Speeches by Gardiner.

“Paragraph 7.36 of “Erskine May” states the process for setting out the ratification of international treaties. The Government’s treaty tracker says the global oceans treaty that the Leader of the House referred to earlier has not been ratified, and yet the BBNJ treaty—the global oceans treaty—was laid before this House…”

“I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for how he has conducted this inquiry and presented the report to the House. I also thank the Clerks and officials who prepared the report under considerable stress—we are very grateful for their work. I ask my hon. Friend to reflect further on the situation with the BBNJ treat…”

“Should we be making any recommendations about increased funding for training and skills development?”

“That is another recommendation this Committee can make. Thank you very much.”

“Should we be making any recommendations about increased funding for training and skills development?”

“What recommendation should this Committee make about that point?”

“I am sorry, I am going to have to cut you short.”

“Can you perhaps describe how the environmental delivery plans can change your approach and the mechanism for which they use the Nature Restoration Fund, which aims to help developers compensate for specific harms when mitigation is not possible? Is that a shortcut to avoiding the hierarchy of mitigation?”

“A quarter of all local authorities do not have any ecological expertise. I think of those that do only 55% of those are in-house. You are talking basically about a third?”

“Thank you. Would you say that in the report that we are producing there should be a recommendation about the training in ecology for enforcement officers? Obviously the lack of skills there will also be a problem because they have to ensure that they can enforce these contracts.”

“The point here is that by dropping that requirement biodiversity net gain will not be a net gain but will be a net loss. Is that correct?”

“I am sorry to rush you, but we have limited time. In terms of how this Committee should approach it, particularly what you have said about the dropping of the protected species’ requirements, should we draw that to the attention of the Government as a threat and something that needs to be offset within any BNG that is …”

“Thank you. How will the Government’s planning reforms change how your organisation operates and delivers its services?”

“At the least would you like to see this Committee highlight in its report that at best the quality of BNG programmes will be variable unless some standardisation of the ecological qualifications is introduced?”

“To ensure that there is consistency and quality in the BNG market should there be some minimum qualification or standard? This is now dependent on the developer saying, “Here is the ecological assessment that we have commissioned.” They are marking their own homework.”

“Ms Searle, assessing the presence of ecological features requires a specialist skillset that you train people in but many local authority officers, planning officers, do not have that skillset. How are we going to be able to proceed with BNG on a site if they cannot even assess what features are there in the first plac…”

“Well, you say it has been in force. It has been the law, but has it been the practice? Has it been carried out and implemented?”

“I totally sympathise and agree with you. Dr Howard, are there particular areas of ecological expertise where skills shortages you think are particularly acute within the sector? Would you like to comment on what Ms Searle has been saying and the things we have been discussing specifically about species?”

“Could you perhaps write to the Committee setting that out very clearly? That would be very helpful, thank you.”

“Who actually has the contract? I thought that my local authority had the contract with the provider of the BNG. If that is remote from my local authority, what is the incentive to then enforce?”