday procedure. It has been suggested in the amendment because the clause would allow the Secretary of State, albeit on a reasonably narrow basis, to amend or modify legislation, and thereby to degrade or completely remove environmental protections that are already in the regulations. That would essentially be a power to deregulate current regulations, underpinned by the ability to do so by simply notifying the House. We do not think that is good enough.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney emphasised, the super-affirmative procedure would not just allow for greater parliamentary scrutiny but would allow for greater consultation in the process. We think it is an appropriate device to add, although it is a relatively new one. It has been in place, as the Minister alluded to, since 2016.

However, the Minister has given some assurances on the limit of the Secretary of State’s power to degrade or remove secondary legislation. She has also indicated that that would not be the intention of the Government, and that, on the contrary, it is their intention to try to uprate those regulations.

[Rebecca Pow]

Apologies; I was mistaken earlier. It was the shadow Minister who tabled the amendment. In addition to all these matters, the Secretary of State will conduct a two-yearly review of significant developments in international legislation on the environment. That is another prong that will help to keep up the standards of environmental protection. I thought the hon. Gentleman might be interested to hear some of the ways we might use—

[The Chair]

Interventions must be very brief.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for her intervention. Alas, we will never hear the detail of what those changes might be, but the fact that she was brandishing a sheet of paper that clearly had them written on it is perhaps further assurance. I did indeed move this amendment, but the multi-talented nature of Opposition Members could have led one to believe that someone else had done so, such is the power of our interventions this afternoon.

We do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, but I hope that this is another thing for the Minister’s “to think about” box. I do not think that it is generally a good idea for secondary legislation to be put through the negative procedure on this catch-all basis. Among other things, doing so puts considerable impediments in the face of Parliamentary scrutiny, because the negative procedure requires the legislation to be prayed against. That means that the right to a debate lies with the usual channels rather than being guaranteed, as it is with the affirmative procedure.

I hope the Minister will take the general point on board for future legislative purposes that we do not think that is a good idea. We would be grateful if the Minister could have that in mind when she is reviewing the legislation. On this occasion, we are reasonably happy with the Minister’s assurances on this clause and the additional—alas, secret—assurances that she has on her piece of paper. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82

Water quality: powers of Welsh Ministers

Amendments made: 53, in clause 82, page 81, line 19, leave out

“the National Assembly for Wales”

and insert “Senedd Cymru”.

See Amendment 28.

Amendment 54, in clause 82, page 81, line 21, leave out “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”—(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.

Clause 82, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 83 to 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87

Valuation of other land in drainage district: Wales

Amendment made: 55, in clause 87, page 85, line 9, leave out

“the National Assembly for Wales”

and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.

Clause 87, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88

Valuation of agricultural land in drainage district: England and Wales

Amendment made: 56, in clause 88, page 87, line 33, leave out

“the National Assembly for Wales”

and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.

Clause 88, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89

Disclosure of Revenue and Customs information

Amendment made: 57, in clause 89, page 89, line 9, leave out

“the National Assembly for Wales”

and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.

Clause 89, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Biodiversity gain as condition of planning permission

[Dr Whitehead]

Apologies, Mr Gray, but we had previously notified the Committee that our amendments to the natural environment and environmental protection elements of the Bill would be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 169, in schedule 14, page 207, line 26, leave out paragraphs (3) and (4) and insert—

“(3) The relevant percentage is a minimum of 10%.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this paragraph so as to increase the relevant percentage.

(5) The Secretary of State shall review the relevant percentage after 5 years or sooner.”

This amendment amends the power to vary the 10% level so that it can only be increased.

I apologise to anyone who was expecting to continue to hear the mellifluous tones of my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. I am grateful to have a backing part; it is a huge honour.

After all the excitement this morning, I hope we can have a similarly exciting afternoon. We are coming to the bit that I have been looking forward to most since I first read the Bill: the exciting part around nature and biodiversity. Part 6 is fascinating. It is hard to imagine a more important and pressing subject when we all know that around the world, the targets we have collectively set ourselves continue, sadly, to be missed. At the same time, we look to find ways out of the economic crisis stemming from covid.

Part 6 is a very important part of the Bill. As I looked at the Bill last night in revising for today, I reread some of the 25-year environment plan. What an optimistic, forward-looking and exciting document it is, full of “wills”, “shalls” and “musts”. The trouble is that some of that enthusiasm seems to have been mislaid en route. One of the key things is that somewhere along the line, the planning White Paper came along, and there is an unresolved tension between the excellent ambition of the 25-year environment plan and those new suggestions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test said at the beginning of our discussions, we think this is a good Bill, but we want to make it better. My task this afternoon is to try to help the Minister restore it to the Bill it might once have been. We could see this as a bit of a whodunnit. Who was it, and how did the changes creep in? Who did such harm to it, and how can we now help the Government make good? In some of the discussions on this schedule, the Government thought about going beyond net biodiversity gain towards net environmental gain, and we would really like that desire to be addressed.

Much of the schedule is about the planning system. I suspect many Members here have direct or indirect experience of our planning system and know how important it is. For the moment, the provisions for reducing environmental impact in the planning system are focused on preventing and mitigating harm. The net gain objective has been embraced in the national planning policy framework since 2012, when it replaced the previous policy objective of no net loss, which sought only a neutral outcome after losses and gains were accounted for. Thanks to the rules for site-based protection in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the net gain objective has been relatively effective in reducing loss of habitats and species without slowing down development, but it has been far from enough to turn the tide in nature’s decline. The principle of taking a more strategic approach to restoring nature and requiring a 10% net gain in biodiversity is one we fully support. That is what is addressed in this schedule.

We know how important that is because, sadly, the UK continues to suffer rapid biodiversity loss. The Government have failed on too many metrics: 46% of conservation priority species in England declined between 2013 and 2018. This is serious. We welcome the fact the Government have begun to address some of the issues, although we think we need to approach this serious issue in an open and clear way. We note the Prime Minister’s announcement a few weeks ago about 30% of land being protected, but we also gently point out that some 26% of that is achieved through a counting mechanism that includes areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. We want to address this problem. We have to be serious about it and not try to play with the figures, and our view is that at the moment the Bill is a lost opportunity to stop the decline. However, the new general condition has the potential to be an effective tool to boost biodiversity across the country, and there are many issues we want to address in the amendments to see how the Bill can be improved.

I will touch on several of our amendments, including on the length of time for which habitats should be maintained, which is 30 years; the exemptions, too many, in our view, from the biodiversity gain condition; the relationship between the new system and irreplaceable habitats; and the lack of a mechanism to guarantee what is prescribed in the biodiversity gain plan to ensure it is actually delivered on the ground. To turn to the detail of amendment 169, our fear is that we are in danger of being left with a rather unambitious percentage of biodiversity net gain that is all too easy for the Government to decrease if they choose to do so. At first sight, setting the condition for planning permission at 10% biodiversity net gain seems a reasonable thing to do, but it is important to note that the impact assessment published alongside the biodiversity net gain consultation in December 2018 said that 10% is merely the lowest level of net gain at which the Department

“could confidently expect to deliver…net gain, or at least no net loss”.

It does not appear that this is taking us very far forward. Indeed, 10% net gain is less ambitious than the current practice of some local authorities. I am told that Lichfield District Council already requires 20% net gain on new development, so although we welcome the Government’s statement and its response to the biodiversity net gain consultation, the 10% should not be viewed as a cap on the aspirations of developers who want to go further. I was pleased that the Minister reiterated this point on Second Reading. It would be very helpful if she could make a clear statement, to facilitate ambitious developers and to help them and local planning authorities, underlining that the aspiration is to go further.

A number of changes need to be made. Under schedule 14, the Secretary of State has a number of powers to make regulations, including a Henry VIII power to amend the 10% biodiversity net gain objective and to amend the types of developments the net gain will apply to. The Bill’s provisions read that “the relevant percentage” of biodiversity net gain for developers is 10%, and:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this paragraph so as to change the relevant percentage.”

Our amendment is very clear: that must be amended to include a commitment to monitor and review practice, so that the level of gain can be increased in future if evidence demonstrates this is possible and needed. We also need a lock-in so that the percentage can only be increased by the Government, not simply decreased at a later date. There must be no mechanism in the Bill to lower the level of gain; that would seriously undermine the objectives of the system as a whole, and would likely result in little or no gain being achieved in practice.

Amendment 169 would ensure that the only way the 10% net gain figure could be changed is by being increased after review by the Secretary of State. It would also lock in a timeframe to ensure the percentage is reassessed after an appropriate amount of time, within a maximum period of five years.

I am sure the Minister will, as she has throughout, assure us that there is no need for concern. But to return to my whodunnit, I fear that there may be a villain in my story and Members might be able to guess who some of the contenders might be. Looking back at the Prime Minister’s “Build, build, build” speech in July, he did claim—spuriously in our view—that:

“Newt-counting delays are a massive drag on the prosperity of this country.”

We will discuss newts in more detail later, but when Government policy lurches from one approach to another, we need certainty that the commitment of the current Minister will not be trumped by future Ministers who might take a different view. Unless we get that certainty, we will certainly wish to press this amendment to a Division.

[Rebecca Pow]

I welcome the hon. Member for Cambridge as he takes the floor this afternoon. This is a tremendously exciting part of the Bill, through which we can all be a part in doing our hugely important bit for nature in this country. He is right about degradation—I am not even going to think about denying that—and about how important the Bill is. This is the tool for achieving the measures in the 25-year environment plan, which was the first environmental improvement plan. It is great that the plan is full of optimism because it sets out what we want to do and where we want to go, and these measures will be in this Bill.

Let me turn to the amendment. Responses to the net gain consultation revealed that some developers have already made voluntary commitments to no net loss or net gain and there were calls for both a higher and a lower percentage. It was quite interesting how that came out. On balance and having considered all responses, we believe that requiring at least a 10% gain strikes the right balance between ambition, creating certainty in achieving environmental outcomes, deliverability and costs for developers. It should not be viewed as a cap and the hon. Member for Cambridge has already mentioned a local authority that has set its sights higher. Many more are doing that and going voluntarily above 10%.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the “Planning for the future” White Paper, which I think will probably be referred to a lot today. It specifically sets out support for biodiversity net gain and rightly identifies improving biodiversity as one of our most important national challenges. It is important to build the houses people want and all of the developments that we need, but that cannot be done to the detriment of the environment.

That is quite clear in the White Paper that biodiversity net gain and biodiversity more generally are one of our most important challenges. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on the implementation of biodiversity net gain to make sure it is fully integrated into the planning system. I have already said that the 25-year environment plan is the first environmental improvement plan, and all these things will work as part and parcel of one another.

The ambition of 10% net gain represents a significant step forward beyond current practice while striking a balance and meaning it does not have be reviewed as a cap. Restricting the ability to set a lower percentage requirement may force the Government to exempt any development types that cannot achieve a 10% net gain, rather than keeping them in scope and subjecting them to a lower percentage requirement. Broader exemptions would be a greater risk to the achievement of the wide policy aims than targeted application of a lower percentage gain.

Limiting the power might therefore compel future Governments to make other adjustments to the requirement, which could compromise environmental and development outcomes more fundamentally than a lower percentage of net gain.

[Dr Whitehead]

The Minister is making an interesting case for the clause. However, does she accept that it is a particularly egregious example of “first you have it, then you don’t” legislation appearing in consecutive paragraphs? That is to say—a bald statement, as she said—the relevant percentage is 10%, but then the Secretary of State can take that away. Does she have any suggestions as to how one might make that a little less alarming, if she is indeed suggesting that that sort of arrangement needs to be in place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

The theme continues with this set of amendments because, in exactly the same way as I have just explained, there is a risk of not achieving the desired outcome and ambition of the 25-year environment plan.

The amendment relates to the length of time that the biodiversity gain habitats should be maintained. Our amendment challenges the Government’s suggestion of 30 years. In our view, both schedule 14 and clause 91(2)(b) would allow protected sites potentially to be downgraded or destroyed after 30 years, thereby destroying the ecological gains and carbon storage benefits, and any prospect of those gains and benefits making a long-term impact.

That is essentially the issue: we are talking about the long term. I am sure the Minister will explain in a moment the logic for the Government’s 30-year proposal, but this takes us back to the basic point about how serious and ambitious we are about embedding these changes for the future. There will be little point to the provisions if they do not work in practice. For instance, if someone gets rid of a pond that has been in place for hundreds of years, with all the richness in biodiversity it has developed, and replaces it with another pond nearby, that replacement could be let go after 30 years. Our concern is that the provisions do not give the necessary strong support. The danger is that too short a period could simply see the biodiversity gains swiftly lost. Thirty years sounds like quite a long time, but when one bears in mind that we are already two years down the line from the 25-year environment plan and that politics does not always move at a frightfully great pace, it is not hard to imagine things moving quickly and those gains being quickly lost. If biodiversity gains are to properly contribute to the 25-year environment plan commitments to a nature recovery network and to provide carbon sequestration, which is so crucial to our net zero targets, these areas must be secured and maintained for the long term, because only through that kind of approach will we secure long-term nature recovery.

There really ought to be some binding mechanisms to ensure that the habitat condition target is reached in a timely way. One does not want to be cynical about some of these things, but one can well imagine that people wishing to build, build, build will try to find ways around them and will try, on occasion, to take advantage. The time taken for a habitat to reach its target condition—for example, for woodlands to reach maturity—could be specified in a biodiversity gain plan and included in planning conditions to ensure that it can be enforced. One can see so many possibilities here, and yet, even though the goal is within grasp, it seems that it is being clawed back. Again, I wonder by whom and for what purpose.

Amendment 168 to schedule 14 and amendment 74 to clause 91 would change the provisions by requiring post-development habitat enhancements for the purpose of maintaining biodiversity gains in perpetuity, rather than for 30 years. I have no doubt that the Minister secretly agrees with that; I suspect that she would like to see these things achieved. However, I suspect that she is constrained.

Our amendment 168 would ensure that those habitats are maintained at their target condition. It is interesting to note that that proposal comes not only from the Opposition Benches but is broadly supported. I was delighted to see a similar amendment in this group from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), although I do not think that it goes quite as far as ours. However, there are clearly Government Members who see the significance and importance of achieving this for the long term. I have to say once again that, if we do not get the commitment we are looking for on amendment 168, we will divide the Committee.

[Dr Whitehead]

I want to add a few thoughts to the excellent introduction to the clause from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. This issue has a considerable relationship to not only biodiversity gains generally but our targets under climate change legislation.

Part of the purpose of a number of the biodiversity gains that may arise as a result of putting percentages on biodiversity gain is not only to make a little gain but to actually sequester what is in that gain. That sequestration should and will count towards the carbon balance, so far as getting to net zero is concerned. We will discuss, when considering a new clause later in Committee, the whole question of what to do about planting trees over a period of time and how the planting of those trees leads, as those trees mature—my hon. Friend alluded to this—to substantial gains in net negative emissions, which are absolutely essential for reaching a net zero target in the future. The assumption would be that the carbon embedded in those trees is permanently placed on the carbon account as a negative input, because it has been effectively sequestered by the trees. That means not only that we can get to net zero, but that the whole question of net negative in the net zero equation is an essential starting point, and without that net negative input, there is no way we will get to net zero by 2050. As we in this House have all agreed, 2050 is the proper target, although we would like net zero to be achieved sooner in this country as far as emissions are concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

My point was that what we are introducing in the Bill is much stronger than what was in the 25-year environment plan. That was the point I was making. I will press on—

[Dr Whitehead]

We did not write that.

[Rebecca Pow]

But it was referred to earlier. It is a commitment we have made, and we are strengthening it. Credit should be given where credit is due. A great amount of work has advanced since the launch of that plan, which I went to in 2018 with the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). We are forging on and doing even more than was promised in that plan.

I welcome the acknowledgment by hon. Members of the importance of long-term maintenance of biodiversity gain sites to ensure that we provide long-lasting benefits for wildlife and communities and for climate change, as was ably referred to by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. There are, however, practical reasons why we should keep the minimum requirement to a 30-year duration. We need to create the right habitats in the right places for wildlife. Increasing the minimum required duration of maintenance might dissuade key landowners from volunteering their land for gains. Agreements made for perpetuity would also risk creating permanent conditions or obligations to maintain particular types of habitat, when future changes in climate or ecological conditions might make a different type of habitat more suitable. The Bill leaves space for flexibility.

I want to give some more detail about what we term conservation covenants. Any conservation covenant used for net gain would be drafted to secure the carrying out of habitat enhancement works and maintenance of the enhancement for at least 30 years. We would expect responsible bodies to respect that purpose when deciding whether or how to modify or discharge a conservation covenant. They might consider whether any flexibility for landowners would better serve that purpose than retaining the conservation covenant unchanged. I have talked to landowners about this, and it is a point they make, so that has to be respected. The Bill leaves the flexibility for that.

There are also a range of existing protections for habitats, which will not be going away. They could apply to biodiversity gain sites even after the 30 years have expired. These are principally of relevance to off-site habitat enhancements, but would still apply to habitats created within developments. We understand from stakeholders that there may, in some cases, be little difference in funding requirements between the minimum 30-year agreement and a longer agreement.

In cases where it is acceptable to a landowner and would deliver greater biodiversity benefits, we would, of course, encourage longer-term agreements. We would do that initially through guidance. Should further evaluation of the policy show that this is not achieving the right outcomes, the encouragement might be adjusted through policy, the biodiversity metric, which has been in existence for about five years and is currently being updated by Natural England, or further guidance. Any future decision relating to the mechanisms of the encouragement will be made by Government on the basis of evaluation of the biodiversity net gain practice rather than speculation, which, I suggest, is what is being done at the moment.

[Dr Whitehead]

First, I think it should be put on record that suggesting that a Government initiative is better than an amendment being proposed, when the comparison is made between two Government initiatives, one of which is better than the other, really should not stand. We did not write the 25-year environment plan; the Government did. If this improves on the 25-year environment plan, fair enough, but it is not to do with us.

Secondly, in law, 30 years means 30 years. It will be found out whether that was the right thing by encouragement only after 30 years. If someone rips everything up after 30 years, they will find the Government’s encouragement was not as good as it should have been. I am puzzled as to how the Minister will find out whether this is working short of the 30-year period. Would it not be better not to have that 30-year period, to ensure that we do not have to find out the hard way at the end of 30 years, when that change is made in law?

[Rebecca Pow]

I take the point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier. I put on record that I hear what he has said. We will not fall out.

Things will not stop after 30 years. For example, while the agreements made for biodiversity net gain might expire, the created habitats will remain subject to a wide range of protections at that point, as I just said. For example, if a woodland had been created, it would benefit from existing protections for woodland and would then fall into the scope of the felling licence and potential environmental impact assessment regulations for forestry. All those other protections would come into play.

I reiterate that people can voluntarily enter into contracts longer than 30 years if they so wish. I am sure that certain people will want to do that. In light of the reasons I have set out, I ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I escalated from a pen to a hand, but I can escalate to a full body motion, if that is acceptable.

I want to add to the admirable exposition of the two amendments by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge by drawing attention to amendment 171, which would leave out two lines from paragraph 17 of the proposed new schedule, which has the heading, “Exceptions”. I ask members of the Committee to see what has been done here, because I think it is shocking. At the start of part 2 of the proposed new schedule, conditions for planning permission relating to biodiversity are laid down:

“Every planning permission granted for the development of land in England shall be deemed to have been granted subject to the condition in sub-paragraph (2).”,

which is,

“The condition is that the development may not be begun unless”

there is a biodiversity gain plan. That looks terrific. The casual observer would think, “That’s it sorted out. The biodiversity gain plan has to be in place. That’s what the Bill’s about.”

On turning to paragraph 17, we see that there are some exceptions:

“development for which planning permission is granted…by a development order, or…under section 293A (urgent Crown development)”.

That is arguable, but then we have this sentence:

“development of such other description as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”

Put into English, that means that if the Secretary of State introduces a regulation, development is exempted. The whole thing is meaningless from the beginning. All it needs is a regulation, which I presume may well be under the negative procedure, for this to be completely undone.

I know that it is fashionable to blame drafting for these issues, but something as shocking as this has to have had an intention behind it. This cannot arise from someone taking a lax instruction, writing the provision in the bowels of a building, presenting it and no one noticing. How these things are written is instructed by Ministers, who under the Bill can simply remove stuff that the Government do not feel like doing. It refers to all development, not just to some developments—it says “development”. That really is not good enough for a Bill of this kind.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank hon. Members for their comments. The hon. Member for Cambridge asked a lot of questions, so if I do not cover them all, we will put something in writing because I could not keep up with them all.

Paragraph 17 of the proposed new schedule introduced by schedule 14 sets out when the general biodiversity gain condition does not apply. Sub-paragraph (b) creates a power to exempt specific types of development through regulations. While I welcome the hon. Member’s acknowledgement of the importance of keeping exemptions narrow, there are good reasons to use this power, which amendment 171 seeks to remove, to introduce targeted exemptions for more constrained development types.

The Government will not introduce broad exemptions from delivering biodiversity net gains, which was something the hon. Member specifically asked about. The power will be used to make narrow practical exemptions in order to keep net gain requirements proportionate. Exemptions will ensure that the mandatory requirement is not applied to development on such a small scale that it could be negligible, and I will go on to talk a bit more about that and about no losses in terms of habitat value. Some development will result in negligible losses or degradation of habitat. Examples of such development might include changes or alterations to buildings and house extensions, for example. Applying the 10% targets to such development would not generate significant ecological gains, and the requirement might result in undue process costs for developers and planning authorities alike.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

There was no sign from the Opposition that the hon. Gentleman wished to discuss Government amendment 222, so it was passed. Therefore, we will move on to Government amendment 223. If you are waiting for votes on Government new clauses 25, 26 and 27, they will come at the appropriate point in the consideration of the Bill—not now.

[Dr Whitehead]

May I seek your guidance, Mr Gray? Presumably, we will want to have a stand part debate on the clause.

[The Chair]

We can perfectly happily do so if that is what people like.