Lord Hampton (CB)

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 62 in the names of my noble friend Lady Boycott—who sends her apologies; she has been unavoidably detained—and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. This amendment, which is very similar to one tabled in Committee, would mean that the mandatory training for members of planning committees must include climate and biodiversity, and enhanced ecological literacy training, in line with the latest scientific guidance. It is welcome that the Government recognise how crucial expertise on biodiversity issues is for planning committee members. This amendment has been revised since Committee to address concerns raised by the Government who did not wish to prescribe a list of the training materials that would need to be included. Instead, Amendment 62 would simply require that the training introduced by the Bill would be delivered such that it promotes a science-based and evidence-led approach on matters related to climate change, biodiversity and botanical, mycological surveying. In so doing, the amendment recognises the importance of retaining flexibility and accommodating the fact that there can be developments in new data that will inform training over time. The Home Builders Federation, in its 2025 Government Progress Report published in August, points to a number of blockers for new housing developments, such as insufficient resourcing of local planning authorities and support for home ownership. It says: “However, more broadly, as BNG has bedded in, issues with its implementation have emerged, as outlined in a recent BNG HBF report. Unsurprisingly, one key issue is that local authorities do not have sufficient capacity to process BNG applications, with a shortage of public sector ecologists causing increasing delays home builders face before construction can begin”. Accepting this moderate amendment would help to unpick this issue, as it would ensure that planning members have the skills and confidence to interpret and apply guidance such as BNG. and have a better understanding of the underlying evidence around climate change and the environment and how their decisions impact on local authorities’ ability to contribute to climate and nature targets. The problem is that planning committees, and indeed the people supporting them, are stretched. I am afraid that, if this is not a statutory requirement, the status quo will continue. People will be making decisions about applications without any scientific understanding of, arguably, two of the biggest threats facing us, at least on a domestic basis. This is not to attack the planning committees at all, but a 2022 survey prepared on behalf of the Association of Local Government Ecologists found that only 5% of respondents said that their current ecological resource, including in-house and external sources, was adequate to scrutinise all applications that might affect biodiversity. We do not see how that matches up with what the Minister said in Committee. She said that “it would be unthinkable for the training not to mention that there are special statutory requirements for biodiversity net gain”.—[Official Report, 4/9/25; col. 970.] However, it is unnecessary to stipulate all that in the Bill. If trained, the planning committee can take informed decisions about the ecological benefits and maintenance requirements of ecological enhancements. This would reduce the risk of enforcement actions against developers in the future and provide people with high-quality, nature-rich spaces in which to live and work. On the climate side, the Minister did not really respond to that in Committee, so I would like to know what is being done to further this. Giving a duty for a science-based approach on these issues would be future-proof, retain the necessary flexibility and not be overly prescriptive while ensuring that anything built is fit for the future. I beg to move.