Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend Lord Roborough’s Amendment 313 and will speak to that and to my Amendments 311, 316 and 318. I hope my noble friend’s Amendment 313 is an easy one for the Minister to accept or at least confirm that the situation will not take place at all when it comes to compulsory purchase orders.

On Amendment 311, I have three items I would like to see included in the regulations. Two refer to the mitigation hierarchy. We discussed that at some length on Amendment 245, so I will not say anything more about that. One of the items I would like to add to the regulations is that they should require Natural England to consider a delivery hierarchy, such that preference is given to those bodies and persons implementing the EDP. I believe that will encourage the private sector to take its appropriate share of the work of EDPs and keep the money with the people who actually manage the land, tend it and care for it, not just for 10 years of an EDP but for the future generations as well.

Amendment 316 seeks to clarify the legal obligations or liabilities of other parties, such as landowners and farmers, in accepting NRF funds delivered to the EDP. Amendment 318 seeks to provide further clarity on the involvement of an appropriate body, not just a public authority. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm exactly what is meant in the Bill on that point.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to a whole raft of amendments in my name in this Marshalled List: Amendments 307, 308A, 309, 310, 312 and 314. All are designed to ensure that the money raised through Part 3 for the nature restoration fund is actually spent on nature recovery rather than bureaucracy and process. This should concern us all because, as we have discussed repeatedly, Part 3 establishes what I see as an elaborate and quite ambiguous mechanism which does, in effect, carve out some developers from certain responsibilities.

Overall, my general approach to legislation is that it needs to be as comprehensive, clear and coherent as possible. We should not seek to keep things vague on purpose, because all that does is create problems, issues and delays down the line. Yet, as drafted, I fear that the Bill leaves a huge amount open to legal interpretation and case law. I am not speaking to any agency, body or department—perhaps it is more a reflection of human nature itself—but my experience is that where there is an ambiguous process, there is a tendency for government and others not to feel as much pressure on the need to deliver cost-effectiveness. On something as bold as this scheme, I fear that there is a likelihood of going through copious administrative procedure to mitigate litigation risk. Obviously, these copious administration procedures cost, and I suppose the ultimate question is: is it fair that nature pays that cost?

These amendments seek to limit the power of Natural England to take a cut from the fund at the expense of nature. I am sure that some will balk at this concept and ask where the money comes from, but that is not the debate here. I am seeking to ensure that the funds raised from developers are spent on their proper purpose. We should recognise that Natural England already has generous provisions allowing for it to charge fees for licenses and other work through Section 11 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Amendment 307 seeks to limit the amount that Natural England can charge in accordance with those existing provisions. Could the Minister explain whether they no longer see those existing provisions as sufficient to recover legitimate costs for Natural England?

Amendment 309 seeks to ensure that any charges taken are used to work within the same local authority boundary. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who, sadly, is not in his place, for adding his name to the amendment. The amendment makes it clear that the levy raised must be spent within the same planning authority from where the levy originated. I am happy to discuss my reason for tabling the amendment, and there can be debate about whether it is too narrow in its definition. As currently drafted, however, the money raised from one site can be spent anywhere. I am blessed, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, will agree, to have been born in God’s own county of Lancashire. More recently, I confess, I have moved somewhere else. Hypothetically speaking, there is nothing in the Bill, as drafted, for a site to be taken out of where I live in Surrey now—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I know. There is nothing to prevent the EDP deeming that the money raised should not go to replace or improve something near what I have lost, but rather could be spent in beautiful Lancashire. As a result, while my family up there may gain from that benefit, people in Surrey would lose the benefit twice. They lose the site within scope of the development, and they lose the money that should be there to rectify that loss.

Finally, I will speak to Amendment 308A, which seeks to prevent other departments, but mainly the Treasury, effectively siphoning off money for non-related uses. Clause 71(5)(d) allows for Natural England to pass moneys collected under the levy to another public body. Indeed, it goes so far as to say that it would require Natural England to pass it to another public authority. A little later, the rather gloomy entry of Clause 72(7) says:

“The regulations may permit or require a public authority to collect any nature restoration levy charged by Natural England”,


the implication of which is worthy of debate in itself. Which public body do the Government foresee taking on this role if not Natural England? I will leave that to others if they wish to go down that route.

This amendment protects the funds to wherever these moneys may go. It means, ultimately, that their original purpose shall remain. I think everyone can unite around this, from sceptics of the Bill to those supporting it, because it means that money for nature should remain for nature and not be subsumed into a general pot. I am afraid I have the scars from working in government and know all too well what happens if things are not ring-fenced clearly.

As an aside, there is a precedent here. The other day—I cannot remember when—we discussed the community infrastructure levy, and the 2010 regulations include a ring fence to ensure that the income spent is on infrastructure, no matter who is doing the spending. That is in Regulation 59, if noble Lords wish to check. Ultimately, the nature restoration fund needs to be protected and clearly defined in the Bill, and not allowed to be open to interpretation or postponed to secondary legislation.

The remaining amendments in this group in my name, namely Amendments 310, 312 and 314, all seek to tighten further the accountability and transparency around any decision by Natural England to fund its own administrative activities from the nature restoration fund.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

It was a pleasure to follow the last two speakers, as they adroitly picked their way through the thickets of these various amendments. I will briefly touch on theirs before getting to mine. As regards Amendments 256 and 313, where land is CPO’d from its owner, it is manifestly unfair to include in the levy the cost of acquisition. It is reminiscent of the victim of an execution being made to pay for the bullet. As regards Amendments 307, 312 and 314, I support clear limits being set on the ability of quangos—particularly quangos in a monopoly situation—being able to overegg their charges.

Amendment 307A in my name requires Natural England to provide a proper budget breakdown for the use of levy funds requested from a developer. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how a required levy could be quantified in any other way. In the event that there is an underspend of the developer’s levy, then the amount not spent to meet the purpose of the levy should be promptly returned to the developer. It has always been my understanding that the specific purpose of the levy is to enable the offsetting of environmental degradation caused by specific developments. Such environmental degradation is to be defined, calculated and quantified by Natural England or its appointees to arrive at a numerical amount of the levy sum payable by the developer. Natural England has confirmed to me that that sum will in each case include an amount for contingency. That is a normal part of any budgeting process for what could be a complex project.

Where the system departs from normal practice is: what happens to any unspent funds once the quantum of environmental benefit that the developer has paid for is achieved? When I asked Natural England executives about this, they told me to my great surprise that any unused funds would simply be kept by Natural England and spent on unspecified further work. The levy amounts are likely to be substantial. It is not unreasonable to anticipate millions of pounds in some cases. To allow Natural England to retain any unspent funds for its own purposes flies in the face of standard contractual practice. It is also an open invitation to overprice the levy for any project as a means of generating revenue for Natural England above and beyond what is reasonably required for the agreed environmental benefits.