Lord Blencathra (Con)

My Lords, this group of amendments concerning Part 3 has a particular focus on the role and powers of Natural England. Due to the constraints on time this evening, I will not address each amendment in detail. Many of them are rightly probing in nature. They seek clarification, reassurance and, in some cases, correction. Others go further by proposing the removal of references to Natural England entirely, placing the powers instead with the Secretary of State, who is ultimately accountable to this Parliament. The Secretary of State should in this instance be that of Defra rather than MCHLG, as is suggested in other amendments. I seek clarification from the Minister on this point when she replies. I understand that, as far as EDPs are concerned, Natural England might report to MCHLG rather than Defra. If that were the case I would be appalled because, while Natural England has a lot of scientists who are experts on flora and fauna and Defra has some who understand this, the good thing about Defra civil servants is that they know what they do not know and they go back to Natural England for answers. I would be very worried if EDPs were being driven by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, much of which cannot tell the difference between a bat and a butterfly. We must have a firm answer to that, because it would be very worrying. I should say at the outset that, later in my speech, I will come on to some of the criticisms of Natural England in terms of this Bill and where its powers should be restricted. However, I will not join in the attacks on Natural England as an institution. I admire greatly my noble friend Lord Caithness’s expertise on biodiversity—he participates in every Bill and adds considerable knowledge to it—but I do not recognise some of the most trenchant criticisms of Natural England in his speeches, both on the previous group and on this one. I have come across its scientific expertise and technical contributions, and I believe that it is widely respected. My noble friend made a point about staff losses in Natural England. The difficulty is that Natural England is required to recruit highly professional biodiversity students—people with expertise in flora and fauna, and there ain’t many of those about. When they are employed, it is on reasonably low pay; then, as soon as they have got their feet under the table and are highly qualified, they get snapped up by other organisations and Natural England cannot afford to pay at the level required to keep them. Nevertheless, I am confident that it still has sufficient expertise to do its job. My noble friend Lord Caithness also said that Natural England manages only one national nature reserve. It manages two-thirds of 224 national nature reserves. Criticism was also made of how it runs SSSIs. I was on the board down at Dartmoor when the decision was made. The problem is that Natural England is not allowed to consider any socioeconomic matters, such as the effect on farming. The 2006 Act states simply that, if the scientific evidence is there—that the bugs, beasties, flora and fauna are special and need to be protected—we have no option but to make that decision on scientific grounds. I reject any suggestion that Natural England’s board or others were making perverse decisions on SSSIs and not taking the economy into account. I say to my noble friend Lady Coffey that it was my understanding that nearly the whole of the coastal path had been signed off and submitted to Ministers for approval. I think that it has nearly all been approved; there may be 20 or 30 miles that have not been. Of course it is not all open yet, because there are construction problems. How do you put a footpath across a mud estuary? There are obstructions from some landowners. I hope that, if not tonight then at some other point, the Minister can answer the question by explaining just how much of the coastal path has been completed by Natural England and the Government. Those things were slightly not in my brief, but I thought that I would try to deal with some of the points because I was personally involved. Part 3 hands unprecedented CPO powers to Natural England. These powers will allow Natural England to take land away from owners, not because of public interest infrastructure but to fulfil EDPs. Landowners will be forced to apply for subsidy-style payments from Natural England, yet we are given no detail on how these payments will be set, distributed or enforced; nor are landowners granted the right to refuse. Such a model will fundamentally alter the relationship between the landowner and the state—and do so without adequate consultation, accountability or clear regulatory safeguards. Under the proposed EDP system, developers will contribute to a centralised fund rather than meeting site-specific environmental obligations. That fund will then be spent by Natural England on generalised environmental improvements elsewhere. This raises serious concerns. We will be not only replacing local mitigation with a remote offsetting scheme but creating a system in which Natural England becomes the operational body, the financial manager and the regulator all in one; in that regard, I agree with my noble friend Lord Fuller. This is a recipe for conflict of interest, lack of oversight and delivery risk. Natural England will be responsible for monitoring and governing the very schemes that it has designed and funded. Worryingly, there is no separation of powers, no mechanism for appeal and no guarantee of delivery. The consequences of that will be profound. Planning authorities, which bear the ultimate responsibility for approving development, will rightly be cautious about relying on untested, underfunded and centrally managed EDPs. The result may well be an increase in planning refusals, not fewer. We must look seriously at Natural England’s capacity to carry out this enormous new responsibility. So I ask the Minister: how many EDPs will Natural England be expected to prepare, over what timescale, and with what funding and staffing? Despite huge increases in funding by the last Government, we know that Natural England is still underresourced and understaffed to do all the new work that it will have to do. As it stands, it does not have the capacity to deliver what Part 3 is asking of it. Beyond funding, it will have the problem of finding the skilled ecologists required to make this work—hundreds of them on top of the thousands of new planners, builders and tradespeople needed for our broader planning ambitions. As I said earlier, as Natural England is competing to get those experts, you can bet that outside bodies and developers will also be grabbing them so that they can have answers and challenge the EDP decisions. The issues of funding certainty and operational capacity are not theoretical; they are central. The funding pipeline through the nature restoration fund is inherently unpredictable. How can Natural England plan and deliver on this basis? Lastly, I turn to the proportionality of the powers that we are considering. Under Part 3, Natural England will be granted forcible entry powers, compulsory purchase order powers and the ability to set its own fees, all without direct parliamentary accountability. These powers could extend even to gardens and allotments—a proposition that should give all noble Lords some pause. I know the Minister will listen carefully to the concerns raised in this group and that we can engage constructively with her on this issue moving forward. I end as I began by saying, yes, these are the criticisms I have of the proposed powers in the Bill, but I do not accept some of the more trenchant criticisms of the success of Natural England to date. Yes, mistakes have been made and there are difficulties, but nevertheless there are a lot of good people trying to do a good job for biodiversity in this country, and I was one of them.