Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Earl of Caithness Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

It took me a while to get my head around Amendment 211, but the higher spend of Natural England after compulsorily purchasing something would demonstrate that the contract offered to the owner had indeed been underpriced and the owner had been quite correct to reject it. In other words, compulsory purchase was wrongly used as the site owner had not been made a reasonable offer to take on the contract. Where such sharp practice occurs, the site owner should have the land returned to them or at least be compensated. Amendment 211 is a probing amendment. I support it and I will be very interested to see how the Minister chooses to respond to it.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 211. I support what my noble friend Lord Roborough said on it, and indeed what my noble friend Lord Sandhurst said on his amendment.

I was a chartered surveyor back in 1976 when development land tax was introduced, and I recall the disastrous effect it had on the market for land becoming available for development. There is no doubt that clauses such as those we have in the Bill will have the same deleterious effect on the natural process of buying and selling land and encouraging landowners to provide land for development and therefore fulfil some of the housing needs of this country.

It seems to me quite wrong to get rid of hope value in the way that the Government are doing. It is not, in the words of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, a fair deal. It is unjust. I too remember the Crichel Down case, which my noble friend mentioned. In fact, I remember talking to Lord Nugent of Guildford, the Minister who resigned over the affair. That shows how old I am now, but it reinforces my dislike of the chances of the land not being returned to the original owner. That is the purport of Amendment 211. I wish my noble friend Lord Nugent was still alive and in his place, because he would be able to give an erudite summary of the difficult problems. I hope that the Government will think again on this issue.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. Amendments 209B and 209C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seek to amend Clause 105 and expand the power introduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act for compulsory purchase orders to be confirmed with directions for the non-payment of hope value compensation where justified in the public interest. The amendments propose to extend the types of CPOs for which directions removing hope value may be sought to CPOs for the provision of sporting and recreational facilities. The amendments seek to introduce a change so that CPOs for the provision of sporting and recreational facilities would not have to facilitate affordable housing provision when seeking directions removing hope value.

While the Government recognise the value of parks and playing fields to our communities—we had a very interesting debate on this subject twice in last week’s Committee—I am afraid we are not able to support these amendments. The non-payment of hope value to landowners through the use of CPO powers must be proportionate and carefully justified in the public interest.

Affordable housing, education and health are types of public sector-led development where the public benefits to be facilitated through the non-payment of hope value can be directly demonstrable to local communities. The Government have concerns that the public benefits and the justification for lower compensation for landowners are likely to be less compelling for sporting and recreational facilities. The proposed changes could make it difficult for authorities to justify directions removing hope value in the public interest, as the benefits to be delivered are clearly less identifiable.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for his Amendment 210. This seeks to repeal Section 14A of the Land Compensation Act 1961, which provides the power for CPOs to be confirmed with directions removing hope value where justified in the public interest for certain types of schemes. The amendment also seeks to remove Clause 105 from the Bill, which proposes to expand the direction power to CPOs made on behalf of town and parish councils for schemes that include affordable housing, and to make the process for determining CPOs with directions more efficient. The amendment would remove the power, which was introduced, as he rightly said, by the last Government under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It allows authorities to take forward certain types of schemes by compulsory purchase, and to pay reduced value for land where it will deliver clear and significant benefits and is justified in the public interest. To support the delivery of housing and infrastructure that this country desperately needs, we must make better use of underutilised land across the country. We know that many local authorities share this objective, but their plans can be delayed by heightened expectations of land values by landowners. This can result in the delivery of benefits to the public through the building of homes, transport links and schools being more costly, and significant amounts of developable land remaining unused.

The Government are committed to improving land assembly, speeding up site delivery and delivering development for the benefit of communities. We also remain committed to ensuring that landowners are awarded fair compensation where compulsory purchase powers are used to deliver schemes in the public interest. I therefore kindly ask the noble Lord not to move his amendment.

Amendment 211, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would require Natural England to return any land obtained through compulsory purchase orders where the value of the work carried out exceeded the price of the original contract offered to the landowner. I thank him for his amendment. As noble Lords will be aware, we will discuss the nature restoration fund and the role and powers granted to Natural England in more detail later this afternoon. To successfully deliver this new strategic approach, we must ensure that Natural England has sufficient powers and resources to implement the conservation measures required. We expect Natural England to consider using compulsory purchase powers only once other options to acquire the land have been exhausted, especially trying to acquire that land by agreement. Where land is acquired by compulsory purchase, this will be subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight, including authorisation by the Secretary of State. The landowner will receive compensation in line with the existing approach.

Requiring Natural England to return land in the circumstances set out in the amendment would undermine the rationale for allowing Natural England to have these powers in the first place. Some conservation measures will require Natural England to acquire land, whether by agreement or, where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, through compulsory purchase. Having this range of options provides certainty that conservation measures can be delivered. It is fundamental to the Secretary of State being satisfied that the overall improvement test will be met.

In line with the safeguards provided in the Bill, if land were required to be returned as envisaged by this amendment, this could lead to the environmental delivery plan needing to be amended because conservation measures would no longer be delivering as intended. That would reduce the amount of development that the EDP would cover; increase cost to developers; or trigger the need to revoke the EDP, requiring the Secretary of State to consider appropriate remedial action to ensure that the impact of development is addressed in line with the overall improvement test.

I recognise that the use of compulsory purchase powers is an issue close to the hearts of many noble Lords. However, I trust that the Committee can recognise the need for these targeted powers, to ensure that the nature recovery fund delivers the much-needed win-win for nature and development. In a meeting with Natural England and a number of noble Lords who are here today, Natural England said that it had used the power only three times ever. I do not anticipate it doing this all the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I speak from a building that is full of moths—but I have never tried eating them.

I approve of Amendment 227GA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle; it goes to the root of the fact that we must find ways of living with and closer to nature. It ought to be slightly more detailed, so that I am allowed to exclude mice, but the overall principle—that we provide for wildlife living alongside us—is right.

Although I have had provision for swifts for the past 15 years, it has never had a swift in it—principally, I think, because there are probably not enough insects for the swifts to live on. We therefore need to provide a full habitat and not just a nesting place. Swift bricks sound far too much like an easy exit for the Government that will allow them to say, “Tick. Don’t need to do anything more”. I very much hope they can be tempted in the direction that the noble Baroness has outlined for them.

I also hope that they will do something about birds crashing into glass. It is simple: there are technical solutions, and we can live with them. We ought not to do this to birds. Just change the rules and, over time, we will do much less damage.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Randall’s amendment, but I ask the Government not to accept it. I do that for two reasons. First, swifts are not the only migratory birds to come back on migration. Secondly, I believe that if the Government conceded to swifts, they would be able to say, “We’ve done something, we’ve pleased the environmental lobby and now we need not do anything more”. That is a typical reaction of government. I am therefore more attracted to Amendments 225 and 227GA.

The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, reminded us that 30 million birds in the UK get killed on migration. In America, the figure is up to 1 billion, and in Canada it is over 40 million. In this country, cats do not cause as many bird deaths, but they are responsible for a significant number. Therefore, we need to look at this subject much more holistically.

On the question of migration, a huge problem was identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, when she discussed the convention centre in Chicago. I would like to add a PS to her story about 1,000 birds in a single night. Since some people have done the simple remedial work of applying small white dots and a two-inch grid pattern to the surface of windows, there has been a 95% reduction in fatalities during the migration period. That is a bonus for the environment and biodiversity that we should aim for.

I will mention one thing that other noble Lords have not mentioned: the planting around buildings. It has been proven that birds get very confused by some types of hedging and trees. When that is reflected in the glass, it disorientates the birds. Although we are all pressing for more trees, shrubbery and greenery, we need to be very careful that we are not building in bird deaths in the process. I hope that the Government will take a holistic look at this and do something that benefits biodiversity and the birds.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on surviving the Defra ministerial massacre. I am absolutely delighted and hope she enjoins all her female colleagues in her attempts to improve the environment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak strongly for Amendments 334, 346DD and 346DE in the name of my noble friend Lord Roborough. Two years after your Lordships’ House last considered nutrient neutrality, my noble friend’s amendments seek to break the nutrient neutrality deadlock, de-layer this cat’s cradle of conflicting regulations and allow us to focus on those things for best effort.

Three and a half years ago, in 2022, nutrient neutrality rules were created, and then, at a stroke, they hunky-bunkered over 200,000 planning applications in over 75 planning authorities—planning authorities which for the most part have the greatest housing potential, because they are the ones clustered around the conurbations and thus have the greatest capacity to deliver housing growth.

I was the council leader in one of these areas. At a stroke, together with our two neighbouring authorities, over 45,000 houses in a plan were made mute. We will never get roofs over people’s heads, including through affordable and social housing, while homes are not being built.

My noble friend’s amendment gets to the heart of this; it allows us to ask the fundamental question as to whether stopping housebuilding will clean up our rivers. At the outset, let us be clear: the statutory responsibility for ensuring a clean environment falls variously upon Defra, the Environment Agency, Natural England—the statutory water undertakings for the effective running of sewage treatment works.

These bodies have the funding, the powers and the responsibility for cleaning up our rivers, but the nutrient neutrality rulings transfer those responsibilities to a completely different class of organisation with no obvious statutory or financial resources to do so: local councillors, the planning departments of local planning authorities, and the housebuilding industry more generally. It is a buck-passing from those who should be designing and implementing solutions, in favour of the LPAs and builders who do not have any control over the matter at all. Taking all the homes in the UK, the Home Builders Federation estimates that, of all the current planning applications that would be built, it would add just 0.92% to the overall housing stock of 25 million dwellings.

We have to consider materiality here. At this point, I feel I should declare that, when I was not leading a council in a previous life, my business was in the fertiliser industry. I have a degree in agriculture, I studied soil science, and I have built a career around advising on effective plant nutrition and the role of nutrients in soils. If I was on Mastermind, this would be my specialist subject.

As I reflect on my own experience, it is now widely understood that the nutrient effect of the impact of new homes, over and above the existing homes in rural places such as Norfolk or Herefordshire, might contribute just 0.2% of the total phosphate load in a catchment. Put another way, out of 500 potential mitigating strategies, 499 are more likely to reduce phosphate emissions in a catchment than prevent new homes being built. In essence, not building a handful of homes in Holverston connected to a Klargester will not clean-up Rockland Broad, to give a very local example.

It is important to restate why the restrictions have been imposed. The test in the habitats regulations and in law is to avoid “significant damage” to a special area of conservation—significant damage, not purely harm. I will never understand why we have stopped our second-largest economic sector, construction, and put tens of thousands of people out of work while serially sacrificing our housebuilding targets on the altar of nutrient neutrality—a marginal future gain of just 0.2%, when the problem exists here and now.

We are aiming at the wrong target by stopping housebuilding. Just ask the people of the Hereford catchment of the River Wye whether building a few less homes will clean up their river, or whether the wholesale processing and removing of animal waste from the catchment might be a better approach. There, it is generally accepted that 80% of the nutrient load in places like Herefordshire comes from poultry manures—not from industry, or even existing homes; still less from homes that have not yet been built.

Elsewhere in your Lordships’ House, the Environment and Climate Change Committee recently heard that over 20 million tonnes of sludges, slurries and digestates are applied to land from anaerobic digesters, and some of it on valley sides. I would venture to say that the Government would be better advised to focus on this issue, rather than stopping builders building. In essence, there is a dilemma. Do we focus on the 80%, or the 0.2%?

That is why I like the noble Lord’s amendment. It enables us to focus our minds on where the substantive problem is. It directs us at the big numbers, not the trivial numbers. It stops us worrying about the 0.2% that might come from the building of new homes and from the flushing of their loos, damaging a significant contributor to the local economies and supply chains. Instead, the amendment seeks to allow a regulatory focus on where the real problem lies, which is principally with organic manures and digestates applied to land on bare stubbles, with nutrients which become mobilised much later in the summer, after harvest, when the ground has warmed up. The summer rains produce the ideal conditions to break them down into mobile phosphates, but not when the growing crops are there to absorb them, so they run off.

If we focus on some of the bigger issues rather than the marginal ones, it might allow the Government to have a joined-up approach. We might even start to provide the grounds again for slurry schemes and storage, which were cancelled in the previous year; that is the key to handling the problem. The best chance of breaking this deadlock and getting new homes built quickly, as the noble Lord has said, is to take the rapier to Part 3 of the Bill and to work out how can we solve the problem, rather than misdirecting ourselves towards small harms. We need to address the big consequences that are harming our economy and our ability to grow, and to get roofs over the heads of the people who need those homes. These are not rich people. We need affordable housing, housing in villages, and housing on brownfield land. All this is hunky-bunker, and we must sweep it away and focus on the big target, not the little one.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, Part 3 of the Bill gives new wide-ranging powers to Natural England, which has been heavily involved in all aspects of Part 3, much of which has been made up on the hoof as the Bill progressed. Part 3 also contains a good dollop of empire building by Natural England. We should be very circumspect about agreeing this when the Office for Environmental Protection criticises it as environmental aggression and a leaked report suggests that the EU has similar concerns.

Like many of your Lordships, I have been concerned about NE for some time. There have been regular press comments about the mistakes that it makes. It is often criticised for being slow, bureaucratic and inefficient in decision-making. It seems too focused on prescriptive top-down solutions, ignoring the experience of the practitioner, and slow to embrace new technologies in environmental management. Farmers and land managers have lost trust in it, which is a disaster for nature. NE is not fit for purpose. I want to examine why.

Some key factors interlink and have a compounding effect. A major problem for NE is its structure. Where scientific expertise and sound judgment is a prerequisite, there is a lack of good in-house scientists and the consultants that it uses sometimes do not have the expertise needed. Over the last 20 years, due to budgetary constraints, the best scientific experts—and therefore the most expensive to employ—have left the organisation. It used to employ highly regarded scientists but now, with some notable exceptions, it is an organisation operated by low-grade civil servants with insufficient supervision or control by scientific specialists. Yet it is an organisation on whose judgments Ministers must rely, and legal regimes rest. Making those scientific judgments is even more challenging due to Section 63(5) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, which sets out a requirement to prove a negative. This is a reversal of the usual burden of proof under the law, raising a fundamental problem which only good scientists can tackle competently.

The job is made much harder because the precautionary principle, which is not mentioned in the habitat regulations, has been established by case law and must be applied to habitat assessment. Here we have a problem. What is the precautionary principle? It has no constant legal definition. Regardless of that, it is cited by NE as justification for giving weight to hypothetical risks for which there is no credible evidence and without being questioned.

So the requirement to prove a negative must be very tightly regulated, as without proper oversight the system is open to abuse. Because of NE’s structure, that abuse is increasingly evident. It is much easier for the civil servant to say no, even though that decision is based on myth or prejudice rather than sound science. This then sets a precedent for future decisions and the downward spiral continues.

That “safe decision” attitude, which pervades NE, is now the ingrained cultural attitude and the reason why it makes so many perverse decisions. Such decisions lead to more costly and/or delayed development, with little or no benefit to the environment. As an example, NE’s assessments of general licence applications 43 and 45 have revealed inconsistencies, a lack of understanding that game management activities are intrinsic to releasing activity, an overprecautionary approach based on bird flu risks and a presumption of negative impact. GL43 and GL45 were brought in to address environmental and legal issues, not bird flu.

NE has become an increasingly powerful organisation that can do what it wants without challenge. Frighteningly, the Bill seeks to give it yet more power. It cannot be challenged from within. However good the executives or members of the board of trustees are, they are not ecologists and they are not equipped to challenge the scientific approach, even if based on myth adopted by the case officer.

It is hard to challenge from without. Developers know how powerful NE is and do not want to campaign publicly for fear of damaging their relationships and having greater difficulty with their schemes in the future. This leads to a conspiracy of silence. Those who wish to challenge NE from outside are faced with every obstruction. I will go into the case of Biocore Agri Ltd in more detail on later amendments. In summary, Biocore was given approval by NE for its scheme in the nutrient market, only for NE to say it would refuse a detailed application due to a change of mind. Not surprisingly, this inconsistency has upset Biocore and it has challenged NE. I am told that, in retaliation, NE has now threatened not to answer future correspondence from Biocore. Given that NE has obstructed the private sector on nutrients, what confidence can we have that NE will not behave in exactly the same way when it comes to EDPs?

I have had the temerity to question NE’s science and scientists. Luckily, I have no land and NE has no hold on me. On 22 April, I wrote in some detail to the CEO setting out my concerns about the science that NE uses regarding wildfires and asked for a meeting. After long delays and a refusal to be allowed to speak to her or her office, I received a reply from a member of her staff, which included the words: “We do not feel such a meeting to discuss our approach to evidence would be productive”. However, I have now heard from the CEO, who has offered a meeting. It will be in October, six months after I asked for it, but it would not be taking place had I not asked the Minister, to whom I am grateful, to look into the matter.

I ask your Lordships to contrast the arrogant, complacent and discourteous attitude of NE with that of the director of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, which I emailed on 28 June with concerns about the problems fiprinol and imidacloprid are causing to the environment. I received a detailed response before the end of July. That reply gave rise to further questions and, on return from holiday, I asked for a meeting on 20 August. The response was immediate and the meeting took place before the end of the month.

Inadvertently, with NE an organisation more fearsome than the environmental arm of Rostekhnadzor in Russia has been created. This part of the Bill does nothing to rectify the deep-seated problems NE has. A wise Government would drop Part 3 and sort out NE for the benefit of the environment, development and the growth that this country so badly needs before giving it more powers which, unless reformed, it will only abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I have put my name to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, who made an excellent speech trying to persuade the Government to take out Natural England and put in the Secretary of State. As I said on the last group of amendments, Natural England has become unaccountable and unquestionable. It is also acting as judge and jury in its own right.

If you google Natural England, you come to the GOV.UK website. Under “What we do”, it says:

“We’re the government’s adviser for the natural environment in England”.


If it is the adviser, then it is the Secretary of State who should be totally accountable, as well as the Minister in this House, whom we can question. At the moment, we cannot question Natural England in the way that we can question Ministers. I think that is entirely wrong, and I hope the Government will agree.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

Is this something the noble Earl would want extended to other government agencies? Is he envisaging that, with the Environment Agency, for example, all the powers should be held by Ministers and only delegated on sufferance? The Forestry Commission is in a slightly different position because it is a non-ministerial government department. I am just trying to understand whether this is something he thinks is a good point of principle for a Government’s relationship with all their agencies, or whether this is a witch hunt against Natural England.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

No, it is not a witch hunt against Natural England by itself, because I think a lot of the agencies suffer from exactly the same problem. However, this Bill is giving Natural England huge executive powers which it has not got at the moment. Those executive powers should be used by the Secretary of State so that they can be questioned in Parliament.

My noble friend Lady Coffey also spoke about Natural England’s capabilities. It is worth looking at some of its capabilities. It manages a national nature reserve at Moor House; it is the only one it manages directly. It was supposed to be a beacon of best practice and demonstration. After 70 years of quango management, of the 25 sites of special scientific interest, only five are in favourable condition—as assessed by Natural England itself—and the rest, 80%, are either unfavourable, declining or in one case destroyed. In Dartmoor, the trust between farmers, landowners and Natural England broke down so seriously two years ago that the Conservative Government had to commission a review chaired by David Fursdon. That reflects very badly on Natural England.

More recently, Natural England launched a new interactive peat map and invited the public to use it to inform responses to a live Defra consultation on heather burning. One would think that was fairly simple and straightforward; what could go wrong? Well, within minutes of the map becoming live, owners, farmers and tenants highlighted major inaccuracies in this new mapping tool, making any work based on it of spurious value. These were not minor glitches, but a basic failure of environmental cartography. Natural England’s track record is not very good. In fact, it is pretty useless. I therefore strongly urge the Government to change the wording of the Bill as proposed in the amendments from my noble friend Lady Coffey and myself.

I commend and support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Lucas. If we are going to go down this route with Natural England, it is hugely important that trusted partners take on the work of running the EDPs. If you look at some of the farming clusters already set up and ready to do this, it is much better that people who live on and work the land are the ones who take over and run the EDPs, rather than a quango based elsewhere, which is not there on a daily basis. I will be talking more about the trusted partner in later amendments, but the principle of what my noble friend Lord Lucas wants to do is absolutely right.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to this group of amendments on the role of Natural England. It is a big group, so I will not respond to everyone at this late hour. It is clear that there are remaining concerns about the Bill in terms of not weakening nature protections and the complexity of the new systems that are being put in place. There are two problems here. There is the complexity of what needs to be done and there is the issue of whether Natural England is able to deliver on what it is required to do under the terms set out in this legislation, should it be passed.

Natural England is absolutely central to delivering the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund. I want to return very briefly to the comments in the paper today, because I think this is important. The Government cannot both create more complicated systems that as a result of their actions require more people to do more things, to see that the duties made by their legislation get done, and at the same time say that the actual organisations that need to deliver those need to be slashed and cut. Actually, that tension between what are almost two different sides of government worries me. It worries me a lot in terms of what is being done overall. I will just park that there.

Turning to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, of course I fully understand the intention that it is about looking at responsibility, bringing in the Secretary of State and trying to hold the Secretary of State accountable for what is being done. There is an argument to say that Natural England may not be as accountable, and I understand that. My problem is that the Bill actually sets out a process where we have EDPs and the nature restoration fund and I do not think that just changing the wording of the Bill changes any of the complexities of the reality on the ground. There are other ways that we can do that, in terms of holding the Secretary to State to account in any case, and holding Natural England to account, so I do not particularly feel that that is a solution to the complexities that are created by the legislation.

I want to speak to Amendment 328A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 333 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I was not certain whether Amendment 328A was a probing amendment, but the noble Lord has clarified that it is. As such, I welcome it and I look forward to the Minister’s response. My view is that the national park authority should be included, and I hope that is the case, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.

Amendment 333 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Young, seeks to clarify

“that the powers given to Natural England under Part 3 can only be delegated to a public body”.

I welcome this amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I also note what the Minister said on the previous group, that the intention of the Government was that it would only be a public body. We definitely welcome that statement. I think there is still perhaps a need to have this amendment to the Bill and, with that, I will sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment would clarify that the Secretary of State may issue statutory guidance to Natural England or any person preparing an EDP, with they must which comply. We have heard concerns during debates on Part 3 of the Bill about Natural England’s ability to manage EDPs. We also know that 160,000 houses are being held back by Natural England’s guidance on nutrient neutrality. This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State has greater control over the process by which EDPs are made. This would give Ministers the tools they need to ensure that Part 3 is effective in delivering on their intentions.

Does the Minister agree that this discretionary power granted to Ministers would be helpful in a hypothetical circumstance where Natural England’s implementation of EDPs does not follow the Government’s intentions? I will be arguing in later groups, in support of my noble friend Lady Coffey, that Natural England should continue to report solely to the Secretary of State for Defra rather than to MHCLG as is planned in this Bill. I am deeply concerned that reporting to two separate departments is likely to lead to significant complications in management, direction and allocation of resources.

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra are sensible. Amendment 270A would require Natural England to have regard to any local nature recovery strategies in preparing an EDP. The interaction between EDPs, the mitigation hierarchy and biodiversity net gain is complex for developers already, but the interaction between EDPs and other strategies for local nature recovery is also complex, especially where the conservation measures specified within an EDP interact with them. My noble friend is right that these should be taken into account by Natural England, and we are interested to hear whether the Government will accept this amendment.

Amendment 277A limits the number of EDPs that Natural England may make each year. This speaks to questions about Natural England’s suitability as the body for making EDPs. I know that several noble Lords have expressed their frustration with specific cases where Natural England has not got things right. I therefore hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House what assurances she has had from Natural England in respect of its plans to ensure that it has the appropriate staffing and skills in place to deliver its functions under Part 3 of the Bill efficiently and effectively. This part of the Bill is designed to unlock development, so any delays or mistakes that have to be resolved at Natural England will hinder the achievement of that overall objective.

The amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Caithness are all sensible amendments that probe some of the crucial questions on EDPs. The reality is that we have still not got real clarity about how well EDPs will fit into the existing environmental protections regime. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has done some very good work on trying to understand, as the Minister described earlier, exactly how this new process for developers fits into the wider picture. I hope that the Minister can help clarify these issues further from the Dispatch Box today. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 231, moved by my noble friend Lord Roborough, and will also speak to the other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Currently, the Bill requires the EDP to set out the measures to be taken to address the identified impact on environmental features and to achieve overall improvement. However, no justification or explanation is required, and I believe that that is wrong.

Amendment 249 is needed to ensure that an EDP states that the scientific basis for the conservation measures is considered appropriate, as this will provide greater confidence in the ability of the EDP to contribute to an overall improvement and therefore improved outcomes for nature. Monitoring will also be key to achieving success, as required by Clause 57(7), so it is important that this and associated costs are set out in the EDP under Clause 55(6). In addition, this amendment seeks to link the EDP with local nature recovery strategies and other relevant policies, so that it is clear how it contributes to local nature, and to identify the time frame required, given that this would vary in accordance with the impact being addressed.

Amendment 274 requires Natural England to define at an early stage the proposed conservation measures and then seek expressions of interest from persons or organisations as to their suitability to deliver these. This is key, as it opens up the opportunity for private sector involvement and would also help NE to meet its obligation under Section 57(2). I pose the same question as I did earlier to the Minister: given how Natural England has treated BioCore, as I mentioned earlier, what confidence can she give the Committee that Natural England will treat the private sector in a proper and fair manner when it comes to EDPs? If it does not, it will only be doing EDPs itself, and it will become state-owned and a disaster.

I turn now to Amendment 270 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and myself. This amendment refers to the land use framework, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, when we were discussing Amendment 214. I am sorry that she is not in her place. This amendment is to ensure that the choice of land and the choice of land management practice to be used for an EDP are not directly contrary to the principles laid out in the coming land use framework. In the same way that some of us might balk at the idea of using first-class food-producing land for, say, solar panels, we might equally balk at such high-production land being set aside solely for biodiversity. I emphasise the word “solely”, because you can produce food and biodiversity from the best land if it is managed properly. I believe it would be sensible if this Bill pre-empted the production of the land use framework and made allowance for its appearance on the scene.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister said. She confirmed that the EDP will state the scientific basis for the conservation measures proposed. What happens if one thinks that the scientific basis is wrong? Given Natural England’s track record so far, how does one get to challenge that when one thinks it is wrong? That is going to be very important.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I cannot remember whether it was in the previous debate or the one before that, but I clarified that a vehicle for challenge is available. It is there. I cannot remember if it was mentioned in the previous debate or the one before that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[The Earl of Caithness]

234: Clause 54, page 91, line 27, after “date”),” insert “which must be no later than six months after a planning permission has been granted,”
Member's explanatory statement
This seeks to ensure that there is no time drift from the granting of planning permission to the start of the delivery of the EDP.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 234, I will also speak to Amendments 235 and 236, in reverse order. Clause 54(7) relates to the start and end dates of an EDP. To ensure meaningful outcomes, the EDP timeframe should not be specified in legislation as it will clearly depend on the nature of the environmental impact and the conservation measures required.

I am sure we all agree that restoring and recreating some habitats can take considerable time to achieve full functionality. Given climate change and other environmental impacts, EDP measures will require adaptive management, hence the need for review and ongoing monitoring. What happens at the end of 10 years? How do we retain the overall improvement? How do we know that a developer will not change the new site? How do we know that a farmer will not return the site to food production in the wrong way? These are hugely important questions in order to fulfil an EDP and I do not believe it should be limited to 10 years.

Given that it is going to take a long time, I need now to look at the start date, because it is vital that, the moment planning permission is granted and thus the loss of a protected site or species is imminent, Natural England should get on with it. According to Clause 58, there is a lot of process and consultation to be carried out, and so not a moment is to be lost. We must bear in mind that the Government are legally committed to halting the decline in our biodiversity by 2030. The concern of the start date moved my noble friend Lord Cameron to poetry. He sends his apologies to Andrew Marvell, as he penned these words:

“Had we but world enough and time,


Delay my Lords would be no crime.

But at my back I always hear

Time’s winged chariot hurrying near.

And yonder all before us lie

Deserts of vast eternity

Where nature bids us all good-bye”.

We need to fire a starting gun to ensure that Natural England gets on with it, hence the amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses concerns that EDPs, as drafted in this Bill and despite the welcome improvements offered by the Government, create considerable unease over their effectiveness and the timeliness with which they will be developed to address the harm being done elsewhere.

Amendment 235A in my name recognises that 10 years is a blink of an eye in environmental terms. It might take only days to destroy a natural environment, but it takes decades to restore it and centuries to return to a more natural state. In our environment, the fastest-maturing native trees take over 30 years to mature and the slowest take over a century. Likewise, it can take decades to restore a blanket bog or peatland.

My Amendment 235B suggests 30 years as the appropriate timeframe for an EDP. The advantage of 30 years, as opposed to 10, is simply that this is a proxy for our own generational timing; that in itself is appealing, but this is also consistent with biodiversity net gain units. I fail to understand why 10 years has been regarded as appropriate for EDPs, and I look forward to the Minister explaining why this should be so. In that regard, I prefer this to Amendment 236 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. However, his Amendment 234 is a sensible measure that would ensure there is a coincidence in the timing of the EDP and the commencement of the development.

One of the concerns expressed by developers is the reputational risk they carry if they are undertaking a development which has included the NRL as its environmental contribution, but there is no evidence of the EDP associated with that development occurring. I am sure the Minister can understand this concern and will be keen to ensure that developers do not carry that reputational risk to the actions or lack of action by Natural England.

I hope the Minister can reassure us in her reply to this short debate that these concerns are being addressed. However, there is a strong case that these issues should be dealt with in the Bill, rather than relying on guidance that can change over time. The obligations around timeliness and effectiveness of EDPs are simply too loose in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Given the safeguards already in place, and for all the reasons that I have set out, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not press their amendments.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply; I will have to study it with some care, given the time of night, but a lot of it did not make much sense to me.

The Minister talked about clarity and how the overall improvement needs to be demonstrated by a certain date. She also said that we need to demonstrate an environmental benefit as soon as possible. Nature does not work like that. What if there is a flood? What happens if there is drought for two years? All sorts of things in nature can put down the best schemes. You can certainly demonstrate all this on paper from Marsham Street, York or Peterborough but, out in the real world—if only Natural England would get out there—it is a very different story. My noble friend Lord Roborough mentioned planting deciduous trees. By the time they are 10 years old, they are not very high; they still need a heck of a lot of work. Blanket bog takes years. Goodness, I have lived on blanket bog in Caithness; I know that you cannot re-wet it overnight.

This is environmental theory, not practice, but I will read what the Minister said. We will come back to this on Report but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 234 withdrawn.