Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for Amendments 241 and 255 concerning the inclusion of protected species in environmental delivery plans, and for his clear and comprehensive introduction. The Government completely agree that a protected species should be an environmental feature of an EDP only where this secures positive outcomes for the species. That is what is going to be achieved through the overall improvement test. Amendment 241 would entirely exclude protected species from the scope of the nature restoration fund. Existing schemes like the one mentioned by my noble friend Lady Young—district-level licensing for great crested newts—have shown that strategic solutions can deliver positive outcomes for some species while also supporting development. What we are not saying is that you cannot build on such schemes; but at the same time, it would not be desirable to remove the opportunity for EDPs to address the impact of development on protected species. In bringing forward EDPs, Natural England will be led by the science and the ability of conservation measures to address the impact of development on species. So where this is possible and an EDP can satisfy the overall improvement test, it is right that an EDP should be able to be brought forward. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, that the Joint Nature Conservation Committee has not been forgotten. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra: I met recently with the JNCC to discuss various issues with it, because it is an important organisation with lots of information. Amendment 255 would require the JNCC to publish the list of protected species that are not suitable for inclusion in an EDP. We do not believe this is necessary because the overall improvement test and the process of EDP preparation will already exclude species not suited to EDPs, but, crucially, on a case-by-case basis. This allows for a more nuanced consideration of the specific circumstances of the EDP and the latest evidence. In comparison, an upfront static list of excluded species is too rigid and would not account for the fact that over time, evidence develops, local circumstances differ, and conservation measures may evolve and improve. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for the points he made. They were interesting and we will look at them. As I set out during an earlier debate, in addition to the overall improvement test, the Government have tabled supportive amendments that provide further safeguards as to how EDPs will operate in practice and deliver the necessary environmental improvements. I greatly appreciate the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and his amendments, but we are confident that the safeguards in the legislation, amplified by the proposed government amendments, provide sufficient provision for safeguarding protected species. I therefore hope that the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment.