Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Fuller]

188: Clause 94, page 123, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) the funding and financing of development proposals, which may extend to the issuance of bonds, debt or similar financial instruments.”

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to my Amendments 190 and 192. I welcome the broad thrust of empowering and reinvigorating the development corporations contemplated in the legislation. This is the best part of a complex Bill, although we know that it has already been overtaken by the devolution Bill launched in the other place.

Clause 94 seeks the achievement of sustainable development, and the mitigation of and adaption to climate change, but there would be no sustainable development without commercially sustainable financing of the proposals that the corporations bring forward. My amendment seeks to bring sustainable finance alongside those other sustainability issues. I approach this subject in the knowledge that local authorities may be reorganised and that mayors may be created in what we now learn to be a cat’s cradle of overlapping and competing responsibilities. Regardless of that, the day-to-day financial pressures felt by national and local government have never been greater.

In a former time, development corporations would simply hold out their hand to the Government or local councils for funding. Of course, that route may still be open, but we need to recognise that the old ways, with joint severability between various tiers of local government, are falling away. Building new towns is the work of generations; it goes beyond political cycles. Relying on national and local politicians will not be enough in a world where building a secondary school costs £40 million and a flyover £100 million. In the pursuit of sustainable development and delivery on the plans, the money needs to be right, because without the money, how can all the desirable options in Clause 94 be delivered?

We need to give the development corporations powers to exploit the difference between funding and financing—by explanation, funding is writing the cheque, but financing is putting the deal together. It is no surprise that it is the financiers in the City of London who are the highest paid, because their task of turning those good ideas into reality is the hardest.

Development corporations are independent, but they have the benefit of being able to lean on the covenant strength that comes from being a statutory body. I will not dwell too much on the significance of the governance of development corporations, but I will make the factual observation that strong governance leads to higher covenant strength, the ability to take a higher credit rating, and the willingness of institutional investors to pony up the cash. We need to make it easy for development corporations to raise funds in new and creative ways at the lowest possible coupon. My amendments would path find those.

Get this right and we will provide investable opportunities for pension funds that desire to invest in infrastructure bonds, for local people who want to invest in local facilities that benefit their area, or for sovereign wealth that seeks a home for its money within an advanced economy with well-defined property rights. But the well of wealth from these sources may not be enough, and there may be other ways to skin the cat. The corporations need to be empowered to engage in all manner of financial instruments, including the traditional issuance of bonds, debt or similar instruments. But we should contemplate other sources of finance. That extends to entering into joint ventures with landowners whose land is to be incorporated as an in-kind contribution to the whole, so that they may enjoy the uplift over a long period rather than cash up front. 

It should not be right that development corporations feel they need to reach for the CPO lever by default and then be forced to pony-up a premium price to the owner up front after the unpleasantness of the process—there are lots of “p”s in that sentence. In other words, development corporations need to have powers not just to assemble land but to be creative in the assembly of that land. The creative concept of the joint venture would allow more money to be spent on upfront infrastructure than on land acquisition. That is a better-value enterprise. By thinking creatively like this, the amount of upfront funding will be less and the ability to deliver essential infrastructure at the outset greater. 

 I want to place finance in its widest possible context, not just rooting it in the sort of funding where you stand on the street corner with your hand out. Let us seed these stand-alone corporations away from the other financial pressures that afflict local government and free them from the apron strings of those local authorities. While I accept that the development corporations can plan for an area and have regard to all manner of desirable outcomes, contemplated in Clause 93, ultimately those plans or outcomes will stand or fall on whether the money can be raised and the finance deals put together. That is what my amendments seek to achieve. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, in the absence of other speakers, I am interested in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and will be even more interested in the Minister’s response, bearing in mind what I said in the previous group about management of risk and who underpins a development corporation in the event of financial loss.

Amendment 197 is very important. There are two issues: the automatic

“removal of hope value from the valuation of the relevant land”

proposed for development and, secondly, whether land purchases by development corporations should be seen as

“public sector investments to be counted against departmental expenditure limits”.

This amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is important and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, as part of my research for this series of amendments, I looked at the New Towns Act and I note that it is 80 years since the Minister’s home town of Stevenage was seeded, so to speak; it is now time to bring things up to date. At that time, central government had the power and the finance to get these things off the ground, but things have moved on and we need some more creative thinking. There are wider sources of capital and finance in the world and more players want to participate.

I do not accept that my amendment would arbitrarily constrain the development corporations in pursuance of financing their quite weighty objectives, many of which are enumerated in the next clause, Clause 95. It would not constrain them, but would give them a choice: an option—not a compulsion—to widen the pool of finance should they wish.

The Minister in her winding suggested that powers exist to borrow from central government. She referred specifically to the Public Works Loan Board. Anybody who knows anything about the Public Works Loan Board knows that, as a result of some rather ill-advised advances, it is now capped. I believe the sum is at £90 million; I cannot remember exactly, but that does not matter. The fact is that it is thus far and no further. The Minister asserts that the Public Works Loan Board is always cheaper than others. We know that not to be the case. As the example of the Municipal Bonds Agency demonstrated, there was a well of capital for international markets willing to invest in local infrastructure projects at lower rates than the councils were able to borrow from the PWLB—had the headroom existed. So the premise not only that central government is the only route but that any other routes would be more expensive is demonstrably false.

That is further the case if, as in the example I gave earlier, a landowner may wish to cede some of his land to the development corporations as part of the red line, in kind rather than in cash, it is possible that there would be no coupon to be paid at all. The interest—the return—would come long-term as the development proceeded.

So I do not accept that this is a constraining amendment. I take from what the Minister said that is its highly likely that the consequence of not accepting this option is that, first of all, capital may be constrained, it is possible the development corporations may pay more, and the opportunity to assemble land in a creative manner may be taken away. Clearly, we are in Committee; perhaps we ought to engage on this between now and Report. I fear that the Minister’s brief is labouring under a false premise. I think we can say that this can be resolved, and should be if the promise of development corporations is to be fulfilled. I beg leave to withdraw.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I do not think I said that PWLB was the only source of funding for development corporations. I did mention that they will be able to enter into joint ventures and land agreements to obtain private capital and use the National Housing Bank and the National Wealth Fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that. I beg leave to withdraw. Perhaps we can return to this on Report.

Amendment 188 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, which my noble friend has proposed with a very powerful argument indeed. He is not asking for a stop to housing or these other developments; he is asking for an audit so we have the information to hand.

I want to make just three quick points. Quite often, when it comes to housing, there is not a choice as to where the housing goes for obvious reasons. Most new housing developments will be adjacent to existing settlements; they will be adjacent to towns, villages and often, inevitably, they will be put on really good, grade 1 agricultural land that will get gobbled up. To some extent, that is accepted.

On food security, my noble friend made a very good point about the historic context and raised briefly the Ukraine war. One of the lessons of the Ukraine war is the fact that we cannot take our food security for granted. He touched on solar arrays, and I suggest to the Minister that, in building out solar arrays, we indeed have choice. We do not have so much choice over housing, but surely we have choice over where we put these solar arrays.

I just wanted to tell the Minister what is going on in part of my old constituency of North West Norfolk. There is a large wave of planning applications for solar arrays along the A47 corridor between Swaffham and Dereham. Much of that is going to take in grade 1 or grade 2 agricultural land. The serious worry I have is that we are not talking about willing seller, willing buyer—or willing farmer, willing buyer. We are talking about tenant farmers who are going to have their livelihoods taken away. We are talking also about some farmers who may have holdings adjacent to larger landowners who are putting their land forward for this development. The companies in question proposing the developments have come forward with a threat of compulsory purchase. We are moving away from the willing seller, willing buyer concept—at the same time putting at risk a huge amount of really good agricultural land.

The Minister should look at this amendment in the spirit in which it has been drafted. We are not trying to order the Government what to do. My noble friend is not trying to stop these developments. Of course, he wants some of them modified, but we need to have that information. We need to have a proper audit, so I support this clause wholeheartedly. I very much hope that the Minister will realise that the potential damage to our farming communities is huge—damage is being done already.

We have sites such as warehouses on industrial estates—go around any new industrial estate; you will not see a single solar panel. Look at a modern school or hospital; a new hospital is to be built in my old constituency, and there is no provision there for solar panels on what are to be flat roofs. Yet down the road, we are going to see the demise of really first-class agricultural land. The Minister needs to get a grip of this and, above all, have information to hand, so that we can be properly informed in future, so I support my noble friend.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support Amendment 214. My noble friend nearly said that we are no more than three meals away from societal breakdown, but we are—and, in the hierarchy of needs, food in the belly is the number one requirement. Land is the principal resource that provides bread, beer, biscuits, as well as broccoli, and they are not making land anymore.

I am concerned, because the land use framework that has been proposed by the Government contemplates that fully 9% of our farmland will be used for non-growing purposes. Your Lordships will have heard me say before, in respect of solar panels particularly, that it is beyond careless to allow the best land to be consumed for non-farmland purposes before the worst land is exhausted. Last year, the national wheat yield was down 20% on account of wet weather. This year, there is an impairment in many areas on account of the dry weather. The weather changes, but we cannot be careless about our food supply.

The better news is that we have recently heard encouraging noises from former Defra Ministers who belatedly realise that the risks of food security are greater than they have ever been. It is noteworthy that, while we no longer have a Minister for Agriculture, we have a Minister for Food Security, and I think we should all welcome that, provided that the title of food security flows through into recognising the importance to national security, ensuring that the greatest proportion of the food in this country can meet our needs.

I had a commercial meeting this morning with one of the UK’s largest participants in the agricultural supply chain in this country. Its agricultural director gave me what I felt was a stunning statistic, and I will relay it to noble Lords. He said that, over the last 30 years, the amount of arable farmland in this country has diminished by 30%. I questioned him: “You mean 1% per year, each year, for the last 30 years?”, and he said, “Yes, we used to count on a 15 million tonne a year wheat harvest, now we’re lucky to get 12”. These are big reductions with large consequences, so I enthusiastically endorse Amendment 214. If we are going to have a Minister for Food Security, doing this arithmetic is going to be an essential part of her task—how else can she benchmark her success? I think the amendment is fully in tune with the direction this Government are going in.

Had it been my amendment, I would have probably asked for the data to be embellished by an assessment of the underlying agricultural land quality—the ALC, or agricultural land classification—so that we could work out not just the number of hectares that are lost but how they apportioned between the best and most versatile land versus the lower ranks. I wonder whether the noble Lord might consider enhancing the amendment with agricultural land classification, if he sustains it on Report. Otherwise, I give it my full support in Committee.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I very much want to support this amendment, because it is asking for information, and one of the problems we have in this country is that when we do not like the answers, we do not ask the question. That seems to me to be the fundamental issue here.

I am rather in favour of properly placed solar farms, but I use the wording “properly placed”. I also think that, in many ways, at least you can get rid of them. The problem with building houses is that you cannot, and I am very concerned about the way in which we constantly use greenfield sites instead of insisting on the development of already used land. I have to say that this Government have really not faced up to the reality, which is that the housebuilding industry does not like anything but a greenfield site and will take those long before it will try to develop inside our already used towns and the like.

This is not only bad for food security but bad for the environment, because it means that people, instead of living relatively hugger-mugger, able to live and move within the same area, have in fact to use transport to get anywhere. In Suffolk, where I come from, I see this all the time: more and more people are commuting from villages which have never had the jobs, and will not have the jobs, to towns increasingly far away. So, the issue of housebuilding is crucial, and we have not thought it through. Merely saying “1.5 million new homes over five years” does not actually face the real issue.

I declare an interest as a small organic farmer. I am very concerned about the failure of the Government to face food security. I am not sure that I myself would have chosen Angela Eagle for that job. The fact of the matter is that it is a very important job, but it is not one that is being faced up to. When I was Minister of Agriculture, I was interviewed by Peter Jay, the cleverest man in Europe, and he said to me, “I don’t know why we have a Minister of Agriculture, because we can always buy food elsewhere in the world”. That is the ignorant position, which I am afraid has been carried on either publicly or privately, and not only by this Government, but I fear by previous Governments too.

It is a serious matter that no member of this Cabinet has real agricultural connections of any kind. No member represents a fully agricultural seat, although I am pleased to see that the new Secretary of State for Defra—who is an extremely intelligent and useful addition to the Cabinet—has the most agricultural seat of any Cabinet Minister: Wycombe. Anyone who knows where Wycombe is knows that the agricultural bit is ancillary rather than central.

--- 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 ---

I just share those anecdotes, and I would like us to remember that official who thought this was the most exciting thing that ever happened in his career, sitting at his computer saying they did not need ecologists because a computer would tell them what to do.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned, over and above nutrient neutrality, the biodiversity net gain levy, but has he also considered the other levies, which will apply in addition in an astonishing layering effect? There is the GIRAMS, the green infrastructure recreation avoidance and mitigation strategy, and the SANGs, which is special areas of something—there are so many of these different levies, each of which layers over and above. The cumulative effect of all these is so great that what has to give is the affordable housing, the community infrastructure levy and all those other wider improvements. Has he made some sort of consideration of that in his research?

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

The noble Lord asked me to say something before I sat down. I will now sit down, but he has thoroughly ruined my evening. Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 231 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. I attended the drop-in session last week with representatives of Natural England and listened carefully to what the Minister said in winding up the previous group. We are starting to get a feel for how the process by which we might even get to the start line under Clause 53 will work. There will be a process by which Natural England proposes some research, identification, some assessment of some proposals—whether it be for bats, bluebells or barnacles, it does not really matter. It will make recommendations to Ministers, and there will be some proposals and presumably some draft procurement, because with the proposal must come some sort of idea of how the EDP is to be done. There will be some consultation, selection, regulations, pricing, final procurement and legal work. I think the figure that came to mind when we had the drop-in was that it will take about three and a half years. There are less than four years of this Government remaining—three and three-quarters.

So, if the process contemplated by Clause 53 proceeds, it will not result in a single new home being delivered and occupied within this Parliament. What sort of timescale does the Minister have for the implementation and the first benefits? When will the first person be able to move into a home that has been unlocked by these EDP processes?

There is another point. Before we even get to that stage, there has to be an approach to what Natural England, if it acts as the operator, will be providing. Will it be offering to developers a permit or a licence? A permit tends to be a tradable asset, but the last thing that anybody in Defra who has a long memory will want is to go back to the days of milk quotas, whereas a licence can be surrendered at the point at which it is not needed. We need clarity on this before we even get to the consultation side on the EDP. Then there is the multiple layering: we have biodiversity net gain for 30 years and nutrient neutrality for 80 years, while the EDP is made to last for only 10 years. We need some clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments considers the preparation of EDPs and what they are required to contain. Many of the amendments seek to add various matters to which Natural England should have regard when preparing an EDP. These matters include the scientific evidence base for conservation measures, how the EDP relates to local policies, the local nature recovery strategy, the land use framework and the timeframe required to address environmental impacts. The Bill, as currently drafted, alongside the government amendments that we have already tabled, requires these matters to be taken into account. I can therefore assure noble Lords that these amendments are not necessary, as these matters will already be adequately considered when developing an EDP.

Amendment 274, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would add three requirements to the preparation of an EDP: first, requiring the conservation measures to be used to address the environmental impact of development to be defined; secondly, creating a pre-consultation period for EDPs, during which expressions of interest to deliver the conservation measures must be sought from appropriate persons or bodies; and, thirdly, publishing the expressions of interest should the EDP proceed to be made. The first of these is already addressed in the existing provisions in Clause 55. The existing provisions also allow Natural England to delegate functions to other bodies, including those in the private sector. Specifying a particular procurement method and creating an additional pre-consultation period would be unnecessarily restrictive, given that EDPs will need to be tailored to the specific local and environmental circumstances. The land use framework and other strategies that we are developing in Defra, such as the food strategy, will obviously be part of any consideration. We all work together very closely. We talk to each other, which may surprise some noble Lords, because we want these to be delivered effectively.

Amendment 231 seeks to provide the Secretary of State with a power to issue guidance relating to the making of an EDP, specifying various topics that this guidance may cover. It would then require Natural England or any other body carrying out functions under this part to comply with this guidance. As noble Lords will be aware, the Secretary of State already has the power to issue guidance on key matters that Natural England must have regard to when carrying out functions under this part. Guidance should be used to guide Natural England, not to compel it. This would be more appropriate for a regulation-making power, which is subject to greater parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State will still be able to make guidance on any relevant matter and will be able to assess the extent to which it has been applied when making the EDP.

We believe that Amendment 277A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would be unnecessary, as Natural England will operate only within its capacity when it is producing EDPs.

Turning to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his Amendment 253C, regarding the interrelation of the NRF model and existing biodiversity net gain arrangements, I assure noble Lords that the NRF and biodiversity net gain are distinct but complementary policies. The NRF will focus on enabling development that encounters specific environmental obligations relating to impacts on protected sites and species, whereas BNG applies to all new developments, bar the limited exceptions.

I come to the important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, regarding the consultation on BNG, when we would get its outcome and whether that would be before Report. It is a pertinent question, and I will take it back and look into it for noble Lords.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to give him reassurance, the NRF will not affect the existing requirement to deliver BNG. That is a free-standing obligation outside the NRF. I hope that, with this clarification, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

May I just ask whether the Minister would give some consideration to the question I posed: at what stage, following the pattern set out in Clause 53 and all the rounds of consultation, procurement and devising of schemes, does she think the first dwelling house will be completed and somebody occupies it? Will it be in this Parliament, or the next?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, I cannot give a precise date to the noble Lord, but we know that Natural England has indicated that the areas on which it has substantial evidence and information at the moment—for example, nutrient neutrality and on newts—are the ones that it will move ahead for. These are the areas that it already has the information on to produce an early EDP.