Lord Roborough (Con)

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. Although I am pleased to see her in her place, I wonder why they are being introduced by the Minister of State for MHCLG, when we were assured during debate that the responsible department and Secretary of State for administering EDPs and Part 3 of the Act would be Defra. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests as a landowner with land that has planning consent for residential development, although I believe it is not captured by the regulations being debated today. These regulations follow the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and form part of this Government’s new approach to mitigating and compensating for environmental impacts caused by developments. Under this new regime, it will be for Natural England to determine the environmental impact of developments and the conservation measures required through new environmental delivery plans. Natural England will determine the levy as well as how the funds will then be spent. Natural England’s recent performance has undermined confidence. The High Court found that the quango had acted irrationally and beyond its powers in the licensing of game bird releases. Its approach to reduce livestock grazing on Dartmoor caused controversy, as the unintended consequence would have been a sharp reduction in pony numbers, which apparently caught it by surprise. The quango then tried to shift the blame on to the Government. Its track record in planning is also poor, with the infamous bat tunnel on HS2 and the fish disco at Hinkley Point both being designed to meet its onerous demands, as well as the unnecessary Ebbsfleet SSSI jumping spider decision. My main concern with these regulations is that they make no mention of considering the financial viability of developments. This puts Natural England’s demands over and above education, health, transport infrastructure, affordable housing and other things. We on these Benches care deeply about the importance of protecting and improving our natural world. However, putting the demands of nature over and above our health, our housing and our children’s education is dangerous as, for many of our countrymen, it will make nature a threat to their direct needs. How can we trust Natural England to assess environmental impact accurately when the greater that assessment, the greater the funds it receives? When creating EDPs, how can we trust Natural England to deliver value for money without any market competition? Is Natural England really the right body to be making balanced judgments about how much should be contributed under the NRL? This is simply extending the size and power of the state, always with good intentions but always with the same negative results. This cost, without any accountability, risks making even more developments unviable. Many housing schemes are already stalled due to financial viability issues, as developments have been treated as a Christmas tree that can solve all of society’s demands. Developers may still opt for site-specific mitigation measures, but this means carrying out assessments separately from the EDP. Even then, Natural England can choose to make the NRL mandatory. Can the Minister clarify in what circumstances the levy payments could be made mandatory? Can this apply when a developer is willing and able to comply with the existing mitigation hierarchy? Will developers still be allowed to opt for existing compensation measures through the nutrient neutrality and biodiversity net gain markets within that hierarchy? This is an important element of nature restoration and financial underpinning for many land managers. Not only does Natural England compete unsuccessfully with private sector BNG and NN developers but it can also now eliminate that competition, apparently at will. It looks as though the charging rates may be set very differently for each environmental delivery plan, and the Secretary of State will also have the power to change the payment rate of an EDP without consulting Natural England or developers. How will the Government ensure consistency for developers? What happens when a development happens to cross two or more EDP areas? These regulations are disappointing. They put nature in opposition to core societal needs by ignoring the financial viability of the levy. They put the bureaucrats of Natural England in charge of nature restoration, undercutting private markets without any apparent limitations on what it can extract from developers. There is no acknowledgement of the mitigation hierarchy, nor recognition of the importance of nutrient neutrality and biodiversity net gain markets. In fact, in many regards they seem to have been drawn up as though the debates and commitments that we heard in Committee and on Report on the Planning and Infrastructure Act never happened. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords and the Minister’s response. Perhaps the Minister could at least commit to restricting these EDPs to nutrient neutrality, where they will do the least harm. Following the Government’s bizarre determination to impose habitats regulations on Ramsar sites, limiting the development of at least 100,000 houses, there is clear demand for nutrient neutrality units. The Minister was very generous with her time in discussing this when we brought the Bill through the House. If she is unable to give consideration to that, perhaps she could commit to withdrawing these regulations and thinking again. If neither of those things is possible, I would be minded to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.