I was not planning to, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I need to set out some important changes that the Government have made and the amendments that we are proposing. However, on the basis of your stricture, I will not take any further interventions.

The Bill has not changed; if anything, it has been strengthened in Committee in ways that I will set out. To assuage what are entirely reasonable questions in respect of an approach that is novel, we have already made some targeted improvements to part 3 in Committee, including requiring environmental delivery plans to demonstrate how conservation measures will be maintained and over what period; strengthening the overall improvement test by clarifying that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that it will be passed by the end date of the environmental delivery plan; clarifying that the negative effect the Secretary of State must consider relates to the maximum amount of development covered by the environmental delivery plan; and ensuring that Natural England has sufficient powers of entry, used only when absolutely necessary, to survey or investigate land alongside appropriate constraints, including notice requirements and introducing further protections in respect of Natural England’s use of compulsory purchase powers. Those changes significantly strengthen the nature restoration fund and, I hope, will be welcomed across the House.

However, as I was at pains to make clear in Committee, and will more than happily restate once again today, I continue to reflect on the reasonable points made by hon. Members and the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection with a view to deliberating on what more might be done to ensure everyone is confident that the outcomes for nature provided for by this part of the Bill will be positive. For the purposes of clarity, that includes giving serious consideration to ways in which we might instil further confidence in respect of the rigour of the overall improvement test, provide for greater certainty in respect of the delivery of EDPs, and ensure that there is more clarity about the evidential basis and environmental rationale for strategic network level conservation measures. As we do so, I put on record my thanks to all those who have continued to engage constructively with the Government with a view to providing reassurance that the nature restoration fund will operate as intended. As ever, I will listen carefully to the contributions made by hon. Members in respect of part 3 of the Bill, and I look forward to a constructive debate on these clauses.

In Committee, we discussed the need to do more to rapidly increase the coverage of swift bricks across the country as an important means of arresting the long-term decline in breeding swift populations. In responding to the debate, I intend to cover some of the ways forward that the Government intend to take.

Before I close, I must turn to a number of substantive amendments that the Government propose to the Bill, starting with a further change to the NSIP regime. We have already included an ambitious package of reforms in the Bill that will deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for critical infrastructure. As part of our mission to speed up the process overall, it is critical that examinations are focused and efficient and that examining authorities continue to report to the Secretary of State within the regime’s statutory timeframes. Following feedback from stakeholders and a review of recent examinations, we are making an Amendment with a view to reinforcing best practice in examinations already adopted by some examining authorities.

At the start of the examination process, the examining authorities are required to make an initial assessment of the principal issues—an IAPI—for each application, which will detail the key matters specific to an application. Although the Planning Act requires that an initial assessment of the principal issues is made at the start of the examination, there is no requirement for it to be used for or to influence anything in the subsequent examination process. We believe that that initial assessment stage could be working harder to set the foundations for effective and streamlined examinations. That is why we are amending the Bill to ensure that the initial assessment of principal issues is a meaningful step that ensures that more focused examinations can occur. Through the amendment, examining authorities will be required to make procedural decisions about how they intend to examine an application in the light of the IAPI. That will support their ability to ensure that examinations are focused, with time prioritised on the issues that are most critical to the project, as set out in the IAPI. The change will also give more certainty up front to all those involved in examinations, so that they have more clarity about what to expect during the examination process.

I turn to an important proposed change relating to transport infrastructure. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill contains important reforms to the Highways Act 1980 and the Transport and Works Act 1992 that will streamline and improve the efficiency of delivering road infrastructure schemes and ensure that processes within the regime in the 1980 Act are fit for purpose and proportionate. Delivering a faster and more certain consenting process for transport infrastructure projects builds connectivity and tackles congestion and overcrowding. Following engagement with the Department for Transport and the Welsh Government, we are making a small number of technical amendments to these reforms. The amendments clarify beyond doubt that the responsibility for consenting marine licences in Welsh offshore areas remain with the Welsh Ministers. They also ensure that parts of Clause 31 do not apply to instruments made by Welsh Ministers under the Highways Act 1980. That demonstrates our commitment to devolution and to working with all parties constructively to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

Finally, we propose two further technical changes to the nature restoration fund. The provisions in part 3 of the Bill have always allowed for the nature restoration fund to operate in English waters out to 12 nautical miles. However, given the different regulatory requirements and protected sites at sea, we are making amendments to ensure the effective operation of the nature restoration fund in the marine environment—in particular, to enable marine-licensable activities in English waters out to 12 nautical miles to be covered by an environment delivery plan to support the development of new harbours and ports. In line with the provisions for terrestrial EDPs, any such plan in the marine space will need to take into account the relevant marine plan, marine policy statement and UK marine strategy as appropriate. That will ensure that EDPs support the Government’s marine priorities.

In bringing forward the nature restoration fund, it is also necessary to ensure that the provisions work effectively to support development delivered through different consenting regimes. To achieve that, we are making amendments relating to the Harbours Act 1964 and the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 that will ensure that the strategic benefits of environmental delivery plans can help to unlock the delivery of transport projects and better support nature recovery in those areas. I reiterate that we will continue to consider whether elements of the new nature restoration fund model could be strengthened to give greater confidence that positive environmental outcomes will be achieved. I look forward to continuing to engage with stakeholders and parliamentarians on this important issue.

I commend the Government amendments to the House. I thank hon. Members for their efforts to improve the Bill and for the scrutiny and challenge that the Bill has received so far, and I look forward to listening to the remainder of the debate.