Lord Lucas:

Moved by Lord Lucas

242B: Clause 55, page 92, line 1, at end insert—“(2A) In the five years following the coming into force of this section, EDPs may only apply to nutrient neutrality, and other matters which the Secretary of State determines are appropriately dealt with at the scale of an EDP. (2B) After the period of five years following the coming into force of this section, provisions may be made that concern wildlife and other more local concerns, but the Secretary of State may not make more than five such EDPs in any year.”Member's explanatory statementThis Amendment seeks to ensure that the EDP process has time to bed in in uncontroversial areas, and that its further development is not rushed.

My Lords, responding to the noble Lord opposite, I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 4.31 of the Companion. Committee stage is a conversation; it is a free for all. Members may speak when they want and as often as they want. The point is to get to the root of the issues that we are discussing. We are here to do a job, not to stick to a timetable. If that takes us again past midnight, that is what we are here for. The point is to get through it, so that we conclude the arguments and can be much briefer and more formal on Report. This phrase “before the Minister sits down” is not a Committee phrase. We have the right to speak at any time. We must hold to that right, because that is the core of us doing our job well in this place.

The Amendment proposes that we take the question of environmental delivery plans at a gentler pace, and that we start by applying them in circumstances where the concept obviously works. Things that operate on a large scale, nutrient neutrality, water problems and other such issues are landscape-scale problems that need landscape-scale solutions. However, as we heard on the last day of debate, matters such as species are much more difficult to deal with.

We have a huge amount of uncertainty at the moment. From talking to the developer community and listening to them, I know that they see the Bill as paralysing development for the next five years. The Bill is meant to accelerate development, but as we have it at the moment it does the exact opposite. It creates so much uncertainty on how Part 3 will work, what it will feel like and how it will develop. Natural England has huge powers, and there are lots of big sums of money going this way and the other, but no one knows how it will happen. No one really understands how Natural England has the capacity to manage something of this scale—or even of this type—and what sets of behaviours to expect from it. We are setting ourselves up for five years of stasis, five years of not getting anywhere, because it will take that long for the system to settle in.

There is a better way to do this: to pace things, pilot things and do the easy bits first, and to make an early announcement of where the pilot EDPs will be, so that people can get their heads around it, and have large and open discussions about this. The provision that we are looking at is supposed to last a long time. There is no point in this being done in a constricted and partisan way—it will just break open the next time we have a change in Government. Everybody who wants to be involved in this is being asked to commit over long timescales. We politicians must adjust ourselves to that; we must run this in a way that allows people to have confidence in the politics over a long time.

The Government’s behaviour on biodiversity net gain is not a good sign of where they are in this space. I urge them to have wide discussions and involve people who are of obvious quality and depth, and who are likely to be there and involved in the discussion in years to come. In particular, I urge them to involve people from Opposition parties; it should not be the Conservatives’ choice of who to involve but the Government’s, rather like how my noble friend Lord Gove appointed the current chair of Natural England. They are not a natural Conservative supporter but someone who, because they were not a natural Conservative supporter, has lasted and commanded the respect of this Government. We want something that will run through—long-term thinking, long-term commitments and long-term relationships to build confidence. Amendment 242B says, “Let’s take it that way. Let’s take it slowly and carefully, let’s take people with us, rather than have some big and uncontrolled explosion.” I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 271 and 272. In response to the Minister, one way of quickening these procedures, and getting rid of the risk of a Member speaking for a long time while withdrawing an Amendment, is actually for the Government to accept a few of the amendments. Altogether, I think we have probably tabled some 400 amendments, many of which seem to be common sense. However, we seem to have had ministerial resistance to absolutely everything so far, which I do not think is a particularly good sign. However, I shall give the Government a chance because my amendments should obviously be accepted.

Even more seriously, Clause 58(2) starts quite promisingly. It says:

“In preparing an EDP, Natural England must have regard to”,

and then lists

“the development plan for the development area … the current environmental improvement plan … any Environment Act strategies”— which, I am pleased to say, would include local nature recovery strategies. However, at the end of the subsection, it says

“so far as Natural England considers them to be relevant”.

My amendment seeks to say that, no, Natural England cannot ignore those three areas of plan and strategy; it has to have regard to them. I agree that Natural England should be able to consider whether

“any other strategies or plans”,

as paragraph (d) says, are relevant, but it is crucial that Natural England, when preparing EDPs, has regard to development plans, current environmental improvement plans and any strategies under the Environment Act. It seems obvious to me that it should be that way. The amendment is very simple. It would be delightful if the Government agreed to at least one of the 400 amendments we have looked at over these eight days.

On the assumption that the Minister is not going to speak to her amendments in the group at this point, I would like to speak to my Amendment 344.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was talking about Clause 58 as it is in the Bill at present, but the effect of two amendments in this group—government Amendments 278A and 346E—is to delete the current Clause 58 and replace it with the new clause proposed in Amendment 346E, which will come before Clause 88. Just so that noble Lords are aware, that new clause more or less reproduces Clause 58, but extends it. The Minister will want to explain why that is the case. However, the point made by the noble Lord is exactly the same for the replacement text.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who tabled Amendment 275A in this group, is unable to be with us this morning. The purpose of the amendment is very straightforward and it will, I hope, be agreed on all sides of the House: when making an environmental delivery plan, regard should be had to small house- builders—indeed, so far as possible, account should be given and possibilities exercised to enable small housebuilders to conduct their business. The most important thing when the Government publish viability assessment guidance is that, as the Minister said in an earlier debate, the objective of the EDP is not to make development economically unviable. That being the case, this is an issue for smaller housebuilders, which find it most difficult to bear the burden of regulation and cost when preparing development. I hope that the Minister will be able to give reassurance on the point about small housebuilders made in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that the viability assessment guidance will specifically mention them and make allowance for them.

My Amendment 344, which is also about making an environmental delivery plan, makes a very simple point: at some point, Natural England needs to know in which potential developments it needs to consider making an environmental delivery plan. I do not see that in the Bill at the moment. The purpose of my amendment is to say that when local planning authorities are ready to put sites forward in, for example, a submission to the Secretary of State for the adoption of a local plan—not when they call for sites or are considering sites; this can be in guidance—they should notify Natural England of sites which have protected features, with protected sites or protected species involved. We know those sites are going to be pretty evident, so they should identify those themselves and notify Natural England.

I hope the Minister will say that this is intended to happen anyway, but it would be a good idea if it were expressed in the Bill, so that local planning authorities, which, of course, operate in their plan-making processes according to statutory timetables and statutory provisions, have a statutory requirement to notify Natural England about the potential need to make an environmental delivery plan. That is all I wish to say about this.

I just want to note something so that noble Lords are not surprised: when we get to Clause 58, we are going to take it out. But it is now that we are discussing what is effectively the language of Clause 58, and it is worth being aware that this is the case.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 242B tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. I strongly support the part of his amendment that inserts proposed new subsection (2A), but I am not so sure about proposed new subsection (2B)—(2B) or not (2B), that is the question he is proposing. Nevertheless, my suggestion to him is that I do not think anybody concerned about nature should then also try to limit growth; the two can be done hand in hand.

If Natural England or the Secretary of State for Housing need more resources or decide to subcontract to any designated person, that could be a private developer, which could come up with an EDP under the Laws proposed by the Government. I am not saying that would be right, but people should be aware of the scope of where we are going. I would not support my noble friend if he re-tabled this amendment on Report to the full extent.

I think proposed new subsection (2A) is a very sensible approach on nutrient neutrality, the consideration of which is one of the issues that is particularly holding up aspects of development. This is the reason the Government have given more broadly. Of course, they have also latched on to a variety of things like jumping spiders and even ancient woodland, while still expressing concern for irreplaceable habitat. Nevertheless, we should have that very specific focus on what has been holding up the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised to deliver by the end of this Parliament. We should keep focused on where these potential EDPs need to be, and that will keep Natural England focused as well.

My Lords, I shall speak to government Amendment 346E in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and Amendment 275A in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.

I approached this group with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, ringing in my ears from yesterday’s Oral Questions. He boasted how the Government’s planning reforms would cut away the bureaucracy to get Britain building. Perhaps he was thinking about that other planning Bill announced by the Chancellor in August. He could not have been thinking about the one before us today, because given the combination of Part 3 of this Bill, the involvement of Natural England, and the astonishingly long preparation process for EDPs, starting in Clause 58 but going on as far as Clause 61, it is difficult to see how any mitigation proposal envisaged by Part 3 can be completed in the three and a half years from now —and that for a Government who have only three and three-quarter years to run.

Even if Part 3 stands part of the Bill at the point of assent, it will take until the next Parliament before someone gets the keys to a new home that has been subject to an EDP. Perhaps someone should tell the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, that Part 3 does not work, and it will not get Britain building or the economy growing. I should know, because I have been in this space for the last three and a half years as the instigator and a person of significant control in Norfolk Environmental Credits Ltd, a company established and owned by all the planning authorities in Norfolk for the benefit of the local councils, taxpayers and economy. I know what I am talking about—this is another one of my specialist subjects.

I observe that government amendment 346E is a long one. I suppose we should be grateful that it recognises that the Bill as introduced was deficient, but it is incomplete. It articulates the problem and identifies the EDP participants, but it does not contemplate the earliest formative stages—the commercial, legal and contractual practicalities to put it into effect.

Let us think about the EDP processes that start in Clause 58. At the outset, it emerged on Monday that Natural England will report to the MHCLG Secretary of State, not Defra. That is quite a revelation. What technical knowledge exists in MHCLG to judge the veracity of the poor-science and unevidenced assertion referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in today’s Telegraph, where he is reported to have said that “anti- growth” environment quangos are blocking developments on spurious grounds? How can MHCLG have the intellect and capacity to assess this spuriousness?

Our company in Norfolk aims to go beyond the desirability of cleaning up our rivers and devise commercial models that are legally robust and contractually certain, with a financial system that discounts the 80-year tail liabilities and makes the bridge between those who need to purchase mitigation and those who are prepared to provide it. I can tell noble Lords from personal practical experience how hard it is to devise a system to resuscitate the second-largest sector of our local economy—which has been placed in suspended animation for the past three and a half years—to provide the much-needed homes, affordable-homes infrastructure and mitigation in an area two-thirds of the size of our county.

My insight is that, before the provisions envisaged by this amendment are engaged, there are some fundamental principles to be established first. They should be set in statute, but they are not. It is envisaged that the EDPs will issue permits or licences. It is a critical point. A permit is something that is purchased and bought and has asset value. Noble Lords with long memories will remember the last time the state tried to introduce such permits to solve a problem: it created the madness of the milk quota system. By contrast, a local authority issuing licences provides for the point at which the mitigation is no longer required because, say, the local sewage treatment plant has been upgraded. Then the licence can be surrendered and issued again, with that second slice of revenue returned to the taxpayer.

At the drop-in session last week, Natural England’s representatives had blank faces when I asked them what they planned to sell to developers—permits or licences. They had not a clue. That illustrates the intellectual hole in that organisation. The risk of the permit approach is that, once issued to the builder of a new home, the nutrient neutrality permit is attached to that home and goes with the conveyance. That permit will have cost somewhere between £5,000 and £15,000. That is a pretty powerful incentive for the home owner to sell it on to someone else, so we find ourselves, as with milk quotas, sleepwalking into creating markets for tradeable assets, secondary markets, derivatives and everything else that history tells us happens when the state gets into the permitting business. The taxpayer misses out: that is the lesson from the milk quota fiasco.

By contrast, a licence is never owned by the developer or the landowner; it does not exist as an asset; contractually, it is tied to the property; and it can only be surrendered back to that property. The perverse incentive to sell it on and create secondary markets falls away. That is what we should be doing, but none of this fundamental design principle or parameter is contemplated by either Amendment 346E or the Bill.

Let us move on and think about the longevity of an EDP. It is proposed that an EDP lasts for 10 years—an assertion restated in the letter to noble Lords this morning, for which I thank the Ministers. But the tail liabilities are 80 years for nutrient neutrality and 30 years for biodiversity net gain, so I question whether a local planning authority can issue a permission if they are not sure what will happen between year 11 and year 80. I do not believe they can legally issue the permission. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that.

There is also the question of when multiple EDPs, each at a different stage of stage of development, will apply to a proposal. We heard earlier this week that a single planning proposal could be subject to a layering of EDPs. The clock—or should I say planning blight?—will start ticking the moment Natural England postulates the proposal, but there may be serial clocks running at the same time. This is particularly benighting for small builders, which is why I heartily endorse Amendment 275A in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. We were told last week that developers will have a choice, that there will be no compulsion to purchase an EDP and that they may purchase other private options. That has been reiterated today in the letter from the Ministers. They make the point that it will be voluntary to buy an EDP from the state—unless it is compulsory, in which case there will be no choice. There are powers in the Bill to force a developer to use an EDP in certain circumstances, no matter how expensive it is, no matter how far away it is, and however long it takes to produce. There will be a choice for these small developers: it is Hobson’s choice, and that is no good. I am concerned for what is becoming a dynamic and well-developed private industry that is innovating and being creative in the provision of mitigations.

Previously, the Minister smirked when I said that the Bill, with all its monopoly regulator and supplier functions, means that Natural England has effectively nationalised nature. I do not see anybody laughing now, because that is what we are sleepwalking into. A developer may need to pay twice for his mitigation—once for a private scheme close at hand that is acceptable to local people and the planning authority, and again because it is compulsory to purchase another one miles away. Whichever option is chosen, the very act of triggering the EDP process effectively sterilises that proposal and makes it harder to get Britain building.

Time is limited, but there are many more fundamental design questions and processes I could ask about before we even get to the start line, and it would have been much more helpful, in my view. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his detailed diagram, which has been circulated this morning. That diagram would have been much better had there been a timeline before then, because it assumes the EDP exists. As my noble friend Lord Lucas said, it is probably at least three and a half, possibly as many as five years until we get to that start line. Noble Lords need to understand that.

On Monday, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked why we are doing this and what the purpose is. It seems to me that the purpose of Part 3 is not to clean up nature or to get Britain building; it is simply to puff up an anti-growth quango, giving it a super-veto over developments in a significant proportion of our nation, for no other purpose than to build a bureaucracy that gets in the way of growth, makes it harder to generate taxes for public services, and is so expensive to the developer that the pursuance of other important infra- structure such as social housing is crowded out.

It is still not too late to excise Part 3 from the record, and with only four days allocated on Report in October, that would make our job much easier. The assertion yesterday at the Dispatch Box by the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, that this planning reform is going to speed up building is a confidence trick. I welcome Amendment 346E, as far as it goes, but it needs to go much further in contemplating the “how” as well as the “what” if we are not to stymie growth until the next Parliament.

My Lords, as this is the first group, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, stood up to remind us that this is a conversation, not a 10-minute monologue. As the noble Lord who spoke before me is new to this House, I shall tell him that civil servants cannot defend themselves in this Chamber. He arrived late at that meeting last week, so he was not there to have benefit the rest of us had of the information that they in good faith provided. I ask him in future discussions in this House to refrain from criticising people who cannot reply for themselves, and from making unnecessary comments about the Minister, who has shown to all Members that she is acting in good faith and will listen to our conversations—and, we hope, will come back on Report and offer us some changes based on the evidence.

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 264A. My noble friend Lord Swire cannot be here. He has a particular theme running through on issues regarding pylons and he would appreciate a response from the Minister in regard to what he submitted. There is a broader point on how we are unfortunately going back to prioritising climate over nature, when they should go hand in hand. We hear comments like that from Ed Miliband, the Secretary of State for DESNZ, about how climate change is the number one threat to nature; I am afraid that that is not what the scientists say. It is in the top five, but is not number one. When we are considering changes in this Bill more broadly—my noble friend Lord Swire reminds us of aspects of energy infrastructure—we should have that fully in mind.

My Lords, I would like to look forward to the Government’s Amendment 346E and in particular subsection (2) of the proposed new Clause, which says:

“Natural England or the Secretary of State must take account of the best available scientific evidence”.

I ask the Minister whether that is going to comprise part of the EDP.

In explaining the reason I ask that, I will refer to some of the conversations I had with the Minister on Monday’s debate and, in particular, to the email that I wrote this morning asking for a more detailed reply. In reply to my contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that she had already spoken about getting scrutiny of the EDP. She said:

“I want to clarify that, before the EDP comes to the Secretary of State, it will be subject to proper scrutiny through public consultation”.—[Official Report, 15/9/25; col. 2003.]

It is helpful to have that, but could today’s Minister please enlighten the House about how that consultation will take place? Unless the information is cited in the EDP, it is going to be very hard to challenge. One of the complaints that I have about Natural England is how hard it is to challenge it when it comes to scientific evidence, because it hides behind the legal situation and says it is a precautionary principle: “Lump it, all of you”.

On my noble friend Lord Lucas’s amendment, I wonder if the Minister is satisfied about the present position with regard to Natural England and nutrients. My noble friend wants to limit the EDP to nutrient mitigation, and I think that is sensible and that the current situation is working well. Natural England’s nutrient mitigation scheme was set up in 2022 using £33.5 million of public money. This was based on its proposals to the Secretary of State. Since then, Natural England has spent £17.54 million setting up its off-setting scheme to generate 10,097 nutrient credits by removing 704 hectares of farmland from food production. When a new company in the private sector put forward a proposal to provide nutrient credits without taking farmland out of production, Natural England initially said yes; it then reversed its decision, as I explained on Monday.

Natural England claims that it does not make a profit from the sale of nutrient credits as they are priced at cost recovery. However, if one examines the figures, one can contradict this, because its internal costings show that a credit in Dorset costs £1,685 and that, when administration fees are accounted for, it would cost £1,938. However, it has been selling nutrient credits on the market at a significant mark-up of £3,250, plus a 10% administration fee. This suggests to me that Natural England is making a profit of up to £1,637 per nutrient credit, representing a profit margin of 45.8%.

In the letter that I received from the Ministers this morning, to which reference has already been made— I must say I am grateful for it; I wish we had had it before we began our proceedings on Monday—the last sentence of the third-from-last paragraph says:

“Once EDPs are made, we expect them to be delivered on a cost-recovery basis, while ensuring good value for money for developers by ensuring competition and innovation in the procurement of conservation measures”.

I have just shown that the nutrient market is not being operated at cost recovery by Natural England and that it is excluding the competition. How, when you have that existing situation, does the Minister really expect the EDPs to be offered on a different basis?

My Lords, I will speak briefly to several amendments in this group concerning environmental delivery plans.

I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Lucas, both for introducing this group and for tabling Amendment 242B. This amendment seeks to ensure that the EDP process has time to bed in within uncontroversial areas, and that its further development is not rushed. As we have learned, EDPs are themselves controversial, so we are of course sympathetic to this amendment and to other noble Lords’ words on nutrient neutrality. Elsewhere, we have offered amendments that could immediately release 160,000 units of housing stock from Natural England advice, which is blocking those developments. Can EDPs deliver that? Can they release 160,000 units from this Natural England advice once the Act commences?

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for tabling Amendments 271 and 272. These seek to ensure that, when preparing an EDP, Natural England must have regard to all the plans listed in Clause 58(2)(a) to (c) rather than only those it considers to be relevant. These are serious points, and I hope the Minister will reflect carefully on them in response. In light of these amendments, are the Government minded to clarify how Natural England is to weigh these existing plans?

I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for Amendment 344, which would require plan-making authorities to notify Natural England when they allocate potential sites for development where an EDP would be needed. This strikes me as a completely sound and practical amendment which would help to ensure co-ordination between local planning and Natural England’s role.

I turn briefly on my noble friend Lord Swire’s amendment, kindly introduced by my noble friend Lady Coffey. I have to say that I am impressed by my noble friend’s ingenuity in returning to one of his favourite topics. I am not convinced that Natural England has the bandwidth for the existing initiatives in the Bill without adding further burdens to them.

To conclude, we look forward to hearing the Minister outline the Government’s own amendments in this group. They appear to be minor and technical, and we are grateful for the drafting corrections, particularly Amendment 346E. Clause 58 already sets out matters to which Natural England must have regard when preparing an EDP. This amendment would extend that duty to the amendment and revocation of EDPs by both Natural England and the Secretary of State. It would also add further matters to which they must have regard. It would be helpful to understand how these additional considerations are expected to operate in practice. We would welcome this clarification, and I hope the Minister can reassure the House that the Government’s approach will match the scale of the responsibilities being placed on Natural England.

My Lords, before I respond to the debate, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her comments. I also remind noble Lords that our civil servants across all departments work extremely hard. They bring valuable support to Ministers, and it really is not appropriate to question their intellectual ability during a debate.

As we set out in Committee on Monday, the Government remain firmly of the view that, when it comes to development in the environment, we can do better than the status quo, which too often sees both sustainable housebuilding and nature recovery stall. Instead of environmental protections being seen as barriers to growth, we are determined to unlock a win-win for the economy and for nature, and that is why Part 3 is important.

Following the introduction of this Bill, we have taken seriously the concerns expressed by those who were not yet convinced that the provisions in Part 3 provided the necessary certainty that the nature restoration fund will deliver in practice the potential environmental benefits that it offers. So, with a view to ensuring that everyone has confidence that the nature restoration fund delivers those improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model, we have continued to engage with expert stakeholders. Having done so, the Government have developed a comprehensive set of amendments for consideration. Taken together, we are confident that the package will provide reassurance that the nature restoration fund will restore, not harm, nature, while at the same time ensuring that housebuilders benefit from the same streamlined process to discharge their environmental obligations and get Britain building.

So, I shall speak first to government Amendments 249A, 256A, 260A, 278A and 346E. They make a series of minor legislative fixes and consequential amendments necessary for the correct operation of the legislation and support the more substantive government amendments. Government Amendment 346E puts in place a new Clause that is intended to replace Clause 58. The new clause will explicitly require Natural England and the Secretary of State to have regard to the best available scientific evidence when carrying out any functions related to the preparation, revocation or amendment of an environmental delivery plan, or when the Secretary of State is considering or delivering remedial measures. They must also consider a site’s conservation objectives when they relate to environmental features included in an EDP. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked about scientific evidence. I hope that helps to clarify one of his questions.

At this stage, I should also like to make a further clarification around the reference to the Secretary of State. Following the discussions on Monday and further discussions within the department, I can now clarify that the Secretary of State referred to is the Secretary of State for Defra, unless there is good reason for it to be otherwise. We are looking for the response to previous debates to clarify some of the questions that have come up around this and to make it clear to noble Lords that EDPs will be evidence-based and support the wider conservation objectives of the environmental feature.

In designing and delivering conservation measures, Natural England will continue to be guided by existing obligations to seek to achieve and maintain favourable conservation status for protected species. This is now explicitly embedded in the nrf framework by way of another additional duty within this Amendment 346E to have regard to maintaining and/or improving favourable conservation status of species subject to an EDP.

I turn to the non-governmental amendments. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would significantly restrict the application of EDPs and reduce their ability to accelerate development. While nutrient neutrality is an important issue that is being covered by the first EDPs, addressing this issue alone is not enough to deliver the level of growth that the Government are seeking to achieve, and it would limit the environmental aspirations of EDPs, as these would secure better environmental outcomes than the status quo, and limiting it in this way would reduce the ability of EDPs to support nature recovery. It also could be argued that all EDPs in some way concern wildlife, as they concern protected species and habitats, but this will be more clear-cut in some instances than others, and it may also be unclear, therefore, what might be considered to be a local concern. Restricting the number of EDPs that come forward risks reducing their ability to support development or incentivise larger, broader EDPs, and that would appear to run counter to the aim of the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, we need to keep focused.

I should also refer to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. In response to this amendment and other discussions, he has raised a number of detailed concerns and asked a number of detailed questions that I do not have all the answers to at present. I am aware that he has a meeting with Natural England on 16 October, and I suggest to the noble Earl that I join that meeting, if he is happy for me to do so. I can try and get a better understanding of many of his concerns and perhaps get into some of the nitty-gritty regarding the concerns around Natural England, if that would suit him.

Moving on to Amendments 271 and 272 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, we believe mandating consideration of all plans would be disproportionate, because it would take up time and resource for no additional value, while potentially raising costs for developers and slowing the rate at which EDPs are produced. There is no practical reason for forcing Natural England to consider plans that might not be relevant. As such, we feel it is appropriate to allow Natural England to have regard only to those plans that it considers to be relevant.

Amendment 344, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would add a duty on local authorities to inform Natural England of potential sites for development that may require an EDP while making development plans. As the noble Lord noted, the Bill already requires Natural England to have regard to development plans when they are relevant, which, as the noble Lord will appreciate, they pretty much always will be. Furthermore, local authorities are required to co-operate with Natural England in the preparation of an EDP, which is likely to include providing any information relating to proposed site allocations. We believe requiring local authorities to proactively provide this information in all cases places an unnecessary administrative burden on them, but of course local authorities can reach out to Government or to Natural England to request that an EDP be prepared. We believe the Bill already provides for proper engagement and communication between Natural England and local authorities.

Amendment 264A, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Swire, and ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would require Natural England to prepare an EDP covering development consents for overhead power lines under the Electricity Act 1989. Although I cannot help but admire the noble Lord’s ambition—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, his ingenuity—this would place an unmanageable burden on Natural England. In practice, this would require EDPs covering the whole of England, addressing a wide range of environmental considerations. Some power lines may benefit from having an EDP in place, but others may have environmental effects that could not be effectively addressed in this way. If taken forward, this amendment would require Natural England to bring forward potentially ineffective EDPs in order to meet this duty, rather than targeting EDPs where they would be most effective for nature and growth.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 275A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, regarding consideration of SME housebuilders. She kindly messaged to say that she was not going to be able to be here today and I thank her for that. It is important that she has drawn attention to the need to understand potential impacts on small housebuilders. The nature restoration fund is an alternative way to discharge existing environmental obligations. It does not create new obligations for developers and, as charging schedules will be published as part of the EDP, developers will be able to make informed choices based on known costs rather than having to await the outcome of often complex environmental assessments before knowing the cost of meeting a relevant environmental obligation.

This upfront clarity is vital for developers, especially for smaller housebuilders. When a developer chooses to use an EDP, the payment of the levy legally discharges the relevant environmental obligations. This transfer of responsibility for securing environmental outcomes derisks development, which will be particularly beneficial to SME developers, which often have less resource for consultancy and legal services. The Secretary of State, when making the levy regulations, is already required to ensure that the viability of development is considered and may set different rates for different scales or types of development as well. SMEs have been an important consideration for the Government when we have been designing this legislation, so I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. With these explanations, I hope noble Lords are content not to press their amendments.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the offer that the Minister made to join the meeting that I am going to have with Natural England. It was to be a rather focused meeting, but I am happy to widen it. I am delighted that the noble Baroness would come. That would be extremely helpful. I hope that Natural England will give us time to have a proper meeting on heather burning and fuel load, as well as EDPs and the scientific advice, and make it a broader meeting. I am extremely grateful to her and I thank her very much.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her reply to my Amendment. Would she be prepared for me to open a discussion with her officials on the subject of my amendment? We need to do something to increase developers’ understanding of what it will be like under the new regime. If we are to get development going, we need to have the confidence generated.

Of course. To all noble Lords, I say that, between Committee and Report, my noble friend and I are very happy to sit down and discuss amendments or any concerns further with officials.

I am grateful for that, but I am not surprised; that has been the way the noble Baroness has conducted herself through all her time as a Minister.

I wanted to go back to one of my earlier amendments on biodiversity data. Since she has her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, sitting next to her, might she have a conversation about unblocking the flow of biodiversity data generated in the course of planning permissions and getting that through to the local environment record centres, so that it is available to become part of the scientific information, which Natural England can draw on in making an EDP? Her department, or parts of it, and Natural England are active in this area. I would really like to know that this is an area where the Government are determined to make progress.

I am encouraged by the Minister’s nodding. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment 242B withdrawn.

Amendment 243 not moved.