Lord Ravensdale:

Moved by Lord Ravensdale

346DA: After Clause 87, insert the following new Clause—“Development for reasons of national security or energy security in the absence of an EDP(1) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/1012) are amended as follows.(2) In regulation 64 (Considerations of overriding public interest), at end insert—“(7) In paragraph (1), “imperative reasons of overriding public interest” may include a situation where—(a) the Secretary of State considers that the development is necessary—(i) for reasons of national security, or(ii) in relation to the generation and conveyance of low carbon electricity, energy and security, and(b) no environmental delivery plan under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 applies to the plan or project(8) In paragraph (1), “no alternative solutions” should be read to mean no alternative solution which can be delivered whilst maintaining reasonable development costs.(9) “Low carbon electricity generation” has the meaning given in section 6(3) of the Energy Act 2013 (Regulations to encourage low carbon electricity generation).”(3) In regulation 68 (Compensatory measures), at end insert—“(2) The Secretary of State may disapply this regulation where—(a) the appropriate authority commits to alternative compensatory environmental measures, and(b) the Secretary of State considers these measures—(i) have a higher environmental value than any compensation measures which would be necessary to meet the requirements of this regulation, or(ii) are necessary to maintain reasonable development costs.(3) Within six months of the day on which the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State may publish guidance setting out how reasonable development costs are to be assessed in relation to this regulation.””

My Lords, I declare my interests as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis, and as co-chair of Legislators for Nuclear. This group of amendments gets to the heart of some of the issues with this Bill. It is important that we get Britain building again, not least to reverse the long stagnation in the UK economy since 2008. The Chancellor tells us that growth is the problem, and investment is the solution, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

There is a significant risk that Part 3, the centrepiece of this Bill, is not going to deliver for complex infrastructure. The reasons are straightforward: Part 3 may work for a known issue such as nutrient neutrality for a housing development, where developers can club together and pay into a fund. However, for infrastructure developments, habitat issues will not be known in advance, and there will not be time for developers to agree and implement an EDP before consent. Therefore, they are left with a couple of options: they can try to twin-track, which could risk adding even more bureaucracy to the process, or go the existing route. We all know the issues with the existing route—bat tunnels and fish discos have been well-publicised—but less well known are the years-long delays to offshore windfarms due to issues with compensation for environmental impacts and the like.

For example, we have had multi-year delays to the trio of Norfolk offshore wind projects—Norfolk Vanguard East, Norfolk Vanguard West and Norfolk Boreas—due to issues around compensation for an undersea worm, Sabellaria reef, even in areas where it was not present. That is not to mention cutting the size by around 40% and the generation potential of East Anglia ONE North windfarm due to habitat issues with red-throated diver, despite assessments putting the impact at one bird death per year.

Ultimately, if the Government want to meet their ambitious targets for clean energy and growth, they will need an approach that delivers for infrastructure, as well as for housing. For energy, we have managed to build approximately 4 gigawatts of new capacity per year over the last three years. To meet the Government’s clean power target, that will have to increase to at least 15 gigawatts per year between now and 2030—from the Government’s own data—so that is a quadrupling of our current build rate. A lot of that is offshore wind, and I should be clear from my examples that this acceleration in build rates simply will not happen under the current regulatory regime.

At the foundation of all this are the habitats regulations, which are of course very important for the protection of nature in this country but which have become overly burdensome due to the impacts of case law over the years and an overly precautionary approach by the regulator in some cases. Amendment 350 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, proposes some minor changes to steer the interpretation of the habitats regulations back to their original intent to protect nature but to strike a balance. This has been developed in broad consultation with planning lawyers and ecologists who have decades of experience in taking large projects through the planning system.

The amendment provides a menu of options for the Government. One of those is defining a science-led approach, which is important because too often the statutory nature conservation bodies require developers to provide evidence against hypothetical rather than real risks. I am vice-chair of the POST board—the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. POST is the link between the scientific research community and Parliament, and we work to ensure a science-led approach to lawmaking. This is an area where it is vital that we ensure that we take a scientifically rigorous approach.

The second part of the amendment would overturn some aspects of case law to get to a more proportionate approach, stating that de minimis effects cannot produce an adverse effect; that mitigation measures can be taken into account when deciding whether a proposed project is likely to have a significant effect; that there is no need to redo a habitats assessment for approval of conditions under a consent that was originally subject to a habitats assessment; and, finally, that compensation measures need not address the same type or scale of impact as the harm caused nor be in place before impact occurs, which restates existing law. I will leave the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to fill in the detail.

The package of measures in Amendment 350 is a pragmatic and proportionate means of restoring some balance to a system that is currently making it extremely difficult to build infrastructure in the UK. One of the key benefits of what we are proposing is that it would have immediate benefits for a range of projects around the UK. It does not need additional regulations to be developed and raised nor EDPs to be developed; the impact is there straight away.

Amendment 346DA in my name is in the same vein and attacks the problem from a different angle—again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his support. It seeks to recognise that there are perhaps narrowly defined classes of projects which should be able to cut through the usual process. For example, we are building offshore wind, which is vital to our energy security and therefore to our national security. Is it really acceptable that these developments have been held up for years because of delays to compensatory regimes under the habitats regulations? Can we really afford to delay infrastructure that is key for the Government’s net-zero target, for energy security and therefore national security in this way? I suggest not, and that there could be certain classes of project, those related to national security and energy security, where the Secretary of State should have additional powers to allow projects to proceed and to work to define their own compensatory measures.

Between Amendments 350 and 346DA, we have a package of options for the Government which seek to recognise the issues of Part 3 for infrastructure and ensure that the Bill delivers for growth—I add to this my previous Amendment 46 on regulators. Ultimately, we need to strike a better balance between the impact of infrastructure on the local environment—the micro view—and the benefits of that infrastructure for the nation, whether that is net zero, energy security or economic growth: the macro view.

We have heard some rumblings in the news about a second planning Bill focused on infrastructure. I do not know the truth of that, but my observation is that we cannot wait for another Bill; we simply do not have the time. The Government need to seize the opportunity that the Bill represents and ensure that it delivers for infrastructure, and I restate the immediate benefit that these amendments would have. I beg to move.

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I thank him for his amendments and for his support of mine. In fact, he very ably summarised my amendments. It is clearly important and good that we are getting back to what the Bill is all about: the growth agenda. As the Explanatory Memorandum and policy background state, we have a huge problem in building the infrastructure that we need to get this country going again and growing again. The Bill is obviously designed to help us do that, particularly through the planning reforms, EDPs and so on. The big question is whether the Bill is sufficiently focused to give us confidence that our regulatory system is not going to prevent the kind of rapid growth that we need. This is where there is some concern.

We will come to the nuclear industry in a moment. It seems that there is a fundamental question that we have to ask: why is the UK the most expensive place to build nuclear power stations? It is because we collectively have produced legislation that makes it almost impossible for developers to come forward with viable propositions. The question is whether the Bill goes far enough to make sure that we see growth. I have listened to the debates about nature and there are, of course, some tensions. We cannot have it all ways and pretend that we can go fast on the growth agenda without some impact on the environment. It is just not possible. We have no chance of getting to net zero unless we can decarbonise our energy infrastructure as quickly as possible.

I acknowledge the assistance I have received from planning lawyers HSF Kramer LLP—specifically Catherine Howard—and senior ecologist Andrew Baker in the drafting of my Amendment 349. I mentioned environmental delivery plans; they are being developed as a way of preventing environmental Laws blocking developments. Of course I welcome that, but there are some real issues about how the habitats regulations are interpreted in this country. Why do other countries with the same broad regulations seem to allow major infrastructure projects through without the nonsenses that we see coming from agencies such as Natural England?

Catherine Howard wrote an article entitled The Secret Ecologists Speak. This set out the views of a number of ecologists who regularly engage with Natural England, the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales, NatureScot and the joint nature conservation councils, otherwise known as SNCBs. They work on behalf of developers seeking planning consent, but also on behalf of local planning authorities, the Wildlife Trust and other interested parties. They have experience of the system from both sides.

Currently, the law requires developers to prove a negative: that there is no risk of an adverse effect from a proposed project. However, proving a negative is almost impossible: a scientist will tell you that that is the case. Furthermore, the case law requires that a precautionary approach be taken to the consideration of risk where important information is imperfect, as it often is. Case law also holds that great weight must be given to the views of the SNCBs in any decision-making process.

These combined factors make it very easy for the SNCBs to block development with little or no credible evidence of an adverse impact. The ecologists interviewed by Catherine Howard provide multiple examples of where this has happened. The SNCBs can speculate about hypothetical risk and their view is treated as unassailable in the decision-making process. This is compounded by the fact that, as I understand, in many cases the SNCBs refuse to appear to have their written objections tested at hearings. I wonder why that is.

The view of most ecologists interviewed is that, 15 years or so ago, when the SNCBs employed top ecological experts, the system operated reasonably well, despite the legal framework. A pragmatic approach was taken to proving that there was a risk of an adverse effect. In recent years, the hollowing out of scientific expertise from the SNCBs, thanks to the policy of the coalition Government and then the Conservative Government, has given rise to unnecessary blocking or scaling back of development, as well as a failure to achieve best value for nature through compensation.

The system is now run on mythologies rather than evidence, according to those involved. That is when you get some of these high-profile cases, such as demands for acres of land to be flooded to create salt marshes at Hinkley Point C in lieu of an acoustic fish deterrent. The many challenges we are seeing across the offshore wind sector and other nationally significant projects would not arise if the SNCBs were science led.

The feeling among those ecologists interviewed is that, in Europe, a greater adherence to scientific evidence and common sense among regulators has largely avoided the problems the UK is grappling with. I refer back to what I call the common-sense amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Banner—in other words, a sense of proportion among the regulators is required. My amendment tackles some of the challenges. It actually suggests very small changes to the habitats regulations that would have a significant impact on the consent for infrastructure projects and could sit alongside the EDP regime.

I am not suggesting that we should reverse the burden of proof and I do not disapply the precautionary principle. What the amendment does is define scientific evidence and require that scientific justification is based on evidence of real rather than hypothetical risk, stating that de minimis effects cannot constitute an adverse effect. This would stop SNCBs arguing that the risk of even one fish or bird death is unacceptable. Surely it cannot be right that major projects are blocked or hugely scaled back to avoid such things—but they are.

The amendment states that there is no need to redo a habitats assessment for the approval of conditions under a consent that was originally subject to habitats assessment. It states that mitigation measures can be taken into account when deciding whether a proposed project is likely to have a significant effect. This will reverse the unhelpful European case of People Over Wind, which artificially requires this test to be applied, assuming no mitigation measures are put in place—something our own UK judges previously considered preposterous when it was tested in our courts. Finally, it states that compensation measures need not address the same type or scale of impact as a harm caused, nor be in place before impact occurs.

In conclusion, I hope the Government are listening. There clearly are cross-departmental discussions about these matters at the moment. It seems to me that the behaviour and performance of the regulators is crucial to this and the way in which they operate the habitats regulations is going to define whether we can really get these major infrastructure projects off the ground as soon as possible. I very much look forward to a constructive debate.

Not for the first time I find myself entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I therefore do not need to take a lot of time on my Amendment in this group, which originates with Catherine Howard of Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer and her Project Nutcracker and is intended to address the problems caused by three legal cases—People Over Wind, Sweetman I and CG Fry—and provide a hook for statutory guidance aimed primarily at addressing the customs and practice of the statutory nature conservation bodies.

My Lords, I do not know where to start on this one. I must admit that, if I had had the neck of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in my hands this morning after reading the Telegraph article, he would no longer be here to press his Amendment tonight.

My Lords, that does not sound very comradely, if I may say so.

I am definitely not feeling comradely right now.

We must get away from this polarisation. These amendments, jointly in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Ravensdale, are valuable and worth considering, particularly in the area of infra- structure. But they are complex, and they need calm and informed judgement and analysis before we go overboard for them. We will not stay calm, and we will not have orderly evidence-based judgement, if we get the sort of article that reports in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has been portraying it, in places—some of which he reflected this evening.

The ENGOs are not on an ego trip. They are not intrinsically against growth. The regulators are doing their best job with their resources against habitats regulations that were invented in order to stem this massive decline of biodiversity in this country, which threatens our existence. Every species extinction foreshadows our own. We have to get away from this belief that somehow everybody else in Europe implementing the habitats regulations is doing it with less purity, and is being far less up themselves— if noble Lords will pardon that Unparliamentary Language—than we are. The reality is that most places implementing the habitats directive are not trying to maintain and recover biodiversity in an area that is as densely populated and as much contested, in terms of land use, as this country is, particularly England. We have to bear that in mind: we are trying to cram an awful lot into a very small space of land, particularly in the south-east and around our coastal regions. So let us get off the polarisation argument.

The Telegraph piece is headed:

“Eco-zealots are crushing the economy”.

That does not foster good and sane debate. It says that

“the anti-growth environmental quangos are blocking developments on spurious grounds” and that Natural England has an “anti-growth” mindset. I do not believe any of these points. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has been quoted incorrectly, but from what he said tonight I do not believe that. It would be very unfortunate if we fell into the trap of polarising growth against development; we are smart enough to do both, and there is real commitment across conservation interests to do that. So let us stop winding up this debate in an irresponsible way.

I was going to go on to many of the other reasons for delay in the planning system but, at this time of the night, I will not. I will simply say that, when you talk to developers who are not on their soapboxes about the barriers they face, you find that the barriers are not solely environmental; there are many others. It is an example of the poverty of the noble Lord’s case and the way he is making it—not necessarily its basic tenet—that he quotes the old, hackneyed example of the HS2 bat tunnel. The problem with the HS2 bat tunnel was the problem of HS2, not the problem of nature conservation. If, as we had recommended 20 years ago, HS2 was called MS2, Medium Speed 2, it would have been possible to have mightily reduced the cost of the whole project by taking 20 miles an hour off the top speed and allowing the route to wiggle around all the things that we have now spent a fortune compensating for.

If my noble friend would let me correct a point, I did not mention bats at all; I mentioned my experience of Hinkley Point C, which is very different.

I apologise to the noble Lord for that, but the article in the Telegraph said that, on the night he was quoted, he talked about bats.

My Lords, I was at a conference yesterday, and the Telegraph reported on it. The headline is not my authorship.

I look forward to a detailed account from the noble Lord as to what exactly he did say that night and what in the Telegraph article he denies that he said. Anyway, if we had cut the speed of HS2, we would have avoided not only having bat tunnels but spending huge amounts of money on compensatory habitat for the destruction of ancient woodlands.

Let us not be unclear about this: Catherine Howard and her colleagues are very knowledgeable, but they are clearly representative of the development sector. Although their views are worth considering, they are not the only experts in this field. I do not believe that the extreme picture of the nature conservation bodies that is being represented is true. Nature is dramatically in decline and the habitats regulations were invented to meet that issue, so let us consider the approach in the amendments calmly and with a lack of polarisation. If we do not, we will simply continue to trade off nature in the interests of growth, when we should in fact deliver both.

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.

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.

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.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her summing up and the extra information that she provided, particularly the important clarity around NSIPs and Part 3. However, we have not yet got away from the central issue of how useful Part 3 is going to be for major infrastructure projects. I appreciated what she said on guidance, but, clearly, we need to go further in what is laid down in statute. Coming back to Amendment 350, we are talking about minor changes to the regulations, to bring us back to their original intent and to clarify the existing law. I certainly look forward to further discussions with the Minister and other noble Lords on this as we go towards Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 346DA withdrawn.

Amendments 346DB to 346DF not moved.