Speeches by Gardiner.

“Indeed, the Department put out a blog post just last month stating that “Current rules in the National Planning Policy Framework are clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees, should be refused.” It is good to have yo…”

“I apologise as I have to leave the Committee.”

“Is a subjective one. That is absolutely the issue here. It is a balance that the Secretary of State has to make, but we as a Committee do not have any pinpointing of what the criteria are that she will have to take into account in making that balance judgment. That means it is subjective.”

“Indeed. What concerns me is that the Secretary of State, when she was talking about what she wanted to do, said she wanted to remove the chaos and subjectiveness from the planning system. I asked you for the criteria, and you have not given them. I want to know the criteria used in the overall improvement test when jud…”

“I do not think the Committee needs persuasion on that score, or on the bona fides of your intentions. What we are concerned about is the legal interpretation that others who are less focused on nature restoration might hunt to take it through the courts. In that respect, the legal analysis of the Government’s proposed …”

“I am not sure that has answered my question.”

“I will come on to EDPs in a moment, but given what we said about the impact assessment and the curtailed consultation process, how confident are you that the nature restoration fund will not have a negative impact on site-loyal species and irreplicable habitats?”

“May I say to both Ministers that I do not think that compromise is a dirty word? I welcome the fact that there has been dialogue between the Departments, and that you have been able to change and make explicit that which you believed was implicit. I do not think that that is a weakness at all; in fact Government might …”

“Thank you, Chair. First of all, can I thank you for the role that you performed at the Glasgow COP as our high-level champion there?. I think it was widely seen as successful. You have had the, I suppose, privilege of seeing at close hand two different styles of chairing the Committee on Climate Change with Lord Deben …”

“I suppose what I am asking you in terms of your leadership role with the Climate Change Committee is: what do you see as your role in driving that? Because it is a mix. It is financial. It is skills. It is getting those technologies ready, ripe and in play. Let me go back to the first question. How do you see Lord Debe…”

“Well, is that simply a matter of bottle, as you put it—the confidence, the courage—or is it actually a question of ensuring that we provide adequate resources, both skills and financial, in order to make sure that we get those technologies to that stage?”

“The Secretary of State has recently announced that we are committed to even more ambitious targets in our NDCs, and I think what we need is confidence, which the CCC is there to give us through good science about our capacity to achieve them. Are you confident that we can achieve them? If I use “the Chair” as phraseolo…”

“We still have a director for it.”

“You are the director for Heathrow expansion, not the feasibility of it. I think that was Ms Chowns’ point.”

“It gives you fairly biased information, or at least selective information according to the science that it chooses.”

“Minister, I want to turn to the sustainable aviation fuel mandate. By 2040, there will have to be 22% SAF in the mix for aircraft. That is the main obligation. It ramps up to the 2040 level. Can you explain to us what the power-to-liquid obligation is?”

“Ms Newell, could you just repeat your title?”

“We still have a director for it.”

“Have the Government established that need?”

“What are the criteria under which that can be challenged?”