Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, is right: we should keep species out of EDPs. A report will be published next week that shows the modelling of the EDP approach to a whole range of species. Its top-line conclusion— I am not allowed to say any more about it, because it has not been published yet—is that the evidence is incomplete for, or actively contrary to, the provision that an EDP approach will be the best protection for species. This amendment is along the same lines as my Amendment 242A, which we debated last Thursday and which also took species out of the ambit of EDPs, but there is another reason why we should think seriously about whether species should be covered by EDPs. Several species are already covered by perfectly successful private sector schemes overseen by Natural England, such as the district licensing scheme for newts. The newt licensing scheme works across 70 local authorities and delivers local results for freshwater pond conservation as a bilateral of its work for great crested newts. It has enabled the faster delivery of 30,000 houses over 100 major infrastructure schemes and 281 Network Rail projects since it was established. Given that we already have such schemes that are doing good work and are totally funded by private enterprise, we should build on them. Several providers of these schemes are pretty aghast that their legs will be knocked out from under them as a result of Natural England taking over the process under EDPs. This has already had a chilling effect on private sector investment in these schemes. The Government seem to have calculated that the wider private nature markets are essential to closing the £3 billion funding gap needed for nature recovery— we seem to specialise in funding gaps of several billion pounds these days. In my view, it would be a poor signal to these private nature markets, which would be threatened by the substitution of EDPs. It would be a bad signal to the development of the private nature market process if these schemes, having been set up, having enthused investors and having had some success, promptly had their legs pulled out from beneath them. I hope that Ministers will bear this in mind when thinking about the various amendments on taking species out of the EDP process.