Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, this group covers further government amendments to bring confidence that the nature restoration fund will deliver the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model. At its introduction, the Bill provided the ability for Natural England to include back-up conservation measures within an EDP which could be used if the initial conservation measures were not delivering the desired outcome.

Reflecting the original intent that these back-up measures would be used where necessary, Amendment 248A makes it mandatory for an EDP to include back-up measures as well as explicitly requiring Natural England to monitor the effectiveness of conservation measures so that it knows when it is necessary for these to be deployed. In addition, government Amendment 298ZA bolsters the duty of the Secretary of State to carry out remedial measures. Should the end-point report or the report following revocation contain an assessment that conservation measures are not likely to or have not passed the overall improvement test, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to take proportionate action to address any shortfall in environmental outcomes, whether the EDP is revoked or it reaches the end date.

Finally, the amendments make a series of minor legislative fixes and consequential amendments necessary for the correct operation of the legislation following these substantive government amendments. I hope that the Committee will support these amendments, and I beg to move.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords these amendments brought forward by the Minister draw attention to a crucial point: environmental delivery plans, if they are to carry weight and deliver real outcomes, must be more than static documents. Amendment 248A rightly calls for contingency measures, back-up conservation actions that can be triggered if the initial interventions fall short. That is not only prudent but essential if we are to treat the environmental promises made in an EDP with the seriousness they deserve. Likewise, the amendments proposing a clear duty on the Secretary of State to act where an EDP fails the overall improvement test, together with publication requirements, are in my view sensible and measured. If the regime is to maintain public confidence, there must be accountability when delivery falters.

The environmental delivery plan must not be a one-shot deal; it must be an adaptive instrument capable of responding to what monitoring reveals and supported by a credible remedial pathway if things go wrong. These proposals help to strengthen that architecture, and I hope that the Government will give them serious and constructive consideration.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his supportive comments. I do believe these amendments show we have been listening to concerns. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

253: Clause 55, page 92, line 29, at end insert—
“(9) Where an EDP identifies environmental features that are likely to be negatively affected by any invasive non-native species that is present at the site of the development, Natural England, or a body acting on behalf of Natural England, must take all reasonable steps to eradicate the invasive non-native species that has been identified at the site.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to protect all environmental features identified as at risk by invasive non-native species.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, in moving my Amendment 253, I will also speak to my other amendments in this group. It is an embarrassment that in our small, wealthy island nation, there are, according to APHA, over 2,000 non-native species, of which 10% to 15% become invasive and pose a serious threat to our biodiversity and environment. We must make intensive efforts to control and eliminate those species to protect our own besieged biodiversity.

The grey squirrel has pushed the red squirrel out of much of our woodlands and now destroys countless young trees every year, making it almost futile to plant native broadleaves in my home county of Devon and many other parts of the UK. What progress is being made with the research into the sterilisation of grey squirrels, and when will that treatment be expected to be made generally available?

Himalayan balsam and Japanese knotweed have invaded our river systems, displacing our native flora and upsetting the ecology for animals and fish living in those waterways. I commend the Tamar invasives group for the work it has done in controlling these invasive plants under the auspices of the Tamar Valley National Landscape in that area. What similar work is being done elsewhere in the country to eradicate these species?

Signal crayfish are present in many waterways and reservoirs, spreading disease that kills our native crayfish and predating on our migratory and freshwater fish species. Muntjac deer are spreading rapidly across our country, feeding on our crops, damaging fences and stripping the bark off young trees. Numbers are out of control.

The purpose of these amendments is twofold. The first is to raise awareness of the damage that these and other species are doing to our environment. The Government need to change attitudes to these animals, birds and plants so that everyone in this country takes steps to eliminate them from their gardens, farms and land.

The second purpose is equally serious. I cannot see how any environmental delivery project funded by this new nature restoration fund can be judged to be successful if non-native invasive species are still present on the land within the project after five years. It simply does not make sense that the EDP can have done an acceptable job on the site if those species remain in place, attacking our much-loved trees, brown squirrels and aquatic species.

Should the Committee support this amendment, I fear there is a risk that Natural England could then choose sites that are not infected with those species. Can the Minister assure the Committee that would not be the case? I think that all who know and love our beautiful countryside appreciate how difficult a task it would be to achieve this even in these limited areas, but it is not impossible, and it is crucial. I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, introducing his own amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I start by confirming my support for all three of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Amendments 253, 296 and 297. However, I caution the use of “non-native”; it is the invasive aspect that is the problem. What could be more English than a rose? What could be a more typical English fruit than an apple? Both of them originate from central Asia—they are not natives. However, I entirely take the point about invasive species.

Amendment 60, already debated, referred to guidance on planting along highways. There was much discussion about trees and wildflowers. I enjoyed reading what type of tree the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, might represent, which might repay people who want to look it up in Hansard. One plant that grows along our highways which was not mentioned in the earlier debate is ragwort, the bright yellow flowering plant seen everywhere alongside our highway network. Through lack of enforcement of existing legislation, this invasive plant has become a menace to the environment, animals and agriculture, and action to control it is long overdue. Once it has flowered, ragwort produces seeds that, like dandelions which people may be more familiar with, come with a downy parachute which means they float far and wide on the breeze across the countryside and into farmland, where they take root, produce more seed, and so on.

Ragwort is poisonous to livestock, and it is not advisable for people to touch it with their bare hands, although I spend many unhappy hours pulling it up myself with my own bare hands, as I am sure many other Members do. Grazing animals leave it alone while it is growing, but where a field is cut for hay or silage, as is the case on many grassland farms, it gets incorporated into the bales, animals cannot detect it, and they are poisoned by it. Finally, areas set aside for environmental benefits, such as margins for wildflowers, quickly become choked with ever-expanding stands of ragwort.

So much for the biology; what about the law? Ragwort is what is called a notifiable weed, and landowners and occupiers have a legal obligation to control and remove it, particularly if it is spreading, causing a nuisance, or posing a risk to livestock. The Weeds Act 1959 and the subsequent code of practice on how to prevent the spread of ragwort outline these responsibilities. Failure to comply can lead to legal action, and/or the relevant authorities can issue a clearance notice requiring action to be taken to remove it. Unfortunately, this has not been enforced for many years.

As part of my research in tabling this amendment, I asked a Written Question about notices or prosecutions in the last 12 months. I was informed:

“In the past 12 months, no notices in relation to ragwort control have been served to National Highways, and there have been no prosecutions under the Weeds Act 1959 or the Code of Practice”.


I would bet that we could go back a lot more years than the last 12 months and the result would be exactly the same.

That is not good enough. Defra and the Environment Agency need to enforce the existing law and regulations. The Bill will create new areas of land controlled by a quango. This amendment specifically identifies this problem plant and requires that at least in the development of new infrastructure, proper controls are carried out, and—my favourite theme—enforced where necessary. That would be a start.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the main deer that cause a problem is non-native, but we will not go into that. The department is currently producing the revised deer strategy, which I am sure we can share with the noble Earl when it is produced. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is working closely with the group working on the grey squirrel sterilisation programme. I have had meetings with him and his colleagues, but I cannot provide the details of that, as it is something that they are driving forward themselves. It may be worth the noble Earl having a conversation with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and we are supporting the work that he and his group are doing.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this short debate, and particularly to the Minister for her knowledgeable answer. I add my thanks to the Minister for a meeting which she organised a couple of weeks ago with her officials. The depth of knowledge of those officials on this subject was phenomenal.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made a good point about public education. These are not adorable, furry animals, these are pests. They are causing damage to our wildlife, our trees, and to everything in our country, and people need to be aware of that. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, about ragwort. My experience is that responsible farmers remove this as soon as they see it, and it is disappointing to see public bodies not taking that responsibility seriously.

I also thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his points. He slightly contradicted himself; of course, it is very difficult to remove these invasive non-native species, but the point is that it is not impossible. I had the same experience with Japanese knotweed and Himalayan balsam; you can eradicate them, but you have to work at it.

I will take away the comments made in the debate, and perhaps see whether there is something we can do, in this Bill or elsewhere, to try to strengthen the defences against these. I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 253 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

256: Clause 56, page 92, line 37, at end insert—
“(4) When considering the rates or other criteria to be set out in a charging schedule in the course of preparing an EDP, Natural England must not include any potential capital costs for the purposes of acquiring land.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents Natural England from including Compulsory Purchase Order costs within their budgeting for an EDP.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 256 I will speak also to my Amendments 313, 315 and 317 in this group. These concern the use and governance of the nature restoration fund levy. This is a large group of amendments, so I will use what time I have available at the end to address other amendments. My amendments aim to reinforce the principles of fairness, transparency and proper fiscal stewardship in the deployment of levy funds, ensuring that the mechanisms intended to restore nature do so in a way that commands public trust and delivers tangible environmental outcomes.

Amendment 256 seeks to prevent Natural England from including the costs associated with compulsory purchase orders in its budgeting for environmental delivery plans. The use of CPOs should be the absolute last resort, not a built-in assumption or a line item in standard budget planning. Including such costs up front risks normalising compulsory acquisition, an approach which is both confrontational and potentially costly to the public purse. It also discourages collaboration with landowners, many of whom are keen to play a voluntary role in restoring our natural environment. This amendment therefore promotes a partnership-led model of land restoration rather than a heavy-handed and bureaucratic one.

Amendment 313 builds on this principle by explicitly prohibiting the use of levy funds for land acquisition via compulsory purchase. The nature restoration levy is paid by developers—and ultimately by the public—with the promise that it will support direct and measurable environmental benefits. Using those funds to acquire land through force undermines the voluntary market-based ethos behind the levy and risks reputational damage to the scheme. We must be clear that the levy should support restoration, not legal battles over land.

Amendment 315 would ensure that funds raised through the NRF levy are not squirreled away for indefinite or speculative future use. Money raised should be deployed promptly and transparently to deliver nature recovery now, not be locked up for uncertain projects that may or may not materialise in years to come. The public and contributors deserve to see timely, tangible benefits from these contributions, especially in an era of growing scrutiny over the effectiveness of environmental spending.

Finally, Amendment 317 provides the Secretary of State with the necessary regulation-making power to return surplus or unused funds to contributors. This is a basic fairness measure. Where funds have been raised in excess of what is needed, or where they cannot be spent appropriately, it is right and proper that they be returned. Without such a mechanism, we risk creating a one-way system of financial extraction without accountability. I hope noble Lords will recognise that, taken together, these amendments strengthen the integrity of the nature restoration levy by ensuring that it remains targeted, proportionate and fair. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

On Amendment 317, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I reassure him that the regulation-making powers in Clause 71, in line with wider precedents, are framed around indicative lists to demonstrate how the powers may be used, so we feel comfortable that the scope of this power is already sufficient to allow for the appropriate management of any unspent funds, as well as to deal with refunds in the event of overpayments. With those explanations, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

It is clear from the amendments in this group that there is broad consensus across the Committee on a number of key principles in the use and governance of the nature restoration fund’s levy. The first is transparency, the second is fairness and the third is value for money. The fourth is my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s point that the funds should stay local, as far as possible. We discussed, in a previous group, the implications of that for the BNG market.

Frankly, I agree with all the amendments. The Minister has given us a very comprehensive answer to the amendments, which was helpful. There was definitely some reassurance in there about the potential for ring-fencing the NRF; I will take those away and study them further, but I suspect this might be something that we return to on Report.

I think the Committee is concerned that this could become a slush fund. We know from the water restoration fund how resistant the Treasury is to the hypothecation of funds and how keen it is to get hold of penalties to the water industry and so on. We do not want to see this turning into a slush fund used to acquire land at will by Natural England, spent on bureaucracy or even returned to the Treasury. For now, I will withdraw my amendment, but I would very much like to return to this.

Amendment 256 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. He makes a point that I missed when I turned a page in my notes. Essentially, we are creating financial instruments with muddy wellingtons attached. We need to think about that balance as we contemplate how the Bill will work in practice, with those 80-year requirements to keep and maintain these projects contemplated by the EDP. It needs a change of thought.

Certainly, international accounting standards will be at the front of our mind. This is the sort of question that actuaries at life insurance companies are employed to handle. They know that they have a liability and what sum of money is needed up front to deal with it. That is not contemplated at all in Clause 59. It needs to be. That is the point I am trying to make. The state cannot do it itself—it needs a flow of private money coming into this space to benefit nature, but one that has its feet on the ground and where the numbers add up.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 318ZA seeks to ensure that farmers and farmer cluster groups are permitted by Natural England to apply to the nature restoration fund and actively participate in the delivery of conservation measures required under EDPs. This is a straightforward but essential point. Farmers are not just stewards of the countryside. In many cases, they are the very people who are best placed to implement and sustain long-term environmental outcomes.

If we are serious about delivering the ambitions of the Bill, we must make full use of the capacity, expertise and local knowledge of the farming community. Allowing them access to the nature restoration fund is not only fair but practical, efficient and better for nature and, to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, expands choice.

One of the many concerns that I and others have expressed about Part 3 of the Bill is that it disenfranchises the private sector, which has been developing BNGs to aid developers with the mitigation hierarchy. I appreciate that the Minister has suggested, and probably will again, that EDPs are intended to operate alongside the existing structures and to engage with the private landowner and farming community. But it is far from clear how that will work and it does not appear to be in the Bill. However, this amendment encourages Natural England to define the EDP that it is seeking to deliver and allows the private sector to offer solutions on commercial terms. The amendment has very considerable merit, as it guarantees the involvement of the private sector and takes pressure off the underresourced NE to design the EDP and deliver it. At a time when budgetary pressure and government decisions are seeing funding to the rural economy reduced in real terms, I hope the Minister will welcome this or any similar amendment.

Amendments 258, 268 and 353, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, aim to ensure that private market solutions can play a meaningful role in the implementation of Part 3 of the Bill, including through on-site mitigation by developers and investment in nature recovery through market mechanisms. We support the sentiment behind these amendments. They are thoughtful, interesting, pragmatic and right. The noble Lord rightly identifies that if we are to achieve our environmental targets, we must unlock private capital alongside public investment. That includes enabling developers to deliver effective biodiversity net gain directly where appropriate and giving confidence to investors that their participation in ecosystem markets will be valued and secure.

Amendments 318B, 320B and 325ZA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, would strengthen the obligation on Natural England to use private markets in delivering EDPs and introduce a clearer hierarchy for Natural England’s direct involvement. These amendments point to a real concern—notably the risk of crowding out private sector delivery by overly centralised or bureaucratic processes. They would also introduce a limitation on Natural England’s ability to compulsorily acquire land, requiring Secretary of State authorisation and evidence that land cannot be bought at market value. This too is an important addition to amendments we have already put down and debated trying to restrict Natural England’s power to compulsory purchase land at will.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Curry, for Amendments 258, 268 and 353. These amendments speak to the role that private providers of nature services will play in the delivery of the NRF.

We share the desire of the noble Lord—and that of other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—to support private sector investment in nature. We are clear that private and third-party providers will play a critical role in delivering the NRF. By design, this Bill allows a partnership approach to the delivery of conservation measures. This includes explicit reference in Clause 76 to paying others to undertake conservation measures. The Government expect Natural England to use competitive procurement approaches, wherever appropriate, to ensure innovation and value for money.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, we tried to spell this out a little better in the letter that we sent round. It explained that EDPs will provide new opportunities for the private sector, habitat banks, farmers, local authorities and environmental groups to supply nature services. Of course, local solutions are an important part of this, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord regarding processes. As part of the wider measures to support the NRF, the Government will issue guidance to natural England specifically on this point.

The noble Lord also asked about the percentage of the levy that would go to conservation measures and how much would be spent on other things. We cannot be specific on that because clearly it will depend on the nature and size of the EDP and the measures that are going to be agreed. Admin will be able to be claimed for, but the overall focus is delivering the conservation measures—that is what we want the money to be spent on. There will be charging schedules which will provide more information.

The problem with enforcing the binary choice in the amendments is that it would reduce the role for private solutions as part of the implementation of Part 3 of the Bill. My The noble Lord—I think I will call him my noble friend—Lord Inglewood rightly said that we need choices in order to have the best outcomes for nature.

On Amendments 318B and 320B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, Natural England will work with private providers and landowners to deliver conservation measures. We recognise the vital role these providers will play in making the NRF a success. Restricting Natural England’s ability to deliver conservation measures itself in the way proposed would risk EDPs being unable to deliver value for money for developers where the only available and willing providers are prohibitively expensive.

We are shortly going to be discussing compulsory purchase, so I will say here that we expect Natural England to consider compulsory purchase only where attempts to acquire land by agreement have failed, and that use of Natural England’s compulsory purchase power must be authorised by the Secretary of State. I trust the noble Lord will be content not to press his amendments.

I turn to Amendment 318ZA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. I understand the desire for clarity on the opportunities for farmers and others to be involved in the delivery of conservation measures. As mentioned earlier, this model relies on close working with private partners and landowners, and we will publish guidance to support this. However, we are aware that local landowners know their land better than anybody else.

On Amendment 325ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, I will be very brief. I reassure the noble Lord that this amendment is unnecessary because, where the land is available to Natural England at market value, it will already be able to pursue the compulsory purchase order as there is a long-standing requirement that compulsory purchase orders can be used only where reasonable efforts to negotiate the purchase of land by agreement have failed.

Finally, regarding the noble Lord’s questions around SFIs, to confirm, we are looking to launch a reformed scheme next year. As I know more details, I will keep the noble Lord in touch with that. With those explanations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, would it be possible to share the guidance, or at least a draft of the guidance? I think it would help us to understand where we go to on Report.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

292: Clause 60, page 96, line 14, at end insert—
“(8) Where the Secretary of State chooses not to make an EDP, the Secretary of State must also seek to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order for the purposes of the EDP to the original owner.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to seek to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order where the Secretary of State has decided not to make the connected Environmental Delivery Plan.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 292 and speak to Amendments 298 and 324 my name. I will leave my comments on other amendments in the group to the time I have available at the end. However, I see merit in those amendments and hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, listens to those contributions. I apologise if I inadvertently misspoke when I interrupted the Minister at the end of the previous group.

As I have mentioned in previous debates, we are strongly opposed to Natural England being awarded CPO powers in connection with environmental delivery plans. We question the necessity of the nature restoration levy used to fund EDPs. Just 1% of housing applications consulted on by Natural England are objected to on the basis of environmental concerns, and only 10% of long-term infrastructure projects are challenged by environmental concerns. To suggest that environmental regulations are the reason that development is not occurring on the Government’s desired scale is simply not correct. For Natural England to then be given CPO powers for EDPs is surely rubbing salt into the wound.

The Bill threatens to create a Government monopoly on conservation project delivery and delegated responsibility to Natural England. With that in mind, these amendments attempt to rein in the powers of Natural England and outline their scope so that, while still extensive, they do not step into outright intrusive. Amendment 292 ensures that land that is subject to CPO is returned to the original owner if the intended EDP does not go ahead. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst has already discussed the Crichel Down rules, and this amendment simply makes that part of this legislation. I believe that it is a valuable safeguard to ensure that land is CPO’d only when an EDP is certain.

Amendment 298 is in a similar vein, ensuring that land is also returned if a CPO is revoked—again, a valuable sanction against underperformance by Natural England. Amendment 324 seems a simple and obvious amendment, and a critical protection for every home owner or tenant in this country. Surely Natural England’s CPO powers should be limited such that it cannot CPO a garden, an allotment or indeed a home for an EDP. It may seem unlikely for that even to be a possibility. For that reason, some may think that this is not a serious amendment, but it is. What if someone’s garden or allotment is located in an area subject to an EDP and contains a feature, species or habitat that NE finds attractive? Under the Bill, NE has the power to force entry to assess it and to CPO it if the homeowner does not want to play ball. I urge the Government to accept this simple amendment to allow us all to remain secure in our enjoyment of our property.

I hope that the Minister, will listen carefully to the amendments in this group and be sufficiently stimulated to help to prevent Natural England’s becoming an authoritarian empire.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I have put my name to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Roborough, and I thoroughly support them. I do not wish to add anything to what he has said. I have also put my name to Amendment 323 in this group. I ask your Lordships to look at paragraph 816 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, which says:

“Subsection (2) sets out that the power can only be exercised if the land is required for purposes connected with a conservation measure”—


and here are the important words—

“set out in an EDP”.

In other words, Natural England cannot go around compulsorily purchasing land for just any old conservation measure; it has to be one set out in an EDP. My Lords, I presume that this is just a typing error between the green pages of the Bill and the white pages of the Explanatory Notes, and that the Government will therefore be able to accept the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this group relates to the powers in Part 3 for Natural England to make a compulsory purchase for purposes connected with the taking of conservation measures. The Government have taken a cautious approach in respect of compulsory purchase powers, but it is clear that this needs to be available to ensure that there is sufficient certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, compulsory purchase can be used to ensure that conservation measures are delivered. However, the Government recognise the need for such powers to be tightly constrained, and I am confident that, when considered alongside existing safeguards, the proposed amendments are not necessary.

I turn first to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, which seek to require Natural England to return any land obtained under a compulsory purchase order in two different scenarios. The first is when Natural England uses these powers to purchase a piece of land and the Secretary of State later decides not to make the EDP in question. I can assure the noble Lords that this will never happen, as Natural England cannot make a compulsory purchase before the EDP has been made.

The second scenario is when an EDP is revoked. Where an EDP is revoked, any land secured through compulsory purchase may still be required to address the impact of development covered by the EDP, or to support the delivery of any remedial measures being taken forward following revocation. Requiring land to be returned automatically would risk removing a crucial way of delivering remedial measures and potentially damaging the relevant environmental feature.

Where land has been compulsorily purchased and is not needed, and it would genuinely be surplus, the Crichel Down rules would apply. The land would be offered back to the former owner, their successor or sitting tenants at market value, provided that the land has not materially changed and none of the exceptions under the rules applied. These rules are well-established, as we discussed in a debate the other day, so I hope the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.

Moving to Amendment 323, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I assure the noble Lords that the subject of their amendment is already addressed in the Bill. CPO powers may be used only in connection with the taking of conservation measures, as defined in the legislation. Amendment 324 would restrict Natural England’s ability to use CPO powers to purchase land that is part of a private dwelling. I would first like to assure noble Lords that this type of land is incredibly unlikely to meet the high bar for compulsory purchase or to be approved by the Secretary of State. The use, or future use, of land will be taken into account by the Secretary of State when approving the CPO. This important safeguard ensures that the use of these powers comes with appropriate oversight, and noble Lords will be aware of existing protections around private dwellings granted by the Human Rights Act 1998. I think the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, mentioned that himself.

Finally, Amendment 352 would extend the compulsory purchase powers to Crown land. The CPO powers in the Bill are there to provide assurance that land can be acquired where necessary to ensure that an EDP can deliver the necessary conservation measures. Extending these powers to cover Crown land is unnecessary. To put it simply, if Natural England were to require Crown land for a conservation measure, that would be resolved between Natural England and the relevant authority. I hope that, with those explanations, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, this short debate and previous debates covering other amendments relating to CPOs have been a clear demonstration of just how emotive compulsory purchase is. Handing these powers to Natural England almost unfettered is surely a step too far. I am grateful to the Minister for trying to reassure the Committee, but the comments about going back at market value are exactly the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, highlighted: if that market value has changed dramatically between when the CPO happened and when it was decided to return it, that would seem rather unfair. A requirement to buy the land back at the same price would be fine.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

299: Before Clause 66, insert the following new Clause—
“Nature restoration levy: payment, liability and amount(1) A developer may make a request in writing to Natural England to pay the nature restoration levy in relation to a development to which an EDP applies and if Natural England accept the request, the developer is committed to pay the nature restoration levy.(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations about the nature restoration levy (“nature restoration levy regulations”).(3) Nature restoration levy regulations may—(a) seek to ensure that costs incurred in maintaining or improving the conservation status of environmental features can be funded (wholly or partly) by developers in a way that does not make development economically unviable,(b) make provision about liability to pay the nature restoration levy in relation to a development, including who is liable to pay the levy, and when liability to pay arises.(4) When considering the rates or other criteria to be set out in a charging schedule, Natural England must have regard to, in the manner specified by nature restoration levy regulations, the actual and expected costs of the conservation measures relating to the environmental impact of development on the environmental feature to which the charging schedule relates.”

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 306A and 308 in my name. These amendments seek to introduce clarity, proportionality and fairness into the operation of this new levy.

Amendment 299 seeks to specify the principles governing payment, liability and the calculation of the amount payable under the nature restoration levy. I appreciate that the noble Baroness the Minister wrote a very helpful letter today laying out some of the process that developers will be subject to here. It is essential that developers have certainty and predictability. Clarity on who pays and how much they pay is fundamental to ensuring a functional and trusted levy regime that does not deter responsible development. There is considerable concern over the cost to developers of the EDP, particularly given that it appears it will be taken outside the Section 106 agreement and therefore threaten the financial viability of developments. My noble friend Lord Lansley appears to have a similar intent with Amendment 306, and I will listen to his comments with interest.

Amendment 306A deals with proportionality. It would recognise that, in some cases, even after applying the mitigation hierarchy in full, there may still be residual environmental impacts. This amendment would allow for a proportionate contribution, not a full contribution, to be levied in such cases. It would ensure that developers who are genuinely taking steps to minimise harm are not disproportionately penalised, while still upholding our responsibility to invest in nature restoration where impacts cannot be wholly addressed on site. I believe that this is an important environmental protection that ensures that mitigation on site remains incentivised, as it would result in a reduced contribution to the nature restoration fund. This would also help to ensure that private sector services remain important for developers. My noble friend Lord Grayling’s Amendment 305 again appears to pursue a similar aim, and I am sure that we will speak prior to Report if we do not receive satisfactory reassurance today.

Amendment 308 turns to implementation. It would ensure that the regulations governing the nature restoration levy include provisions for how it is to be collected and enforced. Crucially, it would require that the funds received are spent by Natural England on conservation measures directly linked to the environmental feature that justified the levy in the first place. This would not only increase transparency but maintain public trust in the system. Further, the amendment includes a right of appeal on a question of fact related to the calculation of the levy. This is a basic principle of fairness and accountability.

I believe that these are sensible amendments. They do not seek to undermine the nature restoration funds, but rather to ensure its integrity, effectiveness and fairness, all of which are principles that should be central to any regulatory mechanism. Put together, the amendments in my name would form a coherent and practical approach to ensuring that the nature restoration levy supports both environmental enhancement and sustainable development. I look forward to the remarks from noble Lords on all Benches. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble Lord. I did not answer his question, which was quite clear. I think the issue of mandatory EDPs was put in as a precaution, but he is right—it would be useful to have some examples of where that might be necessary. We will come back to that between Committee and Report, so that we are all clear on the kinds of circumstances where a mandatory EDP may be put in place. It is important that we all understand that.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this short debate, and I thank the Minister for her response. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for his comments clarifying my question about financial viability. I remain not completely clear. The letter this morning was helpful, but it would be helpful if, when the Minister responds to the questions raised in this debate, she could say whether the actual cost of contributing to the NRL will be available prior to Section 106 being available. The Minister has much greater experience than I do on how developers act in these ways, but it would be reassuring to know that there is no excuse for reopening affordable housing contributions in Section 106 based on unexpected costs of the NRL.

I thought the Minister’s response about the proportionate nature of the application of the nature restoration levy very helpful, and I will go away and read her comments. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 299 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group of amendments to say, basically, that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I thank her for her contribution.

I wholeheartedly recognise why both noble Lords have brought forward the amendments, the point that they are making about the energy transition and the fact that we need to get on and build this stuff. In doing that, however, there is a balance to be achieved. If we do not transition to clean energy, there will be an impact on the environment. Obviously, there are some cases where these things come into contact and conflict, so we need to find ways to manage them. It is absolutely vital that we transition. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that we need to walk away from the polarised debates that are happening and to recognise that habitats are only one issue among a whole bunch of issues.

The bigger thing for me, weirdly, is the fact that the Bill could be doing more to help with infrastructure. There is a missed opportunity here, which is perhaps why there is talk of another Bill coming forward. I am interested to see how the Government will respond to the amendments. These are issues of balance, so painting all the problems as being about habitat regulations—and given the way that the noble Lords have painted their canvas—does not help the debate.

The Government have more to do to look at how we deliver infrastructure. I believe that that needs to be done—let us be honest—not at this time of night, with about four people in the Chamber who would rather be at home, but through a proper look. What I take away from the noble Lords’ amendments is that, with all these issues—getting to clean power, being a crowded island, managing habitat regulations and managing other projects—there is more to be done to consider other ways to help deliver the infrastructure that we all know we need, while balancing the facts that our nature is in decline and we are a small, crowded island. What we need to do is all work together in a spirit of co-operation to examine what are very technical and complicated problems. I thank the noble Lords for bringing their amendments, because they have resulted in important debates.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments address the critical interface between planning law and the protection of our sensitive natural environments governed under the habitat regulations.

Amendment 350, which I have signed—I should really have signed Amendment 349 too, which I also support—proposes a new Part 1A to the habitats regulations, placing scientific evidence at the centre of decision-making. That principle is vital. All too often, planning decisions are mired in ambiguity and subjectivity, which, in turn, creates delay and a window for opportunistic challenge. These amendments would create a framework that distinguishes between material and de minimis effects, gives due weight to credible science and offers clarity for both developers and conservation bodies. That said, we must take care that the new language, particularly around decisions not requiring absolute certainty, does not inadvertently weaken precautionary safeguards. It is a fine balance and one we will want to explore further.

I imagine that I am fortunate not to have read the article in the Telegraph today, so I am completely comfortable with the amendments. The only thing from the introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, with which I did not entirely agree is the idea that nature has to suffer. A lot of the debate we are having around the Bill is about how to make sure that nature suffers as little as possible and how to mitigate that in the hierarchy. I believe that these amendments can be part of that.

That goes to the broader debate that we on these Benches have been having throughout the discussions on the Bill about why we have Part 3 at all. When we started debating the groups on Part 3, we offered a number of amendments to deal with nutrient neutrality, two of which, taken together, would have released 160,000 houses immediately after the Bill commenced. I am still not clear how EDPs will release those houses from the blocking guidance from Natural England.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has tabled a number of amendments that would significantly restrict the extent of EDPs, which I also support. In all the amendments I have mentioned and which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has brought forward today, there are solutions which, frankly, would be far better than Part 3 for speeding up development, increasing certainty and reducing costs. I therefore support these amendments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendment 349A in this group makes a minor legislative fix, inserting the correct definition of the Ramsar site series into the habitats regulations.

I turn to the non-government amendments and the debate we have just been listening to. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath have tabled a number of amendments concerning the operation of the habitats regulations. I wish to add some detail to comments I made in Monday’s debate in response to amendments seeking to limit the disapplication of the habitats regulations to the specific features and impacts identified in the environmental delivery plan. This is an important point which is relevant for today’s debate.

As I said on Monday, the disapplication in Schedule 4 already applies only to the specific impacts of the development identified in the EDP. I want to set out how this could work in practice. If a development proposal comes forward that has three different impacts on protected features—for example, nutrient pollution, recreational disturbance on ground-nesting birds and an impact on dormice—there might be two EDPs covering the area where that development is located, each addressing strategically the impacts of development on one of those environmental features. In this scenario, the developer may choose to discharge its obligations in relation to the two environmental impacts covered by those EDPs through payment of the relevant levy for each. The remaining impact would continue to be assessed in the usual way, either through the habitats regulations assessment or by applying for a species licence. With the other two impacts being addressed through the EDPs, the remaining assessment would be more focused and streamlined.

I want to be clear that it would remain necessary to consider any effects not covered by an EDP. This is by design. EDPs are intended to be modular, with each one addressing a specific impact or impacts. They are not intended to be a comprehensive way of addressing all the possible environmental impacts of developments. I hope that helps to clarify.

I come to the specific amendments that we have been debating. I know that noble Lords have been concerned that EDPs might not deliver for infrastructure, so they have proposed these amendments to improve the operation of the existing system. Our focus in bringing forward the measures in this Bill has been on ways to practically improve the planning process. Case-by-case negotiations of mitigation and compensation measures often slow down the delivery of much- needed housing and infrastructure, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, explained in his introduction. The nature restoration fund will allow developers to benefit from a streamlined process and simple user experience, while delivering better outcomes for nature. The Bill is also clear that EDPs can be brought forward to support nationally significant infrastructure projects.

The Government already plan to address, through improved guidance, many of the points made in the amendments and by noble Lords. Although I note the desire for an open conversation about wider reforms to the habitats regulations, noble Lords will recognise that amendments of the type proposed go far beyond the NRF and would benefit from proper scrutiny and consideration. Although many in the Committee may favour the spirit of some of these amendments, legislating in this manner at this late stage of the Bill would risk a period of significant uncertainty for practitioners and a potentially negative impact on development that we would all wish to avoid.

I turn to Amendment 346DA. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for raising the important issue of energy security. I wish to clarify that, through the overarching energy national policy statement, nationally significant low-carbon infrastructure is recognised as critical national priority infrastructure. In relation to such projects, the Secretary of State will start with a presumption in favour of granting consent. It is recognised that it is likely that the needs case for this infrastructure will outweigh the residual effects in all but the most exceptional cases, and we are already seeing positive impacts of CNP infrastructure. The current overarching national policy statement for energy also confirms that, where there are no alternative deliverable solutions to mitigating the impact of the NSIP on sites subject to habitats regulations assessments, then compensatory measures are still required.

Delivery of compensatory measures is an important part of protecting our network of protected sites, where damage to a site is unavoidable and where there is an overriding public interest. For offshore wind, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, explained, there are particular issues around the identification of suitable compensation, and the marine recovery fund will provide an optional mechanism which developers can pay into to discharge their environmental compensation obligations. In addition, for offshore wind, Defra recently consulted on changes to the environmental compensation requirements and intends to introduce a statutory instrument to deliver these changes. Where an environmental delivery plan is in place under the nature restoration fund, this will enable developers to fund strategic, Government-led conservation measures.

Amendments 349 and 350, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and Amendment 349B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would fundamentally alter many of the well-established principles of the current regime. While the Government understand and support many of their intentions, the focus of Part 3 is to establish the nature restoration fund and create a tool to address the environmental impact of development. Expanding the scope of the Bill in this way, as I said before on the other amendments, risks introducing uncertainty into the system and could slow the consenting of development. Several of the amendments also raise questions in respect of how they guard against environmental regression and significant harm to protected sites.

We feel that such significant changes to the habitats regulations assessment process would be better addressed following greater scrutiny, including from affected stakeholders. However, they raise a number of very important points about the operation of the habitats regulations. To take two specific points, decisions should be made on the basis of the best available scientific evidence and the habitats regulations assessment process should be applied appropriately and proportionately.

Government amendments to Part 3 include clarifying that both Natural England and the Secretary of State will take account of the best available evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP. However, introducing legislative definitions of “scientific evidence” or “scientific justification”, as proposed by these amendments, needs careful consideration to understand the impact of such changes and to avoid the risk that we introduce unnecessary uncertainty and increased litigation in this area.

Dan Corry’s review, which we have mentioned in previous debates, also suggests a potential reform to the habitats regulations and how they are applied, while ensuring consistency with international obligations. I can confirm that we are looking at how to improve the operation of the existing habitats regulations. We are preparing updated guidance on the assessment process, and the noble Lord’s amendment rightly addresses the role that guidance can play in encouraging a proportionate application of that process. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, may also wish to note in relation to his amendment that the guidance will make clear the flexibility that exists in order to screen out the de minimis effects where it is clear that there is no risk of harm to the integrity of the protected site.

I supported much of what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, and the approach that he suggested—that we need to be much more considered and take more time over some of this. We will of course continue to consider ways in which the operation of the habitats regulations can be improved, while protecting our most valuable habitats and species, at the same time as providing more certainty and an efficient process for developers. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments but continue to work with us on this important matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches totally agree with the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, because the depth and range of the changes encompassed in this Bill are significant and substantial. Throughout the Bill are references to the regulatory changes that will be made in secondary legislation; therefore, it is vital to retain understanding by the communities that are going to be affected and to help them with transparency on what the Government are doing to keep them on side rather than in complete opposition, at every turn. If, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, proposed, there is super-affirmative secondary legislation, the details of those changes could be properly scrutinised in draft form and then through the affirmative process. That seems an important route to take.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this and hope that the Government Benches, for once in this Bill, as we approach the end, will give us the affirmative nod.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, we support these amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and my noble friend Lady Coffey. I will start with Amendment 356 in the name of my noble friend.

I am sure it was not lost on the Minister that, when she informed your Lordships that the Secretary of State for MHCLG would be the directing and reporting SoS for Natural England on the nature restoration funds and EDPs, there was a huge collective intake of breath. What a sigh of relief it was this morning to hear that this had been reconsidered. I would be most grateful if the Minister could indicate the circumstances under which it may not be the SoS for Defra, as she mentioned earlier.

The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, Amendments 351A and 351B, seek to ensure that the super-affirmative procedure is adhered to for any regulations to amend existing acts or assimilated law under Section 89(2). A super-affirmative procedure would result in both Houses having the opportunity to comment on proposals put forward by the Minister and to recommend refinements before amendments are tabled in their final form. I am sure that all noble Lords are of the firm belief that scrutiny of legislation and delegated powers are important principles and a staple of any democratic system. I therefore very much welcome the spirit of the amendments and look forward to the Government’s response.