Environmental Protection and Green Growth

I want to start by taking issue with a couple of Members who said that we should not get political about this issue. First, I would say, ““Try telling that to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate and the Chancellor of the Exchequer””, who seem to be in open warfare in today's newspapers. Furthermore, this is one of the most crucial political topics we face, and if we wrap it all up in warm words and a coat of greenwash without questioning or challenging some of the progress, we will be in danger of letting the whole agenda slide. In the limited time available, I would like to focus on a couple of issues. A number of Members have commented on the ““Nature Check”” survey, which gave the red light to the Government on a range of issues, three of which deal with planning. There is real concern that the Treasury is dominating and overriding the environmental agenda in respect of planning issues. The Budget of 2011 said that"““The Government will introduce a powerful new presumption in favour of sustainable development, so that the default answer to development is 'yes'.””" We also know that the Chancellor said at the Conservative party conference in Manchester:"““We're not going to save the planet by putting the country out of business.””" He believed that, rather than leading the way in pushing a green agenda in Europe, we should only rise to the standards of other European countries, which I think is entirely wrong. Simon Jenkins, the head of the National Trust, gave evidence to a Commons Committee the other day, saying that the ““fingerprints”” of rich builders were all over the planning reforms, while The Daily Telegraph, which one would expect to be on the side of the Conservative party, talked about an elite forum of property developers who were charging key players in the industry £2,500 a year to set up breakfast, dinner and drinks with senior Tories. This club raises £150,000 a year for the Conservatives. I would appreciate it if the Minister responded to that in his summing up, and explained what influence is being exercised. We have seen the influence of people behind the scenes in health and defence policy and other aspects of the Government's agenda. One subject that has not been mentioned much in the context of planning is the new biodiversity offsetting regime. In Bristol, there has been real concern about the local authority's failure to spend section 106 money. It is estimated that between £10 million and £12 million that should have been allocated to community projects, infrastructure and schools is sitting in the council coffers. As a result, not only will environments that have evolved over centuries and could be described as part of our natural heritage be replaced by artificial new landscapes, but there will be no means of ensuring that the offsetting actually happens and is maintained for many years to come. We need to know whether the regime will be effective, or whether it is just an excuse for developers to be able to destroy natural habitats and the environment. As the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds pointed out, we need a system that filters out habitats that are irreplaceable, as opposed to those that can easily be created elsewhere. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) expressed concern about the lack of certainty in relation to feed-in tariffs. Support has already been scrapped for large-scale projects, and it is rumoured that the Government will announce a halving of tariff rates tomorrow. Let me give an example. The Royal Bath and West of England Society was due to develop a solar photovoltaic park, for which it had already received planning permission and which it wanted to use to kick-start a rural regeneration project that it expected to create about 1,500 jobs. It had structured the project on the basis of the expected revenue from profit on the feed-in tariffs. Critically, it was interested in a loophole provided by the Department for Energy and Climate Change that would have allowed the project to proceed if it plugged in 10% of its electricity generation by 1 August 2012. Thankfully, it had not made a decision before the deadline was moved to 18 October 2010. The chief executive, Dr Jane Guise, told us today that ““shifting goalposts”” were making it impossible to invest in and plan for the future. She also wondered why the Treasury was involved at all. I am afraid I have no time to give the House any more information about that, but I urge Members to talk to people who had spent months planning a project that would have brought huge benefit to the local community, but is now being—