Environment Bill
Wednesday 26th February 2020
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to open this Second Reading debate on the Environment Bill. In recent decades, our natural world has faced multiple pressures. As a consequence, we face two great global challenges: climate change and biodiversity loss. A million species face extinction, and climate change is piling the pressure on nature, doubling the number of species under threat in the past 15 years. If global temperatures rise by even 1.5°, we will lose even more of our precious life on Earth. As an island nation, we are acutely aware of the devastating effects of plastic pollution on marine life. We need to act now to turn things around. This Government were elected on the strongest-ever manifesto for the environment, and this Bill is critical to implementing that commitment.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is clearly right about the two big global challenges that we face, but does he also recognise that, as a country in our own right, we face a specific challenge with air pollution? Will he explain why he will not commit to the World Health Organisation-recommended legally binding limits on air pollution, to be set and met by 2030?
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Bill provides for us to do precisely that by setting targets for PM 2.5. We will want to consult and engage people on exactly what that target should be. It is worth noting that the World Health Organisation has commended this Government’s air quality strategy, saying that it is an example for the rest of the world to follow.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place, and I welcome the Bill because it is a valuable step forward, but does he recognise that particulate pollution is a very real cause for concern, not just in inner cities but in suburban areas such as mine? Will he look at why we cannot use this Bill as an opportunity to advance rapidly towards WHO standards?
George Eustice
I simply say to my hon. Friend that the Bill gives us the powers to set precisely those long-term targets and to monitor our progress towards them. It also contains powers, later in the Bill, to improve our ability to manage air quality and support interventions that will enhance air quality.
George Eustice
I would like to make a little bit of progress. I am conscious of the number of Members who want to speak today.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who did a lot of groundwork on this Bill. I should also like to record my thanks to my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who has been involved with the Bill from the start.
The Bill is key to this Government’s ambitious environmental agenda. In 2020, as the UK hosts the next climate change conference, COP26 in Glasgow, we will be leading from the front as we write this new chapter for the UK outside the European Union: independent and committed to net zero and to nature recovery. The Government will work to tackle climate change and support nature recovery around the world and here at home, whether through recycling more and wasting less, planting trees, safeguarding our forests, protecting our oceans, savings species or pioneering new approaches to agriculture.
The first half of the Bill—parts 1 and 2—sets out the five guiding environmental principles for our terrestrial and marine environments to inform policy making across the country. These principles are that the polluter should pay; that harm should be prevented, and if it cannot be prevented, it should be rectified at source; that the environment should be taken into consideration across Government policy making; and that a precautionary approach should be taken.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
What action are the Government taking to ensure that carbon offsetting is permanent and long lasting? Greenhouse gases can be in the atmosphere in some cases for hundreds of years, and there is a danger that carbon offsetting could be only temporary, so will the Government look at that point and come forward with proposals on it?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Bill contains a number of measures relating to a biodiversity net gain. It includes, for instance, a provision on conservation covenants, which will enable a landowner entering into an agreement to plant woodland, for instance, to have a covenant on that land as part of an agreement that would prevent it from subsequently being scrapped.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
The breadth of this Bill and the level of scrutiny that its various versions have already faced are testament to its importance and the hard work of Ministers, colleagues across the House, officials and an enormous number of organisations, yet there are still opportunities to strengthen it. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is open-minded to amendments that strengthen the Bill, particularly on biodiversity net gain? Some of us agree with Greener UK that that ought to be secured and maintained in perpetuity.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend will know that the Government are always open-minded to good amendments. However, she makes a valid point, which is that the Bill’s contents have already been extensively scrutinised. The Bill as presented before Second Reading has taken account of many different views.
Geraint Davies
The Secretary of State will be aware that current EU air quality standards are enforced through the courts, with Client Earth and so on having taken the Government to court. Will he accept that this Bill should include an independent agency with teeth that enforces World Health Organisation standards and, ideally, gives the fines to the health service and local government to help treat the damage caused by poor air quality and to reduce pollution locally? The Bill simply does not do that at the moment.
George Eustice
The Bill will establish the Office for Environmental Protection, which will have the power to take public bodies to an upper tribunal if there are breaches of the law. Of course, there are remedies in such a process through the usual mechanism of court orders.
The Bill sets out a framework for setting and taking concrete steps towards achieving our ambitious, legally binding long-term targets, and chapter 2 will establish that new, powerful independent Office for Environmental Protection to provide expert, objective and impartial advice on environmental issues and to take a proportionate and transparent approach to issues of national importance concerning the enforcement of environmental law. The OEP will hold this and every future Government to account by reporting on the progress we have made to improve the natural environment, as set out in our published evidence-based environmental improvement plans and targets.
George Eustice
I am going to make some progress.
The annual progress report we published last May showed that 90% of the highest-priority actions from our first 25-year environment plan, which will become our first improvement plan, have either been delivered or are on track. We have heeded the advice of both the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I look forward to continuing to work closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). The OEP will enforce compliance with environmental law where needed, complementing and reinforcing the work of the world-leading Committee on Climate Change.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Given that clause 40 gives the OEP quite broad prohibitions on the disclosure of information, how will we know what it is up to? Will the Secretary of State explain—he can do so in writing—why we need those prohibitions? Will he confirm now that the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, which are so important to public access, will not be interfered with? Will he state in the Bill that there will be no restriction on the public’s access to information through the EIR?
George Eustice
The framework set out in this Bill contains multiple mechanisms through which information is made available. We will be setting targets that will be reviewed every five years. There will then be a published environmental improvement plan that will also be reviewed every five years, and a progress report will be published annually. There are many mechanisms through which our public approach to delivering on our targets is made clear.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I welcome the Bill and its attempt, alongside enhancing the environment, to improve our farmers’ ability to produce food. To that end, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new legally binding environmental targets will take account of the best techniques available to our farming community, so that the targets are eminently achievable?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Our Agriculture Bill is currently in Committee, and it includes not only tackling and mitigating climate change, but a wide range of other environmental objectives. The measures and policies in that Bill will indeed contribute to supporting the objectives and targets set out in this Bill. The OEP will provide a free-to-use complaints system for citizens, and it will also have the power, as I said earlier, to take the Government to court.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
One of the issues for so many of our communities is appreciating just how severe the crisis is, particularly for air quality, as we have heard in many interventions. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to put the power with the people and increase investment in monitoring stations? Monitors could be fitted to the refuse lorries that go down every street across the land, which would provide us all with real-time data.
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The waste management section of the Bill will provide us with the ability not only to strengthen our requirements on producer responsibility, but to improve our ability to track waste, so that we can ensure that it is disposed of properly.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I spoke about the traceability of waste to the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), and heard that the Bill is perfect. However, I urge the Secretary of State to consider my amendment in Committee on the traceability of waste, particularly the end destination of municipal waste, so that residents who recycle know that their recycling will not end up in the oceans.
George Eustice
While I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, will look carefully at any amendments, the Bill will also give us the legal powers to prevent the exporting of plastic waste to other countries, confirming a manifesto commitment.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
Residents in Stafford are concerned about the impact of plastic pollution, and I commend the local organisations, such as Stafford Litter Heroes, that are doing so much to tackle this blight on our beautiful countryside. What steps the Government are taking to implement incentives such as the drinks container deposit return scheme, which would allow everyone to do their bit to protect our planet every day?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Bill contains new powers for enhanced producer responsibility when it comes to managing single-use plastics or waste more generally, and the Bill will give us the power to extend that to new categories. The Bill will also provide the power to enable us to establish deposit return schemes.
Several hon. Members rose—
George Eustice
I want to make some progress, because I am conscious that many Members have put into speak today.
The second half of the Bill sets out measures to improve our environment right now. The Bill will enable British business to be part of the solution by incentivising and supporting approaches in the UK that will deliver for our environment. Part 3 will help us to accomplish greater resource efficiency and a better approach to waste through more circular ways of using the planet’s finite resources. It will encourage manufacturers to develop innovative packaging and strong sustainability standards by making them responsible for the entire net cost of disposing of used packaging. It will stimulate the creation of alternatives to the single-use plastics that wreak havoc on the marine environment, while establishing consistent rules to help people recycle more easily across our country and giving us powers to set up deposit return schemes.
George Eustice
I am going to make some progress.
The Bill will improve how we hold to account those who litter, so we can tackle the waste crime that costs our economy over £600 million every year. It will put pressure on businesses to waste less food and get more of the surplus out to those who really need it.
Part 4 deals with air pollution—the greatest environmental risk to human health. Fine particulate matter is the most damaging pollutant, so the Bill makes a clear commitment to set an ambitious, legally binding target that will drive down particulate levels and improve public health. The Bill will give the Government the power to ensure that polluting vehicles are removed from our roads, and it will give local authorities greater capability to improve their local environment, from green spaces to healthier air for everyone to breathe, so that we all lead longer, healthier lives wherever we live and work.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I greatly welcome the ambitious proposals in this Bill, and of particular interest to my constituents in Rushcliffe are the measures on recycling. The proposals to standardise which recyclable materials are collected door to door and to include glass and food waste in that list are particularly welcome. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to enact these measures as quickly as possible? Can he give me an idea of the timeframe for these proposals becoming a reality on people’s doorsteps?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and we will be consulting on when to deploy the powers in the Bill. It is important that we have greater consistency on recycling and on what local authorities are required to do, so that people play their part and know exactly what is required of them.
Part 5 will facilitate more responsible management of water, so that we have secure, safe, abundant water for the future, supporting a more resilient environment. We know that nature needs our help to recover.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend will know, England has 80% of the world’s chalk streams, and successive Governments have failed those chalk streams miserably. The abstraction reforms in this Bill are welcome, but they do not go far enough; nor is there any explicit commitment to building reservoirs, particularly the Abingdon reservoir. Will the Minister reflect on that?
George Eustice
Obviously, I am happy to discuss these matters with my hon. Friend. The Bill has powers to strengthen the abstraction licensing regime and to limit licences that have been established for some time. It will also give us powers to modify some of the legislation on water pollutants, so that we can add additional chemicals to the list, should we need to do so.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Although there is a lot to welcome in the Bill, the Government could achieve a lot more, particularly on water consumption. This is an opportunity to introduce targets for water consumption through labelling mechanisms that allow consumers to decide which products to buy and consume by comparing the amount of water those products use.
George Eustice
We have consulted on a range of measures on water consumption. We do not think we need additional primary powers in this Bill to take steps to address those issues. We will obviously be responding to the consultation soon.
We know that nature needs our help to recover, so the focus of parts 6 and 7 is to give communities a say if their local authority plans to take down a beloved neighbourhood tree, and public authorities will be required to ensure they conserve and enhance nature across the board.
George Eustice
I will make some progress.
Landowners will be able to agree conservation covenants with charities and other bodies, so they can be assured that subsequent landowners will be required to continue the sustainable stewardship they have started. The Bill will require developers to provide a 10% increase for nature, giving them the clarity they need to do their bit for the environment, while building the homes we need across our country.
Nature recovery networks will join up space for species across our country, with local nature recovery strategies capturing local knowledge and mapping habitat hotspots, so that we can target investment where it will have the greatest impact.
Philip Dunne
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is being generous in giving way. I apologise for not being able to speak in this debate as I have a Westminster Hall debate at 2.30 pm.
Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that there will be coherence between the environmental land management scheme presented in the Agriculture Bill and empowering people to be supported through the nature recovery schemes?
George Eustice
Yes, that is what we will be doing. Indeed, the design of our future environmental land management scheme will have a local component, and we want to make sure that what we do to promote nature through ELM is consistent with the local nature recovery strategies.
George Eustice
I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.
Chris Grayling
My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way.
This is one of the most important parts of the Bill. We need to restore habitats in this country, with a particular focus on those species—birds, hedgehogs and others—that have declined so dramatically in numbers. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the mandate that goes with these measures, both for the new agency and for local authorities, will focus on helping those species to recover, particularly by recreating the habitats that will enable it to happen?
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and the Bill will require local authorities to have their own strategies for biodiversity and for nature recovery. As he identifies, these are exactly the types of issues that we want them to address.
Before I close, I will highlight three new additions to the Bill since it was introduced in the previous Parliament. Clause 19 will mean that, when introducing a Bill, every Secretary of State in every future UK Government will have to include on the face of that Bill a statement on whether the new primary legislation will have the effect of reducing existing levels of environmental protection.
The second addition is that the Bill will create a new power to implement the Government’s manifesto commitment to end the exporting of polluting plastic waste to non-OECD countries. We will consult industry, non-governmental organisations and local authorities on specific restrictions or prohibitions.
Thirdly, clause 20 will require the Government to take stock biennially of significant developments in international legislation on the environment and then publish a review.
In conclusion, this Government are committed to leaving the environment in a better state than we found it, whether through planting 30,000 hectares of trees a year by the end of this Parliament, transforming our approach to agriculture, tackling air pollution or improving our waste management. This Bill will create the framework to set a long-term course for our country to drive environmental improvement, and I commend it to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
A large number of colleagues want to contribute to this debate, so I give warning that there will be an immediate seven-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The climate crisis is the most pressing issue facing our planet. The actions we take in the next few years will determine whether we can address the climate emergency or whether we pass on to our children the rotten inheritance of living on a dying planet. It is therefore with great responsibility that we debate this Bill.
The Government are calling this a “landmark Bill” and “world-leading legislation,” but I fear that is not quite right. The Secretary of State should be more honest, because this still seems like a draft Bill—a Bill that is not quite there. This is an okay Bill, but by no means the groundbreaking legislation we have been promised.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Does he share my concern and disappointment that the Secretary of State did not mention part 8? Part 8 refers to the potential for divergence from the incredibly important regulations on the chemical industry that affect our entire manufacturing sector, not just the chemical industry itself. Does he share my concern that part 8 has the ability to diverge, with serious consequences for most of our economy?
Luke Pollard
The details on regression and non-regression are an important part of this Bill. We need to make sure we maintain our high standards, because those high standards, especially in the chemical industry, drive jobs and employment right across the country. Any risk of divergence affects the ability of those products to be sold overseas, which affects the ability of jobs to be held back in our country. I am glad my hon. Friend has raised that issue.
Some hon. Members will remember when Parliament adopted Labour’s motion to declare a climate emergency. For me, it presents us with a very simple challenge: now that Parliament has declared a climate emergency, what are we doing differently? It is a challenge to us as individuals and to businesses, but it is especially a challenge to lawmakers, Ministers and regulators.
Because the climate crisis is real, we need bolder, swifter action to decarbonise our economy and to protect vulnerable habitats. We need to recognise that the crisis is not just about carbon, although it is. It is about other greenhouse gases, too, and it is an ecological emergency, with our planet’s animals, birds and insect species in decline and their habitats under threat.
The water we drink, the food we consume and the fish in our seas are all affected by pollutants, from plastics to chemicals. As we have seen from the floods caused by Storms Ciara and Dennis, the climate crisis is also leading to more extreme weather more often and with more severe consequences.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The National Flood Forum has noted that extreme and flash flooding will be one of the greatest effects of the climate crisis. In my constituency, we have experienced unprecedented flooding, and the River Taff’s levels rose by more than a metre above all previous records. If that is not a wake-up call, I do not know what is. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to act urgently to secure better climate protections, to ensure that all other towns, villages and cities across the world are not impacted in the way my community has been this week?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention and for all the work that she and her Welsh colleagues have been doing in supporting communities that are under water. We need much firmer action. We need a proper plan for flooding that reverses the austerity cuts made to our flood defences, and that removes the requirement for match funding which favours affluent communities over poorer ones. We also need urgent action from the Government to address the worrying aspects of the legacy of the coal industry in Wales, which could result in a real disaster if action is not taken. I encourage her to carry on campaigning on that.
As my hon. Friend has mentioned, Britain is not unique in the challenges facing us in terms of the climate catastrophe. In many cases, what will happen in the global south will be even more disastrous than what is happening in the UK. That is why action cannot wait.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of concerns that the Bill does not focus enough on the UK’s global footprint, so does he agree that the Government should introduce a mandatory due diligence mechanism, which would help to reduce the UK’s global footprint?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that intervention. It is a good reminder that one way in which we have decarbonised in the past few years has simply been by exporting our carbon; we export not only waste, but the production of the most carbon-intensive products that we use. The hon. Gentleman raises a good point.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
I will make some progress before taking further interventions, mindful of the people who are to follow.
As a nation, we need a gold-standard Environment Bill. I agree with the Minister that we need world-leading legislation, but this is not it. This still looks like a draft Bill; there has not been complete pre-legislative scrutiny for the entire Bill, which I think it needs; it lacks coherence as between its different sections; and it lacks the ambition to tackle the climate crisis as a whole with a comprehensive and renewed strategy. Labour will be a critical friend to Ministers during this process. We will be not be opposing the Bill today, but in that spirit we hope that Ministers will look seriously at adopting the measures we will put forward to improve and strengthen it, especially in Committee.
I have a concern about the positioning of the Bill: it has been spun so hard by successive Governments, and Secretaries of State in particular, that it cannot possibly deliver the grand soundbites that it has been set up as doing. That means that the heavy lifting required now to address our decarbonisation efforts and protect our communities may be hampered, because the Bill will not be able to deliver on those lofty promises. I worry that unless we match those grand soundbites with determined action, we will be failing our children and the communities we are here to serve.
In the time left, I want to cover three key areas of concern about the Bill. The first relates to Labour’s belief that non-regression in environmental standards must be a legal requirement. The second relates to how the new Office for Environmental Protection needs to be strengthened, and the third relates to how the ambition of Government press releases needs to be translated into genuine delivery in the Bill. First, on standards and targets, we were promised during the election that the Government would not lower our food standards, despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary, in post-Brexit trade deals. As we have already seen with the debates on the Agriculture Bill, Ministers have chosen to leave the door open for the undercutting of British farm and food standards in post-Brexit trade deals. The new Environment Secretary cannot even guarantee that chlorinated chicken or lactic acid-washed chicken will not be allowed into Britain as a result of the US trade deal. The rough ride he got with the National Farmers Union this morning will just be the start if he does not come to the realisation that many of us on both sides of this House have, that the commitment that he and others have given must be put into law. We cannot allow our standards to be undercut, and that principle of not allowing our standards to be undercut applies to this Bill too. We need to ensure that non-regression on environmental standards with the EU is a floor that we must not go below.
Luke Pollard
I am going to make a bit of progress, but I will come back to my hon. Friend in a moment if I can.
We simply cannot allow our environmental standards to be undercut in the same way as our food and animal welfare standards risk being undercut with trade deals. We need to ensure that we have measures approaching dynamic alignment with the European Union so that Britain is not seen as a country with lower standards than our European friends. Lower regulatory standards and lower animal welfare standards, especially on imported food, would see damage to ecosystems and habitats and a downward pressure on regulation in future, which would harm our efforts to decarbonise our economy. I want to see the lofty words said by all the Ministers on the Front Bench and the Prime Minister about non-regression put in the Bill. Where is the legal commitment to non-regression on environmental protections that the British people have asked for? Why is it not clearly in the Bill? If we are to have any hope of tackling the climate emergency in a meaningful way, we need to be aiming towards net zero by 2030, not by 2050.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
On net zero by 2030, does the hon. Gentleman not recognise what the Committee on Climate Change and Baroness Brown recognise, which is that reaching net zero by 2050 will be a huge challenge for this country? Blithely throwing around “2030” as though this is easy is doing a disservice not just this House, but to the people watching.
Luke Pollard
I am a big fan of the hon. Gentleman’s Instagram feed and follow it with great passion, and sometimes I feel a bit disappointed by interventions such as that. We cannot afford not to hit net zero by 2030, but the Government are currently on track for 2099. A far-off date many, moons away will not deal with the climate emergency and will not protect our habitats that need protecting. That drive needs to be there, though we know that for some sectors achieving net zero target by 2030 will be very challenging, and for some achieving it by 2050 will be very challenging, with agriculture being one of those sectors. The NFU’s plan to hit net zero by 2040 is very challenging. If sectors are to deliver net zero by any date, we will need some sectors to go faster and further than others to create carbon headroom, with the requirement that that progress is not double-counted in carbon calculations. Sadly, this supposedly world-leading Environment Bill does not have a single target in it. It contains no duty on Ministers to ensure that Britain decarbonises and stops the climate crisis getting any worse.
Secondly, I turn to the Office for Environmental Protection—the proposed new regulator. I know from previous debates that some Conservative Members are not too keen on the idea of a new Government outfit created in this space, but I agree with Ministers that we need a robust regulator. Sadly, the one being proposed in the Bill is not strong enough in our view. We need it to have teeth, and a remit that is unaffected by Government patronage. It needs to carefully consider the science and to have a bite that would make Ministers think twice about missing their targets. That is what the Office for Environmental Protection should be, but, sadly, that is not what the Bill envisages.
The new regulator does not have true independence from Government. It has no legal powers to hold the Government to account in the way it needs to. Approving its chair via a Government-led Select Committee, on which the Government have a majority, is not sufficient. Given that Ministers have been dragged time and time again through the courts for missing air quality targets, how can we ensure that this regulator would make that a thing of the past and not a repeat prescription?
We need Ministers to do as Members on both sides have suggested today and adopt World Health Organisation targets for air quality and particulates. We need regulators to have teeth to make sure that those targets are enforced, and we need to make sure that the new regulator sits and works in a complementary way in and with what is an already quite congested regulatory space on the environment.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Prospect the union has written to me expressing its concern that only 100 staff will be employed by the Office for Environmental Protection. Does the shadow Minister share my concerns about this under-resourcing?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Since 2010 we have seen that quangos and regulators can still exist but their ability to deliver that regulation and the quality of that regulation depends on the resources. If a political lever is being applied by Ministers—as I have said before, I have a lot of time for the current Environment Secretary, but that does not necessarily mean that anyone who follows him would have the same approach—if budgets were to be changed and if political patronage were to be applied in terms of the OEP’s leadership and board, that could affect the outcomes. Resourcing does matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard
I will not take any further interventions, so that I can finish my remarks. [Interruption.] I say that, but that would have been a good time for one. I come to the section of my speech about water, unless someone would like to intervene briefly. [Laughter.]
Bim Afolami
I do so in the spirit of kindness, but there is a serious point here. Luton airport is in the constituency next to mine, and one concern that many of my constituents have as a result is about air quality. All of our constituencies will have separate issues. What is the hon. Gentleman’s view as to how we can use this Bill to apply to specific instances at specific times—for example, to deal with poor air quality around Luton airport?
Luke Pollard
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman and will like more of his Instagram posts as a reward for that kind intervention. We do need to address air quality around airports and transport modes in particular, but the ability to do that is predicated on the data, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) made the point that he did earlier. It is important to make sure that we take action based on reliable evidence, which means that we need the right testing stations. At the moment there are far too few air-quality monitoring stations. We need to go forward by embracing having monitoring stations on more schools, more GP surgeries and in more areas with a greater level of public dwelling. That is how we should address the issue. For airports in particular, it is about surface access and making sure that people can get to airports more easily.
I have been coughing and spluttering for a while, so I will rush through the rest of my speech so that I do not take up anyone else’s time. As Conservative Members have said, the part of the Bill that deals with water does not go far enough to deal with some of the issues relating to water poverty, or do anything to address per capita consumption or meaningful water labelling or to solve the challenge of where we are going to get the water that we need for the homes we need to build in future. For the Bill to be genuinely world leading, I would have hoped that the Government would adopt some of the current groundbreaking ideas in water policy, such as water neutrality, which is the idea that for every new home that we build we will not provide any more water resources—they will be offset by water efficiency in our existing housing stock. There are some really grand opportunities and fantastic water innovations, which is why we need the Bill to go further on water efficiency in our homes, actions on leaks and investment in water-efficient technologies. We also need a war on leaky loos, as that is important.
I would like the Government to look at a commitment whereby the water industry moves to using 100% renewable energy within the next five years. Ministers already have the power to do that, given the regulatory powers of Ofwat and DEFRA.
Finally, the Secretary of State has already mentioned that the Bill includes a section on trees that will allow trees to be chopped down in a different way. The Bill does not include any new powers to plant trees. That seems to be an omission: I imagine Members from all parties will look at the Bill and say, “Surely that’s not right.” Given that the Government are missing their tree-planting target by 71% already, further powers to chop down trees do not seem to be the priority. We need to look into not only how to plant more trees but at different types of biodiversity and habitats, and make sure that carbon is sequestered in the right way. That is really important, because if we are to address the loss of species, both in the UK and globally, we need to take action.
COP26 provides us with a global platform to showcase the very best of our global thinking, our action and our legislation. Currently, the Bill does not deliver the groundbreaking global platform that we need to take into COP26. I hope that Ministers will take seriously the concerns that I have raised and that my Opposition colleagues will address when they speak later, because there is a real desire on both sides of the House to improve the legislation and make it as genuinely world leading as the Secretary of State aspires for it to be. To that end, I invite the Secretary of State to work with us to improve the legislation; simply voting down every amendment so that we keep a clean sheet will not deliver that. I hope that he will take that challenge in the spirit in which it is meant so that we can work together to improve the legislation. The climate crisis needs to be addressed and it will not be sufficiently addressed if we allow the Bill to pass unaltered.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on the Second Reading of the Environment Bill. I am pleased that the Government have reintroduced the Bill and I am also pleased that there is a degree of co-operation with the Opposition. It is important that we get the Bill absolutely right.
In the previous Parliament, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of the previous Bill, and I am pleased that the legislation has moved towards some of our recommendations. For example, I welcome the fact that the Government will set a multi-annual budget for the Office for Environmental Protection and have included climate change within its remit. We just need to make sure that there is enough money for the OEP to run properly.
I wish to make three points about how the Bill can be improved. First, concerns have been expressed that in some areas, such as target setting, the Bill might allow a weakening of standards—for example, on air quality. I welcome the plan to set a target for particulate matter, but it is planned only for 2022, and we do not know how ambitious the target might be. At this early stage, I urge the Government to set an example and match the World Health Organisation guidelines for dangerous emissions such as particulate matter. The British Heart Foundation estimates that the number of heart attacks and stroke deaths linked to air pollution could exceed 160,000 by 2030, unless action is taken. DEFRA has already carried out a study that shows that it can achieve World Health Organisation standards of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030, so I urge the Government to set that target. Let us put that target into law now and use the Bill to improve human health as well as our natural environment.
Secondly, it is vital that we set up the Office for Environmental Protection now that we are outside the EU; however, it needs to be independent of Government and have the teeth to bite. The OEP will not be independent if it is constantly worrying about having its budgets cut, so will the Government commit to a multi-annual budget settlement, the enshrinement in law of which I would welcome?
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I think we all agree that we certainly do not want an OEP that is a toothless tiger; we want one that can react to and govern the climate and nature emergency in which we find ourselves. We need clarity as to whether the OEP will be set up, particularly in England and Northern Ireland, as of 1 January 2021.
Neil Parish
Naturally, there is the matter of how the OEP works with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, but I agree that it needs to have those powers. I am sure that the Secretary of State will have listened to the hon. Lady’s intervention.
The appointments process in the setting up of the OEP should follow the Office for Budget Responsibility model, in which the Treasury Committee can veto the Chancellor’s choice. I am sure that my great friend the Secretary of State would not mind giving away some of his new fiefdom to the EFRA Committee, but we will wait and see. I offer that to him—or perhaps he might offer it to me.
My final point on the OEP is that my Committee concluded that judicial review is not the most appropriate enforcement mechanism for environmental cases because it focuses on process rather than outcomes and leaves the decision making to the lawyers. That is a really important point. I welcome the tribunal model in the Bill, because I hope that it will allow environmental specialists to have a role. We need practical solutions for when the Government are in breach—such as we have with air-pollution plans—rather than lawyers and going through process all the time. We really want to make sure that we get the experts in place.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend believe it is necessary to make sure that there is a time limit for the investigations that the OEP might undertake, so that we can see a speedy reaction to any issues that may arise?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We do not want to waste years in the courts; these things have to be done quickly. We need practical solutions for when the Government are in breach, just as we have with air pollution plans. I am still concerned that the environmental review outlined in the Bill is just a judicial review by another name. We have a great opportunity to build on our strong commitment to the environment. We all want to leave the environment in a better place than we found it. Will the Secretary of State look again at some of our Select Committee proposals, because the Bill can still be strengthened in many areas? One final point on the OEP is that the judicial review is not the most appropriate enforcement mechanism for environmental cases. We therefore need a more practical solution.
Finally, I ask the Government, as we have made a commitment to improve the environment, to look not only at the Environment Bill, but at the Agriculture Bill and the Fishing Bill, because they all fit together. As yet another round of flooding seems likely in the future, the Environment Bill will be important, as will be the Agriculture Bill. Fitting the two together with new land management projects will be a very good way of making sure that we can deliver a catchment-area basis for flooding. We can also improve our environment and work with the water companies on holding more water and on making sure that the reservoirs do not overflow. We can also look at the rewetting of peatland. All of those things can be done, but they must be linked with the Environment Bill.
Finally—I am sure that this is in the minds of Ministers and the Secretary of State—we must ensure that we join up the Environment Bill with the Agriculture and Fishing Bills, and also make sure that, as we drive towards a better environment, we do so across the whole of Government. This cannot just be done by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because things such as delivering on air quality can only be achieved across Government.
I look forward to the Bill being read a Second time. It is taking us in the right direction, but let us also look at the independence of the OEP. We also need to make sure that tribunals deal not just with legal matters, but with environmental matters. With that, I very much welcome the Second Reading of this Bill.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I refer hon. Members to my speech on 28 October when we had the dress rehearsal for this Bill—at least we all know our lines now. None the less, the concerns remain the same, because they have not been addressed: the Bill still lacks in ambition; the Office of Environmental Protection still lacks teeth; the Ministry of Defence is still exempt; the armed forces can still cause environmental havoc; national security is still off limits for environmental consideration; renewable energy still does not get the big licks it should be getting; and this Bill is still, in my view, insipid and weak.
Worse than that, clause 18 should force Ministers to consider the environment when making policy, but, as I have already said, it exempts the military and national security. It also exempts tax, spending and the allocation of resources. In other words, it exempts the main thrusts of Government policy—the biggest tools in the Government cupboard. If resource considerations do not take environmental concerns into account, we will hardly be driving Government policy towards good environmental goals.
If taxation policy does not have a weather eye on environmental policy, it misses the opportunity to ensure that the polluter pays. It misses the chance to engage Government’s biggest lever of public policy. Equally, if spending decisions are not environmentally aware, then the Government are not environmentally aware. If the Government were serious about delivering environmental benefits, that would have been the key point of the Bill —it would have been proclaiming a commitment to change, to improvement, to making a future unlike the past.
If there really were an environmental heart to this Government, it would be at the heart of this Bill. It would tie all governmental resourcing decisions into improving the environment, and into considering the environmental impact of policies. It would put the environment at the middle of decision making. It did not happen; it has not happened. This Bill is just ticking a box to say that the gap left by Brexit is being filled, but that filler is not reaching the edges of that gap.
Even the hiatus of an election and the inordinately long time it has taken to bring this Bill back have not offered the Government enough time to make improvements to the Bill. Still, there is nothing that will force England’s water companies to address the leakage from their pipes to conserve that resource. The clue to decent performance there, of course, is to remove the profit motive and have water publicly owned, as it is in Scotland.
The Bill still does not lend strength to enforcement. There are still no strong compliance powers for the new watchdog, the OEP, in the Bill and those that it will have will be restricted to wagging a finger at backsliding public bodies. This was an opportunity to make a clear case for environmental improvement and protection. This was an opportunity to lay down markers on protecting the marine environment, putting protections in place for the oceans, improving river health and securing decent bathing waters.
Sir Charles Walker
Let me just say something about protecting the marine environment. By the way, the hubris of this House is just stunning when it comes to the environment. We talk about saving the world, but instead, in England, we have trashed our chalk streams. In Scotland, the salmon farming industry has entirely destroyed the sea lochs of the west coast of Scotland, made them barren of sea life, and destroyed the salmon runs coming in and out of the rivers. If we could perhaps act locally, we might be able to talk in a more informed way globally.
Deidre Brock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. Certainly, there is much hubris in this Chamber about such issues. Something that I will come on to is the Scottish Government’s environmental strategy, which was released in the past couple of days, in which issues such as those are certainly being looked at.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), for whom I have a lot of respect and with whom I have a lot of similarities in terms of our love of angling, I say that the salmon fishing industry has been hugely important to large parts of the west coast of Scotland, not least the Western Isles. Sometimes when we talk about hubris, we need to think about the local economy as well, which is so important for our country.
Deidre Brock
An excellent point and I thank my hon. Friend for making it.
Brexit was supposed to give the UK Government the power to do things differently—to imagine a better way to do things. Whether Brexit was ever capable of doing that is a moot point, but it does not really matter, because the Government do not have the ambition to try. They do not have the imagination to see a better way to do things, or the determination to improve lives. There could be ambitious, legally binding limits on plastic pollution, and limits on how much could be produced, used and discarded. There could be incentives, perhaps even tax incentives, for retailers to cut the plastic. If they cannot even rate measures to improve the health of the oceans as being worthy of putting in this Bill, where really then is the commitment to addressing climate change?
Geraint Davies
Does the hon. Lady agree that this needs to sit alongside a fiscal strategy that taxes virgin plastic, that has a go at diesel particulates and, indeed, at dangerous chemicals? Unless the Department works closely with the Treasury to deliver that, we will simply not be able to deliver on our ambition.
Deidre Brock
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. This really needs to be taken in the round, and I see little evidence of that in the Bill. Further to that, where are the measures to combat climate change in the Bill? The climate emergency gets lots of warm words from Whitehall, but it gets so little in the way of action. If an Environment Bill is not the place for addressing the biggest environmental issue of the day, where is?
Wera Hobhouse
On the issue of waste, may I ask the hon. Lady for cross-party support for the amendment that I am tabling on the obligation of local councils to provide traceability on the end destination of our household waste? In that way, the public can be confident that the recycling that we collect does not end up in the ocean or indeed in incinerators, but actually gets recycled. That is the amendment that I will put forward, and I am looking for cross-party support. Will she provide it?
Deidre Brock
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. That is certainly something that I am prepared to look at, but, of course, local councils and local authorities are an issue for England and Wales only. Those issues are devolved to Scotland, so it is not necessarily something that we would be able to support in actuality, but I certainly agree with the principle of what she said.
I was talking previously about targets and real action—or lack of targets and real action—so where are the provisions to encourage tree planting? During the election, so many pledges were bandied back and forth about how many trees would be planted under a Tory or Labour Government. Hundreds of millions were promised, but here is the first opportunity to do something about that, and there is nothing—not a squirt. I find it amazing that Scotland has only around a third of the landmass of the UK, but four fifths of the tree planting in the UK is in Scotland. Let us at least see some indication that the UK Government will at least pretend to follow suit.
While we are on the subject, how about implementing policies to discourage the importation of products that have caused deforestation elsewhere, or which have contributed to the pressure to clear forest? How about a commitment to write that into trade deals? How about placing an obligation on businesses to consider such things in the course of their operations? In fact, the real thing that is missing from the Bill is a clear governmental intention to force businesses to get on board with improving the environment. It is as if the Government think that businesses will not be robust enough to handle that compliance. If the Government will not lead, they cannot expect people, businesses and organisations to do it instead. Ministers have an obligation to find ways to really drive this agenda forward, and so far they have failed in that.
The old 25-year environment plan is outdated and needs to be refreshed. The Bill—the reprise—starts its life outdated and in need of improvement. Fortunately, there is a shining example of excellence not too far away—I am not talking about Wales, to be clear—which is a ready-made vision of a future where compliance with environmental objectives is seen to be the norm, rather than the exception, and where Ministers are not afraid to take on leadership roles and are prepared to ensure that businesses and organisations take action too. Scotland’s environmental strategy, released this week as I mentioned earlier, is a plan worth copying. It is a plan worth following: it has vision, leadership, education and action all rolled up into one. I urge Members to take the time to read it. It is so good that Charles Dundas, the chair of Scottish Environment LINK, a former Lib Dem councillor and colleague of mine, said:
“It is fantastic to see such a bold vision for the protection of Scotland’s environment, which, as the Scottish Government says, is fundamental to our future.”
I tell Ministers that it is not too late to have some real ambition in the Bill. It is not a done deal and they still have time to make wholesale changes and massive improvements to make this a Bill that they can be proud of. The political will is all that is needed. They would find agreement, as we have already heard, on both sides of the Chamber, and they would have the pleasure and privilege of knowing that they actually contributed during their careers. Do something fabulous, Ministers! Do something you will be proud of in your old age, amend the Bill and make it fit for purpose.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a pleasure to call Rob Butler to make his maiden speech.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to have the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate on the Environment Bill, which will have far-reaching implications for our economy and our society, heralding a cleaner, greener nation.
There is only one place to begin my remarks today, and that is in paying tribute to my predecessor, Sir David Lidington. David was the Member of Parliament for Aylesbury for fully 27 years. He held senior ministerial roles, culminating as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of State for the Cabinet Office during some particularly testing times for the last Government. Whenever I mention David, the response is the same—that he is a man who is decent, dedicated and thoughtful, a gentleman and the epitome of the public servant. When a new colleague was talking to me about David recently, he had just one question, “Do you have an equally big brain?” My answer was simple—“No.” After all, David led his Cambridge college to victory on “University Challenge”, not once but twice, whereas the only TV quiz show I competed on twice was “Blankety Blank”.
Rob Butler
It is true.
David did, of course, have the advantage of serving the magnificent constituency of Aylesbury, which I now have the great privilege to represent. Aylesbury has been a part of my life for longer than I can remember. I was born in the Royal Bucks Hospital in the town, and my first home was in Bedgrove. My roots in the constituency go back even further. My great-grandfather was the village blacksmith in Bledlow Ridge. Aylesbury can trace its history to the iron age, has held a market since Anglo-Saxon times and has been the proud county town of Buckinghamshire for close to 500 years.
The historic quarter of the town centre retains its charm and appeal to locals and visitors alike. It includes statues of Benjamin Disraeli, the father of one nation Conservatism, and of John Hampden, commemorating his role asserting the rights of Parliament against Charles I. There is also now a statue of David Bowie, who in the 1970s staged the world debut performances of two albums at the legendary Friars music club in the town. Visitors should be aware that the statue bursts into song on the hour: more than one unsuspecting tourist has had rather a shock when out of nowhere comes a rendition of “Ziggy Stardust”.
One historic building that is rarely remarked upon is the prison, a Victorian edifice dating from 1847. It is a place that holds particular interest for me, however, as until recently I served as a non-executive director of HM Prison and Probation Service and as the magistrate member of the Sentencing Council. I hope to continue that work in Parliament, focusing particularly on two themes—making our prison estate fit for purpose and putting victims right at the heart of the criminal justice system. Perhaps I may say at this point that I regard our prison and probation officers as the unsung heroes of our public services.
Among the more notorious inmates of Aylesbury prison were the Great Train Robbers, which brings me neatly to HS2. As the home of the Aylesbury duck, it has been said by many of my constituents that HS2 is simply quackers. Seriously though, as the Member of Parliament for Aylesbury and speaking in the debate on the Environment Bill, I would not be forgiven by my constituents if I did not mention HS2. Opposition to the project has long been the single biggest issue in my constituency. Thousands of residents are both disappointed and frustrated by the decision to proceed, not least because of the harm HS2 will do to the environment, including the destruction of more than 100 ancient woodlands. The actions of HS2 Ltd and its contractors have already provoked many complaints to me, and I take this opportunity to state that I will be unwavering in holding them to account.
Aylesbury is setting itself up to thrive throughout the 21st century. Faced with the same challenges as many medium-sized market towns, not least the decline of the traditional high street, there is a passionate ambition to become a real community and commercial hub where people want to live, work, visit and invest. Already the Waterside theatre and the Exchange have brought life back to the canal side. There has been significant house building, including across Aylesbury Vale, where the population has grown by 10% in the last five years. There is far more to come, with projections of a further 16,000 homes in and around the town by 2033. So I welcome the commitment in the Bill to require all development to be accompanied by a 10% net gain in biodiversity. The Aylesbury garden town project goes even further in its vision to be not just green but—I am delighted to say—blue, with plans to create a garden-way encircling the town and to uncover hidden waterways.
The people of Aylesbury are rightly proud that it was the birthplace of the Paralympic movement, and they now have pioneering plans to make the town fully accessible to all.
There is much more than just the town of Aylesbury in the constituency. About a third of its population live in villages and hamlets, wonderful places such as Wendover, Stokenchurch, Aston Clinton, Weston Turville and Hughenden. Two thirds of the area is agricultural, and I have already very much enjoyed meeting farmers in the constituency, and not just because they agreed to put up gigantic posters of me during the election campaign. Many of those farmers are enthusiastic about the Bill. They recognise their unique role in the stewardship of the land and preservation of the countryside, and I am confident that the Bill will enable our farmers to ensure our food security and run sustainable businesses, while playing their part in ensuring the highest environmental standards.
The farms, villages and hamlets in my constituency lie in beautiful countryside, but they face the same challenges as many other rural areas, including access to health services, buses and broadband. Although Buckinghamshire is often regarded as affluent, my constituency also has pockets of deprivation, and I will strive to ensure a fairer deal for everyone I represent because, like each and every one of us in this Chamber, I am only here because of my constituents. As a former journalist, I am acutely aware of the need for accountability to them and to the public in general. Politics has not had a good press in recent years and it is beholden on us to improve that, not for the sake of a good headline or hundreds of likes on a tweet, but in order to rebuild faith and confidence that our institutions and representatives truly uphold democracy and deliver in the best interests of all the people.
I am honoured to be in this place at this pivotal time in our country’s history, when we forge new relationships and trade links around the world, and set out robust and far-reaching new laws to preserve and protect our part of the world through this Environment Bill. I conclude by expressing my sincere gratitude to the people of the Aylesbury constituency for putting their trust and faith in me to represent them here.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
What a great pleasure it is to follow the maiden speech of the new hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler). I look forward to him bringing in his “Blankety Blank” chequebook and pen so that we can all admire it in the Tea Room. May I also pay a very warm tribute to his predecessor, David Lidington, who I shadowed for a while? I have to say that I did not actually enjoy shadowing him—not because of his intellect, which was clearly there, but because he was a thoroughly decent person, and I did not like to argue or battle with him because that just was not his way or mine. I congratulate the new hon. Member for Aylesbury and welcome him to this place.
I also welcome the Environment Bill as a step in the right direction, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) has said, in tackling the existential threat that we face. After years of delay, we cannot afford to wait any longer to pass robust climate legislation matching the scale of the emergency. A year and a half ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made it clear that we had to act urgently over the next 12 years or forever miss the opportunity to prevent climate catastrophe, but nothing has changed since that announcement, except that we have lost one and a half of those 12 years. While the Government have been preoccupied with the chaos of Brexit, natural wildlife continues to disappear at an alarming rate, flooding is at a record high and fossil fuel production continues to damage our climate. We keep getting told that weather extremes are unprecedented and one-in-100-year occurrences—and then they happen again the next year.
I welcome the opportunity to debate this Bill, but the Government must address its significant limitations. I share the widespread concern expressed by the climate groups that there are significant gaps in the Bill, weakening our capacity to take urgent action. I also generally worry that, despite all the assurances to the contrary, the Conservatives are using the opportunity of Brexit to reduce standards and environmental protections and enforcements, as the Labour party warned they would seek to do.
One of the great pleasures of representing my hometown of Chester is representing Chester Zoo, which is more than simply a tourist attraction; it is leading the way in conservation and wildlife protection, and is a centre of global expertise and leadership in conservation and environmentalism. The zoo’s work spans a wide and diverse range of conservation challenges, with a specific concern about protection of biodiversity. The zoo’s representatives tell me that they welcome the Bill, but share the concern that biodiversity protections could be diluted or ignored as local authorities struggle to implement targets, and they emphasised that the climate emergency is also a biodiversity emergency.
The introduction of a mandatory 10% biodiversity net gain requirement for all new developments is a step in the right direction, but it puts the responsibility for implementing and enforcing biodiversity targets on the shoulder of local authorities, which are already on their knees due to the central Government-imposed cuts that have crippled local government since 2010. Local authorities have neither the funding, nor any longer the capacity, to enforce these crucial biodiversity targets. My local authority of Cheshire West and Chester has lost £300 million since 2010, forcing it to make difficult financial choices. For example, at least half of its expenditure goes on adult social care and care for the vulnerable. It is unrealistic for the Government to further burden councils with the responsibility for enforcing the 10% biodiversity net gain without providing additional funding or expert staff.
Habitat and species loss is a devastating result of climate change that cannot be overlooked. Will the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to address this shortfall and provide a realistic solution to the continued devastation of natural biodiversity across the country? Would the Government be willing to consider making the 10% increase in biodiversity a minimum requirement to encourage developers to exceed the target? And I have to ask: is the planning system really the correct vehicle for restoring UK nature and wildlife? It has consistently failed to address other areas of societal challenges, such as the provision of affordable housing, so why do the Government think it is fit for purpose as a means of reversing the destruction of UK wildlife and habitats?
I have concerns about the Office for Environmental Protection. As we have already heard, perhaps the most disappointing part of the Bill is its failure to create a truly independent environmental watchdog with any enforcement capabilities. The OEP’s budget is decided by the Government, meaning that the office will be under the control of the same Government that it is designed to be holding to account. The lack of accountability is astonishing and removes any sort of independence, allowing the Government to overlook environmental regulations whenever it is politically beneficial.
As we reach the crucial tipping point for climate change, the Government will be preoccupied with new trade deals, cosying up to the climate change denying President Trump in a desperate attempt to secure any trade deal—however bad—to justify their exit from the European Union. The OEP is a toothless environmental watchdog with no capacity to issue fines or stand independently from the Government to ensure that environmental protections are upheld. A further weakness identified by both Chester Zoo and the World Wildlife Fund is that the OEP has no jurisdiction over the private sector, particularly fossil fuel companies. The UK has the biggest fossil fuel subsidies in the EU, with £10.5 billion a year in support for fossil fuels, and the Tory party accepted generous donations from fossil fuel investors during the election, at the same time as cutting support for solar and onshore wind.
The absence of proposals to promote ethical procurement and sustainable, deforestation-free supply chains is a missed opportunity, and will prevent the Bill from achieving its stated goal of being an “historic step change”. We should be following the lead of Chester, led by Chester Zoo, which has developed the sustainable palm oil city model, making Chester the first city in the world to adopt sustainable palm oil city status. Some producers and retailers such as Iceland—the shop, not the country—have chosen to step away from using palm oil at all. I welcome their commitment to preventing deforestation, especially in south-east Asia, but I also note the view that the adoption of sustainable palm oil production, as promoted by Chester Zoo and others, would be a more long-term solution.
The UK has a chance to lead the way globally in tackling the climate emergency. We cannot afford to be less ambitious. I hope that the Government will recognise the constructive points that my hon. Friends and I are making. The Bill has a long way to go before it can successfully uphold the promise to leave nature in a better state for the next generation, because at the moment it seems that we have a Government who are reneging on their promise to maintain standards in environmental protection and enforcement after Brexit, just as we warned they would do. And if they do that on environmental commitments, they will do it on food, consumer standards and employment protections. As the Bill progresses and we seek to amend it, I hope that the Government prove me wrong and act on these concerns.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a pleasure to call Cherilyn Mackrory to make her maiden speech.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It is a true honour to be standing here today as the newly elected representative for Truro and Falmouth—a whirlwind for me and my little family, as I was a candidate only for five weeks before polling day. Cornwall, my adopted home—but to which my husband, my daughter and even my dog are native—has welcomed me warmly, and I would like to show my gratitude to my constituents by being a force for good in this role and a genuine help to all residents, regardless of how or whether they voted in December.
I am happy to say that it is a pleasure to pay tribute to my predecessor. Sarah Newton entered this place in 2010 and has always been a staunch advocate for securing fairer funding for Cornwall. It is largely thanks to Sarah’s efforts, along with her Cornish colleagues at the time, that we are now expecting a women and children’s facility at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Truro, along with a further £450 million for the NHS in Cornwall. Sarah also ensured a stable future for Falmouth docks for the first time in years.
Sarah served as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, and spoke passionately in this place several times in defence of the most vulnerable people in our society. Colleagues across the House have spoken very fondly of Sarah, paying tribute particularly to her compassion and kindness. On this I can concur. Having been a candidate for such a short time before my election, I have found her help invaluable. She even put me up for my first week in Parliament, and that is going above and beyond. I am sure that Members across the House will join me in wishing Sarah all the very best for her future endeavours.
I am very lucky to represent Truro and Falmouth. It is a fantastic constituency, from the beautiful rugged and windswept north coast to the equally beautiful rolling and gentle south coast—there are no favourites here! It makes the bulk of its fortunes from fishing, farming and tourism. However, we also have exciting emerging industries such as geothermal energy, lithium extraction, and the potential for floating offshore wind farms—not forgetting theatre, breweries, surfing, sailing, a thriving arts and food culture, campuses for two universities, and more besides.
Falmouth was my first home when I came to Cornwall, and I can testify first hand as to why it regularly makes The Times “happiest places to live” lists. Last year, The Times described Falmouth as
“as close as Britain gets to the California/Barcelona city-by-the-sea lifestyle.”
I would agree, except more so once it stops raining. It has not actually stopped raining since August.
Falmouth boasts the third deepest natural harbour in the world after Sydney and Rio, which is why fishing and sailing exist alongside a healthy working docks—and that is so important to the economy. Cornwall has always been outward-looking and seafaring. Evidence of overseas trade exists as far back as the bronze age. In 1805, news of Britain’s victory and Nelson’s death at Trafalgar was landed at Falmouth and taken by stagecoach to London.
Truro is Cornwall’s only city. It is the base of Cornish local government, fantastic shopping, and, with the completion of the Hall for Cornwall later this year, also its centre for culture. The reopening of this hugely important establishment means that we can welcome over 200,000 people a year through its doors. It will also house space for creative start-ups. It is set to transform the centre of Truro, as well as being a game-changer for Cornwall as a whole.
My family is my inspiration—and by the way, I am lucky enough to have the best one of those as well. My mum and dad—Gordon and Olwyn Williams—and my big sisters have guided me through all my experiences and continue with their unending encouragement. It is the compassion that I have inherited from them that will drive me in my work in this place. My wonderful husband, Nick, is endlessly patient, and his determination for work defies belief for most people; and we have our precious daughter Chloe, whose future I want to help make the happiest it can be. I love them all, and I could not be doing this without their unwavering support. This is a definite team effort.
I am the wife of a hook-and-line fisherman with an under-10 metre vessel. When he rings to say that he is still an hour away from safety and the weather has taken a turn for the worse that was not forecast, I can tell you now that the dread is palpable. We need to champion our small boats in any fishing deal that is coming our way. Their job is precarious enough. We need to support our coastal communities to brave the elements and thrive in the 21st century. There are opportunities on the horizon, and we need to grab them with both hands and bring them home.
I am very proud to be part of this one nation Conservative party committed to being a world leader for conservation. I am also proud to represent the constituency where Surfers Against Sewage is located. It is one of the UK’s leading environmental organisations and has pioneered work to protect our seas and waterways from plastic pollution as well as to improve water quality. I have been passionate about looking after the natural environment for longer than I can remember. It has always been instinctive to me that this is just something we should do; we did not need to be told to do it.
This Environment Bill is bold. It will help to deliver the Government’s manifesto promise of the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on this earth, and I fully support its progress. I recommend much of its content, particularly with regard to waste management and nature recovery. I would like to see the south-west exceed the targets in it. I am very, very ambitious for this. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—my neighbour as the Member for Camborne and Redruth—on his new appointment and on his work to date.
I would like to see a bigger reduction in the consumption of single-use plastic. I think we can do this as a society. We do not need to spend resources clearing it up. It is going to take a culture change. We are all consumers and it has to come from us. We will need help from industry to make it convenient for consumers and also good value for money. That is the way we will make it happen. I would like to see greater checks and balances on our interim targets to ensure that we can stay on track in the short term as well as the long term. That is a recipe for success. I would like to see a greater commitment to managing our oceans. If we do not look after the marine environment, we will have no fishing industry in Cornwall. The saying is, “Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day, but teach him how to fish and you will feed him for a lifetime.”
The Cornish are innovative, bold, and incredibly capable. It is my job to make sure that Cornwall gets the investment, the levelling up of funding and a fair chance so that my constituents and our children have the opportunity to swim, not sink. There is so much for Cornwall and the great south-west to be ambitious about. My constituents are determined, driven, and by far the most adaptable people I have met, and it will be my job to help make sure that we are ambitious for the future.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
It is a huge pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), who has just given an outstanding maiden speech in which she very clearly conveyed her passion and commitment to her constituents and her constituency. She made an incredibly poignant point about the precarious nature of seafaring. I wish her well in this House, and I know that she will be a very powerful advocate for her constituents for many, many years to come.
This Bill comes before Parliament at a time when our country—indeed, our planet—faces two major environmental crises: climate change and biodiversity collapse. The debate on the climate emergency here in the UK has shifted very rapidly from the fringes to the mainstream in just a matter of a few years. For those of us who represent communities such as the ones I am proud to represent in South Yorkshire that have recently been devasted by flooding, it is not difficult to understand why, because we are no longer talking about the existential threat to future generations but about the immediate threat to family homes and small businesses.
There is now close to universal agreement that the Government must take urgent action to address the climate emergency, and this Environment Bill represents their first real test. It is important to note, however, that regional and local government also has a crucial role to play—it cannot simply be left to Westminster and to Whitehall to tackle this crisis alone. To date, 287 councils and eight combined authorities, including my own, have declared a climate emergency. We understand the extent of the crisis, but we need the resources to make meaningful change.
This is an extensive Bill covering a wide range of issues, but I would like to focus my short contribution on tree planting. One point on which I hope we can all agree is the important role of trees in tackling this emergency. Trees capture carbon, reduce soil erosion, improve air quality, alleviate flooding, and support biodiversity. Expansion of our woodlands will be key if we are to be successful in preventing irreversible damage to the environment. Indeed, the Government’s Committee on Climate Change set a target of 17% to 19% woodland cover as a key part of the UK’s actions to reach net zero emissions by 2050. The requirement in the Bill for local highway authorities to consult members of the public before felling street trees will be welcomed by communities up and down the country. It is important, though, that this duty is properly resourced if it is to provide meaningful consultations.
However, it is disappointing to see that this Bill does not include a statutory requirement for the Government to produce a national tree strategy for England, as is the case in Scotland. Given that work is already well under way to develop an English tree strategy for consultation in the coming months, I hope the Government will consider amending the Bill so that it refers to the forthcoming strategy. This would send out a positive signal about the importance of trees and woodlands, and their important role in tackling the crises of climate and biodiversity. Furthermore, it would reinforce the commitments made in the Government’s own manifesto, in which they pledged to plant 30 million trees a year by 2025.
One way that the Government could demonstrate their resolution would be to act on the Woodland Trust’s emergency tree plan proposals, in which three key recommendations were put forward: first, to look after what we have by protecting and restoring existing trees and woodland; secondly, to create new policies, capacity and funding for woods and trees; and thirdly, to devolve more powers to local government.
A further measure that the Government could explore is to expand on the ambition and innovation shown by the northern forest initiative—a project spearheaded by the Woodland Trust and its community forest partners in the region. The forest will see 50 million trees planted over the next 25 years in the north of England, with more than 600,000 already in the ground. It is the perfect example of the kind of project we must deliver on if we are serious about reversing the damage done to the natural environment.
I have three asks of the Government in respect of the Bill and tree planting. First, will they ensure that they link this Bill, the Agriculture Bill and the national tree strategy, so that a coherent and unambiguous plan for increasing tree cover is achieved, as well as other environmental targets? Secondly, once the national tree strategy is published, will the Government amend the Bill, so that it refers to that strategy? Finally, will they commit to grow the northern forest?
This is a vital piece of legislation and an opportunity for the Government to show leadership on the global stage in the fight against the climate emergency. We cannot afford any more missed opportunities, and it is quite clear that the Bill still requires improvement. One way the Government could show that leadership is to firm up their commitments on tree planting.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Dr Ben Spencer to make his maiden speech.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Seven years ago, working as a doctor on call at St Thomas’s Hospital, I looked across the river at this place and wondered what it would be like to be here—and now I know. It is remarkably similar to being on call, but permanently. Being a Member of Parliament is a great privilege and duty, and I would like to thank the people of Runnymede and Weybridge for putting their trust and faith in me. I will do my all to repay that trust. I would like to thank the people who work on and around the parliamentary estate, who have been so welcoming and discharge their duties with dedication, diligence and resolute professionalism.
I pay tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. Philip Hammond. Philip was a phenomenal Member of Parliament. He served his country and the people of Runnymede and Weybridge for over 22 years. He held many of the highest offices of state. It is rumoured that he, like me, was a teenage goth. It is true—I was—but I didn’t dye my hair though. While there are some key areas on which Philip and I do not agree, most of all he is a man of principle. When push came to shove, he stood by his principles, and that is the measure of a man.
I have heard many excellent maiden speeches from Members on both sides of the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, it probably will not surprise you that I have noticed a pattern: it would appear that everywhere, all over the country, is the most beautiful and pleasant place to live. I want to put it on record that Runnymede and Weybridge truly, truly, truly is the most beautiful and pleasant place to live. It is also central to the history of our nation. Magna Carta, signed over 800 years ago, was the birth of the rule of law in our country and, indeed, the world. This Parliament may be the mother of all Parliaments, but Runnymede is the mother of the rule of law.
When I walk through the Churchill arch and see the bomb damage from the second world war, I am reminded of Brooklands in Weybridge. It was in Brooklands, where the first racing track was built and which went on to become the site of an advanced aviation factory, that over 2,500 Wellington bombers and 3,000 Hurricane fighters were built during the second world war. For both those reasons, quite literally, we would not be here today without the legacy of Runnymede and Weybridge. Our heritage is second to none.
There are many parts of the constituency that I would celebrate today if I had more time, but what makes Runnymede and Weybridge great are the people and our warm and vibrant communities—from the famous, such as the Wentworth estate, where the PGA tour takes place, to the not-so-famous, such as the Englefield Green Social Hall, where the Christmas performance of the “Beauty and the Beast” pantomime was the highlight of my election campaign. The consequence of having such vibrant communities and flourishing Christmas fairs is that I have now developed a tombola addiction, but I do have several sets of bath salts and some odd fruit cordials and drinks at the back of my cupboard that I have won, which Members are welcome to take home to their families.
We are all here on borrowed time, by the grace of our constituents, so let me tell you a little of my mission here. It is equality of opportunity. It is that everyone, no matter who they are or where they come from, has great opportunities in life—the opportunity to learn, to have a meaningful and worthwhile job, to set up a business and to grow old in peace and security. I would not be here today without the great opportunities that I had in my life, such as going to a state grammar school in the west midlands. But words like “equality” and “opportunity” are often bandied around without context or meaning.
As a mental health doctor, I have worked in many different hospitals and seen people from all walks of life. I know what a lack of opportunity looks like. Sadly, I have seen people without hope—people who cannot aspire and achieve, hamstrung in life by bad schools, no jobs, shabby housing, poor mental health or addiction. When, working as a doctor, I have supported people get back into work or get a decent place to live, it has often been better than any medicine I could prescribe. It must be that the successes of those who dare to dream are only bounded by their industry and talents.
Turning to today’s debate, we have always taken the lead on the most pressing issues of our time. Today it is our environment and climate change. Sadly, air pollution levels are high in Runnymede and Weybridge, driven by the motorways that criss-cross the constituency and the flightpaths that we live under. This Bill will make strides to improve our health and wellbeing and secure our children’s future.
From my office in Parliament, I can now look back at St Thomas’s Hospital, and when I do I am reminded that things do not always go as we expect. For many people, things do not go to plan in life. We need a strong safety net of welfare and public services, such as our NHS, which I am proud to have worked in for over 10 years, and which my wife continues to work in. Our public services need effective management, leadership and funding, paid for by a flourishing economy and led by a strong Conservative Government. All this is why I am a Conservative and why I am here today.
Environment Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 10th March 2020
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 March 2020 - (10 Mar 2020)
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Ordinarily, the public would be invited in for the initial brief announcement and then have to go out again, so we thought we would save them the effort. There are a couple of preliminary points. Please turn off your mobile phones. I have a tendency to send Members to the Tower if they allow their phones to ring. I am checking my own, as well. I am afraid that tea and coffee are not allowed, so those who want a tea or a coffee will have to go outside to have it. Date Time Witness Tuesday 10 March Until no later than 10.30 am Aldersgate Group; Broadway Initiative Tuesday 10 March Until no later than 11.25 am Food and Drink Federation; Federation of Small Businesses; Veolia Tuesday 10 March Until no later than 2.30 pm Local Government Association Tuesday 10 March Until no later than 3.30 pm Natural England; Wildlife Trusts; Country Land and Business Association; NFU Tuesday 10 March Until no later than 4.00 pm National Federation of Builders Tuesday 10 March Until no later than 5.00 pm Greener UK; Greenpeace; Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Thursday 12 March Until no later than 12.15 pm Asthma UK and British Lung Foundation; UNICEF; Air Quality Expert Group; ClientEarth Thursday 12 March Until no later than 1.00 pm Water UK; Blueprint for Water; Marine Conservation Society Thursday 12 March Until no later than 2.45 pm George Monbiot; Wildlife and Environment Link Thursday 12 March Until no later than 3.15 pm Keep Britain Tidy; Green Alliance Thursday 12 March Until no later than 4.00 pm Chem Trust; Chemical Industries Association; Unite Thursday 12 March Until no later than 5.00 pm Scottish Environment LINK; Environmental Protection Scotland; Law Society Scotland
We will consider the programme motion and the motion on reporting written evidence for publication and then have a quick chat in private. It is easier than yanking people in and chucking them out again. We will try to take the motions without too much debate.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25am on Tuesday 10 March) meet—
(a) at 2.00pm on Tuesday 10 March;
(b) at 11.30am and 2.00pm on Thursday 12 March;
(c) at 9.25am and 2.00pm on Tuesday 17 March;
(d) at 11.30am and 2.00pm on Thursday 19 March;
(e) at 9.25am and 2.00pm on Tuesday 24 March;
(f) at 11.30am and 2.00pm on Thursday 26 March;
(g) at 9.25am and 2.00pm on Tuesday 31 March;
(h) at 4.00pm and 7.00pm on Tuesday 21 April;
(i) at 11.30am and 2.00pm on Thursday 23 April;
(j) at 9.25am and 2.00pm on Tuesday 28 April;
(k) at 11.30am and 2.00pm on Thursday 30 April;
(l) at 9.25am and 2.00pm on Tuesday 5 May;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 21; Schedule 1; Clauses 22 to 45; Schedule 2; Clause 46; Schedule 3; Clause 47; Schedule 4; Clause 48; Schedule 5; Clause 49; Schedule 6; Clause 50; Schedule 7; Clause 51; Schedule 8; Clause 52; Schedule 9; Clauses 53 to 63; Schedule 10; Clauses 64 to 69; Schedule 11; Clause 70; Schedule 12; Clauses 71 to 78; Schedule 13; Clauses 79 to 90; Schedule 14; Clauses 91 to 100; Schedule 15; Clauses 101 to 115; Schedule 16; Clauses 116 to 122; Schedule 17; Clauses 123 and 124; Schedule 18; Clause 125; Schedule 19; Clauses 126 to 133; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 5 May.—(Leo Docherty.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Leo Docherty.)
The Chair
Written evidence will be made available in the Committee Room. I take it that the Committee is happy to receive it.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Leo Docherty.)
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for joining us. We shall now hear oral evidence from the Aldersgate Group and the Broadway Initiative. Before we start, I would be grateful if you would be kind enough to identify yourselves for the benefit of the record.
Signe Norberg: I am Signe Norberg. I am the public affairs manager at Aldersgate Group.
Edward Lockhart-Mummery: I am Edward Lockhart-Mummery, convener of the Broadway Initiative.
Martin Baxter: I am Martin Baxter, chief policy adviser at the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment. We are home to the Broadway Initiative.
The Chair
Thank you—and thank you for giving your time this morning. We have limited time, as you are aware, before I will have to draw the sitting to a close. Concise answers—I have already urged my colleagues to ask concise questions—will help us to get through the business.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Q
Martin Baxter: I might as well go first. I think we would share some of the concerns around independence. I think there is an opportunity for greater independence, particularly on the appointment and removal of the chair. The Office for Budget Responsibility has a confirmatory vote for the appointment of its chair, and I think a similar mechanism could be put in for the OEP. It has a wide range of powers and duties. Potentially, some of the powers could become duties, particularly if there are changes to targets, but, largely, it is a body that could have strategic effect in helping to drive improvements in environmental performance.
Signe Norberg: We would agree that the OEP will have a wide remit, and some of its powers are really welcome. We share the view that there are some aspects, with regard to its independence, that we would like strengthened, particularly on matters explicitly to do with funding and the commitment that the Government made previously, in the pre-legislative scrutiny on the previous draft Bill, to having an explicit five-year budget on the face of the Bill, to make sure that there would be long-term certainty. We also support calls for Parliament to have a role in the appointment of the chair of the OEP—making sure that the relevant Select Committee was involved in the appointment process.
Edward Lockhart-Mummery: I would just make a wider point, from a business perspective. I think that the OEP has an important role to play because it gives confidence in the overall system. That is why independence is important. I just wanted to fill in that gap as to why business thinks that independence is important in terms of having a really credible body. That can also be achieved in the way that it operates. I found this with the Committee on Climate Change. One of the important things is the appointment of the first chair—and, actually, the second chair. The chair can determine how a body like that works in practice—its credibility, the things it chooses to pursue, how it gives strategic advice, and things like that. So I think it is also very much the way, and the type of person who is the chair, that are important.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Signe Norberg: With regards to the specific areas of the Bill, there could be strengthening amendments to schedule 1, which sets out the appointment process. A paragraph in there to specify the role of the Select Committee in appointing the chair would strengthen the Bill, because the OEP’s chair has the power to select the other members. Within that, there is also a funding section, which could establish the five-year process. The important thing is that the OEP, with its formidable remit, will have independence and certainty in the long term. That should go beyond this Government, secure in the fact that successive Governments will deliver on the commitments. It should have a baseline budget to operate from, regardless of economic circumstances. If the funding mechanism in schedule 1 is strengthened, that would be welcome and really bolster the OEP’s ability to do its work.
Martin Baxter: In terms of a specific amendment, paragraph 2(1) of schedule 1 could be changed. It says:
“Non-executive members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State” ,
but you could add to that, “with confirmation from the Environmental Audit Committee and/or Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.” That would give Parliament enhanced power in that appointments process. That is a targeted, small amendment that could enhance independence in the process.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Q
Signe Norberg: The point about appointing the chair is more about ensuring that there is scrutiny around who is appointed as chair. We fully recognise that the OEP will have a different remit compared to the OBR. It is more about ensuring that Parliament has a role in appointing the chair.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Martin Baxter: Given the importance of the OEP and questions about independence and holding public authorities, including Government, to account, stakeholders feel that that enhanced independence is very important. The model of having a confirmatory vote from the appropriate Select Committee in that appointments process is something that the OBR has in its remit, and we think that could be transferred across to the OEP as well. That is not to say that they do not have very different functions as bodies; we fully accept that.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Edward Lockhart-Mummery: You are absolutely right. We have been working on this for about two or three years with a wide group of business organisations. We have got 20 of the main business groups, covering all sectors, from the Federation of Small Businesses to the CBI, Make UK, Water UK and the Home Builders Federation. Consistently across that group, the notion of a long-term framework for the environment is incredibly important.
We did a bit of research looking at the timescales over which businesses take decisions, whether it is project cycles, investment cycles for capital, or whatever. A lot of the investment cycles are very long. Unless you have a long-term framework for the environment, it is difficult to make the kind of improvements that we would all like to see.
In the past, we have often had very short-term decision making on the environment, which makes it difficult for business to adjust. If we are constantly in that cycle of responding very quickly and introducing policies on a one or two-year basis, it is very hard for business. Everyone—human beings—wants to see a clean and good environment. Business supports that as much as everyone else. If they have clarity over the long-term direction of policy and a clear set of targets, they can start designing. Whatever sector you are in, you can start designing.
Let me give you a quick example. We are working with the home building sector on a sectoral plan for all new houses, for the environment, because we have got the clarity of net zero and because we are getting clarity on targets through the Environment Bill. The sector can suddenly sit down and start saying, “Right, these are the long-term things we need to plan for—water efficiency, flood resilience and air quality.” They can start investing in the R&D and driving innovation.
We think that is very important, and we advocated very strongly right from the start. We put together a blueprint for the Environment Bill. We have advocated very strongly to Treasury and others that that long-term framework is important. We think it is a game changer, in the sense that, as soon as you have that, rather than environment being a compliance issue within firms, it becomes a strategic issue within firms, sectors and local areas, where everyone can build this into what they are doing.
In principle, we think targets are fantastic and we really welcome them in the Bill. We also think that there are some small changes that could be made to the target-setting framework that would be win-wins. They would improve the ability to achieve environmental outcomes but also reduce costs and increase certainty for business. I will focus on two—so that I am not hogging the microphone, I might then hand over to colleagues. One is that we would really like to see clear objectives in the Bill. At the moment, there is a target-setting mechanism, but it is not exactly clear. It says that four targets will be set in four areas, but it is not clear exactly what targets would be set. It would give greater clarity to have objectives that consistently show what kind of targets are going to be set and give that long-term clarity for everyone.
We have often made the point that, in the past 10 years, we have had eight different Secretaries of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. If they all set their own targets, depending on what they are interested in, you could end up with a patchwork of targets. We would really like to see clarity on the objectives. This is the kind of thing we are talking about. If the Bill said something like environmental objectives would be to have a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment, an environment that supports human health and wellbeing for everyone, and sustainable use of resources, those would be high-level objectives but would give everyone clarity, as to how targets would be set.
Rebecca Pow
May I just interrupt you there for a second? I might bring the other gentleman in from the Broadway group—
The Chair
Minister, if anybody brings him in, it will be me. May we please finish hearing what is being said and then you can come back in?
Edward Lockhart-Mummery: One thing we did with IEMA is a big survey of about 370 people working in businesses and different organisations. I think 95% of them supported having objectives in the Bill. That is that one.
The other thing is to have a clearer duty right at the start that environmental improvement plans have to enable the targets to be met. At the moment, the targets are legally binding in the sense that if you miss a target, Government have to make amends and take action, and there is a reporting mechanism. What is missing—and is in the Climate Change Act 2008—is what we call a day one duty, something that says there is a duty on the Secretary of State to make sure that they are putting in place the right policies to support this. These two things would underline that clarity and long-term certainty for business and reduce long-term costs for business to achieve the outcomes.
The Chair
Ms Norberg, do you wish to add anything before I go back to the Minister?
Signe Norberg: I would like to add that our business members, who represent around £550 billion of global turnover, do support the Bill. They really want to see a robust environmental regime, because they fundamentally believe that environmental policies make clear economic sense for them. It is also better for the overall environment.
On why businesses want to see that happen, it does not just make clear economic sense; it also provides a stable environment in which they can invest in their workforce and in green products and services, and innovate their business model. If the Bill clearly sets out what is expected and by when, and what the targets are in the intermediate term to meet these objectives, it will help businesses to adjust their business model, where needed, but also to go beyond the targets.
We would certainly support some of the points that Ed has made about objectives. We would also like to see the interim targets strengthened further, because when you have certainty about what is going to happen in the next five years, it helps you also to look at the long-term targets that are 15 years ahead. If there is also something around remedial actions—so that when it looks like the intermediate targets are going to be missed, action will be taken—that will give businesses certainty around what is expected of their sector, but also about how they fit within the overall environmental framework.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
Signe Norberg: Certainly, and that stresses the importance of the interim targets, with the long-term targets being, as they should be, long term and indicating the direction of travel. The interim targets help to drive progress in the intermediate term, but also help us to see where we are and what we need to do to put us back on track. If we strengthen the interim targets, that will certainly be something that we know our businesses would welcome, because it not only provides the direction of travel but helps them look at their own model.
Martin Baxter: We fully support long-term targets because they give the strategic predictability and confidence for business to invest over the long term. The importance of interim targets is that they determine the pace at which we need to make progress, hence the need for a robust process for setting the long-term targets and involving businesses in the interim targets, to ensure absolute clarity about the likely investment needed to achieve progress at the rate we need. If we want to speed up progress, the question is, “How much will it cost and where will the cost fall?” We have to make sure that businesses are part of owning some of these targets, because they are the ones that will have to make the investment to deliver them. They have to understand what changes will be needed and what policy mechanisms might need to be introduced to ensure that that can all be achieved. That is where the role of interim targets and their link to environmental improvement plans, and the robustness with which those interim targets will be set, is really important.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Edward Lockhart-Mummery: Absolutely. The objectives would guide how the targets and interim targets were set. The Secretary of State, when setting targets, would have to think how those targets would contribute to meeting the long-term objectives. That would be the legal mechanism. When stakeholders were having discussions with Government, everyone would understand the purpose of those targets and that would temper the discussion, because everyone would have a clear vision for what they were.
Objectives could also determine how principles and environmental improvement plans are applied in the Bill, so that when you are developing environmental improvement plans, you are also thinking, “What are we trying to achieve through this Bill?”, when you are applying principles and when the OEP is exercising its function. Thus, everyone is clear on the purpose of all those processes in chapter 1 of the Bill, which is the governance framework, and those objectives link to how the Government applies those processes, so that it is clear externally what we are trying to achieve. Then businesses, local authorities and other organisations know what we are trying to achieve through the Bill and know that when Government pull all those levers, it is all trying to go in a particular direction.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Edward Lockhart-Mummery: We definitely support strengthening the targets. This is something we have discussed a lot in our group, and there are slightly different views of exactly how you do it. Some people would support the targets’ being legally binding, and others say that the final targets should be legally binding, but on the interim targets there needs to be more transparency. Then, if an interim target is not met, it could be that it triggers more of a reporting process, where the Government say, “We have missed the interim target. This is why, and this is what we’re doing about it,” rather than their being legally binding.
Potentially, if you made those interim targets legally binding, it could have perverse effects. Government might be a little less ambitious in setting interim targets, because it is always harder to know exactly what you are going to be able to do in the shorter term, particularly when some things require a lot of capital investment. If the target is to increase recycling rates, that requires a lot of capital investment or whatever.
There are some questions about exactly how you would set those interim targets. Because they are nearer term, it is more likely that the same Government will be in power when they are met, so what you do not want is for them to end up being very unambitious in setting the targets. A transparency mechanism would certainly be very good.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Q
“enhancing the coherence between the different governance elements so they are mutually supportive and aligned to drive environmental improvement to a common purpose”?
That sounds like management-speak. Can you try to bring it alive and explain what you really have in mind and what the benefits of it are?
Martin Baxter: Certainly. There are three key elements in the governance section of the Bill. First is the process for setting legally binding targets, and underpinning that is the significant improvement test in the natural environment. The environmental principles have a slightly different objective, on environmental protection and sustainable development. The Office for Environmental Protection has a different set of objectives as well. We think there is a real opportunity to set a common purpose in terms of clear objectives, as Ed has outlined, and to point all aspects of the governance process into achieving those. That is where we think you could get far greater coherence and cohesion between the different elements.
Richard Graham
Q
“to contribute to—
(a) environmental protection, and
(b) the improvement of the natural environment.”
Page 1 of the Bill is about making provision to improve the natural environment and environmental protection. Those two seem to be very closely aligned, are then not?
Martin Baxter: In part, they are, but they could be further brought together. The real test of the targets and the EIPs is whether significant environmental improvement is being met. It is that test that underlies why we are setting targets and it forms the basis on which environmental principles will be applied, potentially, and also the role of the OEP. We think that could provide greater cohesion, via all things pointing to that common purpose.
Richard Graham
Q
Edward Lockhart-Mummery: Exactly. Improving the natural environment is a good start. That could be clearer. For example, improving health is not there clearly in “improving the natural environment”, yet quite a lot that we would want to do—improving air quality, nature and so forth—is about health. Being really clear that this is also about health and wellbeing is important. Then there is sustainable resource use. At the moment, there is a big focus on single-use plastics, very rightly. If, in the very short term, we only thought about single-use plastics, we would not necessarily drive holistic sustainability overall. We might rush out of plastics into aluminium or other things, whereas what we really want to know is, right at the top, that this is about using the resources that we have sustainably. If that is clear at the top of the Bill, everything drives that. We do not take siloed short-term decisions, but we are clear that when we are setting targets we are looking to use our resources sustainably overall to contribute to a healthy, resilient, biodiverse natural environment, to health and to wellbeing for everyone. Those three objectives capture almost everything you could want to do through this Bill, alongside decarbonisation, which is the territory of the Climate Change Act 2008, but both are mutually supportive.
Richard Graham
Q
Ms Norberg, your earlier statement was slightly different. It was less on the ambitions of what the output would be and more on further improvements to strengthen the regulatory framework and the target-setting process. There is quite a lot of detail in terms of the targets and interim targets, is there not? How much more process can a Bill really have?
Signe Norberg: I would begin by saying that we also support Broadway’s ask around an objective. We thoroughly support that because we think it gives the long-term direction—which is set out here, but an objective would provide a little more detail. In terms of the processes around interim targets and the target-setting process, this is not so much about adding in more process—as you say, what we have is already quite a heavy process document—but more about clarifying some aspects, which would be quite welcome. We have touched a little today on the interim targets. It is not about changing them but about maybe clarifying that when intermediate targets look to be off track, there is recourse to put them back on track or the Secretary of State looks at how we will get back on track by updating them. There is a little bit there, but this is about adding further language to clarify a point like that. This is not about adding further process; it is more about adding clarification.
The Chair
Q
I am going to do something now that I should have done at the beginning—I apologise for this. Before I bring in Deidre Brock, will Ms Norberg and one or others of you gentlemen, very briefly, identify whose interests you represent?
Signe Norberg: We represent an alliance of businesses, non-governmental organisations and academic institutions. They cover several different industries, work across economies and have scale. We look at their specific industries. All of that comes together to create a holistic environment for businesses and the natural environmental flow.
Edward Lockhart-Mummery: The Broadway Initiative brings together the mainstream business organisations across sectors from the Federation of Small Businesses to the CBI, as well as groups covering each important sector that touches on the environment. That is our core group. We also work with professional bodies such as the IEMA and academic bodies, and we work closely with environmental groups. We are committed to the outcomes committed to by the Government through the 25-year plan and net zero. We are keen to explore how we can really make that work through the economy.
The Chair
Thank you very much. I apologise; I should have asked that at the beginning for the record, and because there are people in this room who may not read everything that they should have read into just the bald titles.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Q
Martin Baxter: We support the creation of the OEP. Its role in ensuring that public authorities fulfil their duties under environmental law is important. That remit is quite different from the role of the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Committee on Climate Change. That committee has an advisory role; it does a lot of analysis and a lot of fantastic work, but it does not have a role in holding public authorities to account for the delivery of net zero commitments. That is an important distinction to make between the OEP and the Committee on Climate Change.
Ideally, the OEP will be a strategic body able to look at where our governance system might either need to be strengthened or become more effective, and then make recommendations. It has an important monitoring and scrutiny role that extends into progress towards achieving long-term targets and looking at environmental improvement plans, so at least we will have a transparent and independent view of that, which is important. We welcome that.
The OEP also has an ability to advise on the implementation of environmental law. That implementation role is critical, because the effectiveness of environmental law is often in the extent to which it might be properly enforced. In terms of monitoring the implementation of environmental law, the OEP has the power to comment on whether there are sufficient resources in place for those laws to be properly implemented, enforced and delivered. There are the right hooks in the Bill, in terms of the OEP’s role and remit, to allow that to go forward.
The Chair
Ms Norberg, do you want to come in?
Signe Norberg: Martin summarised it fairly well. There is a recognition that these bodies will have to have some level of co-operation. That will be important in terms of the practical aspects of these bodies.
Deidre Brock
Q
Martin Baxter: No, it has the powers to be able to do it. The question is how it chooses to use its powers. In setting up the OEP, one of the first things it has to do is develop its strategy, which will be absolutely crucial in determining the direction that it sees for itself, in terms of implementing the powers and duties that it has. If it chooses to utilise those powers to help to drive systemic change where there may be weaknesses in our system of environmental governance, that would be really welcome. That is what we expect it to be able to do.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Q
Signe Norberg: Within Government?
Bim Afolami
Q
Signe Norberg: Yes.
Bim Afolami
Q
Signe Norberg: I am not entirely sure that I agree with that. The Bill gives a lot of powers to the Secretary of State to provide an overall framework to meet targets, working with the chair of the independent OEP. With regard to having Parliament as part of that, that is just an additional mechanism to give further authority to the OEP. It is not necessarily to act as a hindrance; it is more about the Bill giving Parliament a role in the OEP’s setting up, to make sure that it is truly independent, because it is meant to be for the ages. As you rightly put it, we do not know what will happen in the future, so this is more about ensuring that the setting up of the OEP, and particularly the chair, because of the essential role of the chair, is robust enough.
Bim Afolami
Q
Signe Norberg: The purpose of the OEP is to hold public authorities to account. Because of that, it should have a little bit of distance from the Secretary of State. That does not mean that it is completely separate. Through its annual reporting and so on, it should be able to criticise the Government where appropriate. Surely they should also work together. I am not necessarily sure that I agree that it would limit the effectiveness of the system itself. The OEP should be a critical, independent friend of the Government, to achieve that natural improvement.
Bim Afolami
Q
Signe Norberg: Yes, I would not disagree with that characterisation.
Edward Lockhart-Mummery: There is a relationship between Government and the electorate every five years. The OEP has an important role in making transparent just what is going on in the interim period so that the electorate has the right information every five years and can see transparently what has been going on, what the Government have been doing, how that has affected the outcome, whether the Government have been pulling the right levers and that kind of thing. That is a role that the CCC plays very effectively on climate change, because people are increasingly aware of how the Government are performing. There is a role. The CCC is playing that role with probably less independence than the OEP currently has.
I take your point that there is a question. You do not necessarily want to go to an extreme on independence. Somehow you need to get the balance right. The question of Parliament having a say over appointments is quite interesting, partly because when a Secretary of State is appointing a chair, they are thinking, “Is that a chair that the EFRA Committee and the EAC across all parties will accept?”. I think that is quite an interesting discipline. It removes any fear that it might just be the Secretary of State appointing their chums, if they know that it will be properly scrutinised across parties. That degree of independence would be quite effective, but I take your point.
The CCC is not particularly independent, but putting forward the advice on net zero was a bold thing to do. It was able to do that. The role of transparency and making clear to the electorate what is going on could be the body’s most important function.
I would also expect that an effective body would not take Government enforcement action all the time. What you do not want is a body constantly doing that. What the OEP might effectively do is make clear from the start, “These are the types of cases we are going to take and why.” That would send a clear signal to Government and then you would hope that there would not be loads of enforcement cases, with the OEP taking public bodies to court.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Signe Norberg: From what I understand, there is a Government ambition to prevent that being the case, and that is why we have seen the inclusion in the Bill of the interim chief executive officer. In so far as that is a safeguard to ensure that we have the OEP set up by 1 January, I think that is welcome. It stresses the importance of ensuring that this is robust enough and that you get on with appointing the permanent chair and the permanent executive directors of the OEP as quickly as possible.
Martin Baxter: If you look at the role of the European Commission, which is where in part the OEP comes from in terms of its functions and that watchdog role, the Commission moves very slowly. It does not take rapid action. It does not instigate infraction proceedings against member states. There is a build-up of a process by which you can start to see the Commission giving a warning shot across the bows, where there might be a member state that is not in a position to achieve everything. I do not see a huge challenge in terms of a governance gap with the OEP becoming set up in the timescales that are being discussed. I do not think that is a material weakness.
Alex Sobel
Q
Martin Baxter: Definitely; I think we made that clear in our earlier comments. We see that internationally. The Dutch Environment and Planning Act has a clear set of objectives that frame the purpose of the legislation. I think you also see that in the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. This is not without precedent in the UK and internationally. It provides that direction of travel and the opportunity to think about the different parts of the Bill as a coherent whole.
The Chair
Before I come back to the Front Benchers, are there any other questions from either side?
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Q
Martin Baxter: We have touched on the issue of coherence, which is fine. The key elements of a national framework are there, at least for England, because the governance aspects do not stretch into all parts of the UK. It is important to recognise that. There is a certain rhythm between the process for setting targets and the development of an environmental improvement plan, which is aligned to achieving the targets. Then there is a process of implementation and reporting by the Secretary of State, and commentary and reporting by the Office for Environmental Protection. That is good.
There is potentially a question from our perspective over the transmission mechanism from national policy, targets and plans down to what this means in the spatial context. That has not been brought forward in the Bill. We have local nature recovery strategies, which are in the nature chapter. We have requirements on water management plans, which are in the water chapter. But there was the potential to bring together, at a local level, more coherence to environmental improvement strategies in places, which can be contextualised to local environments and provide the basis for local people to be able to engage in democratic processes in helping to set priorities. That is where we would look at completing a full governance framework. That is the direction of travel that we would like to see.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Q
Edward Lockhart-Mummery: I take your point. Like many organisations that we work closely with, we argued strongly not to have set targets on the face of the Bill, because it is really important that there is an inclusive discussion about what the right targets are, which targets will build on what people already do, how quickly we can meet targets and how much they will cost. We think that having a target-setting process in the Bill is the right way to go, and then there can be a discussion about what targets are appropriate.
If you do not have something guiding what you are trying to achieve from those targets, then it is not clear what the targets are for. We would not support two pages or 10 pages setting out in detail what you are trying to achieve. We need something saying that it is about a healthy environment, the health and wellbeing of people, and sustainable resource use. We think that is the right level of detail to guide target setting.
I have worked in environmental policy for 20 years. Those three things are always the purpose of environmental policy. That is not second guessing or putting the cart before the horse, because we know from experience that those are things we are trying to achieve. If we put those on the face of the Bill, it will be clear.
Having knowledge of all the Secretaries of State over the past 10 years, any self-respecting Secretary of State would have wanted to put a target in. However, if a Secretary of State was really interested in butterflies or single-use plastics, you would end up with targets all over the place. What you want is clarity about what you are trying to achieve through targets, and we feel that something high level would be helpful.
Ruth Edwards
Q
Edward Lockhart-Mummery: It is something that has precedent in Welsh law. There would need to be a process of defining in more detail what it means. There are other terms in the Bill that need to be defined, such as the significant improvement test for the targets. There would need to be a process. I would argue that that would be quite a helpful process, because then we would have a public conversation about what we mean by “healthy”. Is it that people going about in their daily lives and going to school should be able to do so without dying? What does it mean, and what is the proportionate, sensible definition for that? You are right that it would need to be defined in this context, but the process of defining it is probably an important step towards achieving the outcome.
The Chair
We are nearing the end of this session, I am afraid. In the context of what we have heard this morning, Dr Whitehead, do you have any further questions?
Dr Whitehead
Q
Signe Norberg: With regard to whether or not it would sufficiently transfer protections into a UK context, it is important, as Martin pointed out earlier, to noteeb;normal;j that the Bill itself predominantly applies to England. There must be processes through which the devolved Administrations set up their independent supervisory bodies, but they also all need to work together. Through that, the Bill has the right building blocks; it will be about how those bodies co-ordinate among themselves.
In and of itself, the Bill does not inherently prevent future regression from standards, but there could be mechanisms within the Bill to clarify that. For instance, if you had strong language in the objective about maintaining high environmental standards, that would clearly set out that it should not be a regression. We recognise that there is not an intention for a regression to take place, but that could be an example of how you would potentially safeguard against that.
Edward Lockhart-Mummery: On day one, of course, we roll over all existing standards, and then we have the OEP in place to enforce. That gives us the starting point. With a few tweaks, this governance framework ensures that we at least maintain and improve, because you have that process of setting targets that always have to improve, and because the governance process is set out with the environmental improvement plans and principles, with the Office for Environmental Protection overseeing everything.
If that works, we are in a better position and we can really think creatively here. What are the structures, what are the plans, what are the partnerships that are needed to achieve those objectives? I would put a “potentially” in front of that, because potentially we have a better basis for achieving, but there are probably some tweaks that can be made to the Bill during its passage. Implementation, and how everyone works together on achieving the outcomes, is also important.
The transparency mechanism that was inserted into the Bill between its first and second iterations is helpful, because it allows proper, transparent consideration of whether we are doing something that regresses and how we look compared with international standards. That is a useful way of driving transparency within Parliament about what is happening. Clearly, the Government have moved quite a distance on this. We are driving from the private sector perspective to try to make all of this work and support the direction of the Bill. We are doing it in hope, to some extent.
The Chair
Thank you. In the light of all of that, are there any final questions from the Minister?
Rebecca Pow
Q
Martin Baxter: In terms of functioning, the really important thing is common standards driving common outcomes. Businesses are working across the UK and beyond, so having a harmonised approach to the environmental outcomes we are looking to achieve is very important.
In terms of the governance mechanisms, the Scottish Government announced last week that they were looking to create an independent body and watchdog. For Northern Ireland, there are obviously the provisions in the Bill. Wales is perhaps on a slightly different track at the moment. I am not entirely sure where it is in terms of an independent body.
There is clearly an opportunity to drive efficiency by having a common framework, maybe for an overarching view. Yes, I agree with common governance frameworks and ensuring that there is co-operation and collaboration, so that where we have shared environments, such as shared catchments, we are managing those and setting targets and objectives for improvement on a common basis. That is very important.
I also think there is the potential within the UK that, if we start to set different standards, we will shift burdens from one place to another. If you end up with very different policies on waste, for example, you might end up shipping waste from one part of the UK to the other, just because it happens to be easier or cheaper. Those overarching mechanisms of co-operation and collaboration are very important.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed. Ladies and gentlemen, that brings this session to a conclusion. Ms Norberg, Mr Lockhart-Mummery and Mr Baxter, thank you all very much indeed for coming along and affording the Committee the benefit of your observations. We are deeply grateful to you.
Examination of Witnesses
Martin Curtois, Andrew Poole and David Bellamy gave evidence.
The Chair
Once again, good morning. We now hear oral evidence from the Food and Drink Federation, the Federation of Small Businesses and Veolia. We have until 11.25 am when the House will sit. For the benefit of the record, I would be grateful, gentlemen, if you identified yourselves and the nature of the organisation you represent, starting with Mr Curtois. I hope I have pronounced your name correctly. If not, please correct me.
Martin Curtois: Sure. Good morning, everyone. It is Martin Curtois. I am executive affairs director at Veolia. We employ 15,000 people and are heavily involved in both the collection and recycling and treatment of waste, and very much involved in resource efficiency.
Andrew Poole: My name is Andrew Poole. I am deputy head of policy at the Federation of Small Businesses. We are a membership organisation representing 160,000 small business members and, more broadly, small businesses right across the country.
David Bellamy: I am David Bellamy. I am senior environment policy manager at the Food and Drink Federation, the principal trade body for the UK food and drink manufacturing industry, which is the largest manufacturing sector in the UK.
The Chair
Thank you, gentlemen. We are grateful to you for coming along and giving us the help that we are likely to need. We will start with Dr Whitehead.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Martin Curtois: In terms of the Bill, the resources and waste strategy that DEFRA devised is very strong—you are absolutely right—because what it does, in a number of different ways, is try to improve the whole process. It incorporates things such as “polluter pays”, so it puts the onus on manufacturers to design better. The inclusion of modulated fees in the extended producer responsibility puts a clear onus on manufacturers and producers to design for recyclability, and that will ultimately reduce waste, which is what we all want. Obviously, it involves elements including better segregation, for example, of food waste, which should reduce the carbon impact. It talks about taking the burden away from local authorities and putting it more on manufacturers.
You are therefore absolutely right to say that that is a strong element of the Bill, but I think possibly there should also be other things. As you say, at the top of the hierarchy are elements such as reuse. We operate many sites across the UK where we have voluntary arrangements, for example in Southwark with the British Heart Foundation, where there are various items that can be reused and that is done for charitable benefit. It may be that that ought to be looked at, possibly in the detail of the Bill, just to see where it can be done, because obviously it ultimately is the best way forward. It should at least get some consideration, because everything focused around the resources and waste strategy is primarily, as you say, on the recycling side. There is not much emphasis on residual waste, which obviously we need to avoid because we need to avoid landfill. I therefore think there could be some consideration in terms of reuse.
I also think that one of the best ways in which you can reduce waste right at the outset is by designing better. The Bill reflects that element of the resources and waste strategy, which we see in a very positive way, because so many manufacturers and producers have come to our site—some from not far away in south-east London—to see how they can design their products with perhaps less composites, in a better way, which will ensure that they are at least recyclable at the outset. That is the very start of the process, which we have to get right if we are to make significant change.
The Chair
Mr Bellamy, does the FDF have a view on this?
David Bellamy: Yes, we do. I think what we would argue is this. As the previous contribution outlined, we obviously expect the extended producer responsibility reforms and the accompaniments to that in terms of consistency, and the focus much more on producers paying full net costs for the end-of-life management of packaging, to focus minds a lot more on the prevention side in itself. Having said that, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is a legal requirement, for those who handle waste and convey it to another person in the waste transfer system, to have regard to the waste hierarchy. That is a legal requirement; it is in the law as it stands at the moment. It is also a legal requirement in respect of packaging waste and packaging under the essential requirements regulations that producers who pack food products must have regard to using the minimum amount of packaging to maintain the necessary levels of safety, food hygiene, etc., and consumer acceptance. That is also a legal requirement that is enshrined in the legislation. In that sense, there are already legal requirements around maintaining a focus on prevention, in the sense of how we regulate the waste hierarchy. While it is right that there is a lot of focus on recycling in the resources and waste strategy, we feel that that is part of a bigger picture.
We should not lose sight of voluntary activity around this space. Our members’ commitment to reducing food waste has been documented in some figures that the Waste and Resources Action Programme recently published that show that the food and drink manufacturing sector has reduced food waste by 30% since 2011. Half that reduction has been achieved between 2015 and 2018. That is on a per capita basis measured against the target of the sustainable development goal of the United Nations. So there is a focus on source reduction, whether through legal mechanisms that are already in place, but also in terms of the voluntary work that our members are engaged in.
The Chair
Thank you. Does the FSB have a view, Mr Poole?
Andrew Poole: I agree with the assertion that reuse and reduction are equally important to recycling. It is worth bearing in mind the sheer diversity of the small business audience, which operates across myriad different sectors and in very different ways from one another. It is also worth bearing in mind that many small businesses operate as both producers of materials and consumers. It is worth understanding the very different issues that they face. For many, particularly those operating as consumers within the parameters set by the business, it is clear that recycling will be some low-hanging fruit. When we compare our recycling rates with other countries in the world, clearly some rapid improvements should be made. However, I take the point that it is equally important to look at reuse and reduction as well.
Dr Whitehead
Q
The Chair
Mr Bellamy, food and drink have been mentioned, so perhaps you might like to have the first crack at this one?
David Bellamy: Our comments are framed around single-use plastic packaging items, which is our interest in terms of plastic. Basically, our view is that a better way to achieve this kind of outcome would be to deal with this within the refinements to the extended producer responsibility system and the reform programme, in the sense that you could do this through modulated fees, as a much better way of achieving the same sort of outcome. In that way, we would be sure that the money raised from such an approach would be used to improve the system. That is a vital principle of FDF: that the moneys we raise through increased producer fees are used to improve the system of recycling and that those moneys do not get channelled off into other expenditure demands. That is a very important principle that we hold dear in FDF. We have to be mindful that alternatives to plastic materials may also have an impact; it is not only plastics themselves. If you switch to some other materials, you have to look at their life cycle, including perhaps at how they are mined. They all have impacts that we need to consider.
In terms of the clause in the Bill for this, we suggest that any introduction of a charge should be subject to some form of public consultation. We are a little bit concerned that this could be taken forward in a way that did not involve any public debate or allow interested stakeholders to make representations.
Andrew Poole: It is really important for the Government, through the legislation, to make clear the objective of requirements such as this and what they want small firms to do differently from what they are doing already. When looking across environmental legislation, I will talk a lot about pathways to change. We want to set out not only the reasoning behind the legislation but what businesses should be doing differently, and how the Government see them doing it differently.
In terms of single-use plastics, we can compare that to the carrier bag charge, which has worked fairly successfully. Businesses, on the whole, were quite happy to adopt that. It was clear that the outcome was to be a reduction in those bags. There were also some obvious ways of doing things differently that could have achieved the same outcome. It is just about making clear what that outcome needs to be and what businesses should be doing differently to achieve the same thing.
The Chair
Finally in response to this point, Mr Curtois.
Martin Curtois: On the point made earlier about plastic, post the David Attenborough programme and others, there was almost an overreaction against plastic, in the sense that people to some extent forgot its value in food preservation and were effectively looking to ban it. One problem we have to take into account, so far as plastics are concerned, is that, as was mentioned, the environmental consequences of using other products can sometimes be worse. That is obviously something that we want to steer clear of.
We also need to be careful about using the right plastics. Moving to a system in which products are manufactured primarily from high-density polyethylene, polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate, or from a single-source product—with one plastic used for the bottle top as well as the bottle, for example—would make it a great deal easier to recycle. For example, we have a plant in Dagenham, in east London, where we effectively recycle many of the plastic milk bottles used in London, turning them into plastic pellets. Obviously, from our point of view, that single-source aspect is very important. That element needs to be taken into account.
I can understand why the focus has been on single-use plastic items first, because it has been the biggest element that the public have leapt on, in terms of recycling and in terms of wanting change, so I can see why priority has been given to that. If we can start to get that right and start to make changes that mean—for example, we have developed some kit that recognises the black plastic used in TRESemmé shampoo bottles, because of the pigment within it, which allows us to recycle that more efficiently. Significant changes can be made that could start to reduce the environmental impact quickly, which I think we all want.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Rebecca Pow
Sorry about that.
David Bellamy: Clearly, the powers in the Bill on extended producer responsibility, introducing a deposit return system and collection consistency—provided these systems are developed holistically together, and are joined up—will, combined, revolutionise our recycling system in the UK. As I say, we need to be mindful of unintended consequences. That is why they need to be developed holistically: so we have a coherent system.
Consistency is an essential piece of this jigsaw that we do not want overlooked in taking these reforms forward. If producers are asked, for example, to label their packaging as either recyclable or non-recyclable in a binary system, it is vital that we bring the public with us on that journey. The collection system needs to be in line with that change, and consistency will need to be in place, ready, in time for this new producer responsibility system. That is vital for the FDF and its members. We support that approach.
We would also like a very early signal from Government that they plan to include plastic film in that core set of materials, for consistency. We may even be able to accelerate that faster than the work of the UK plastics pact, which I think is looking at 2025. We may be able to do that sooner with the right co-operation in the chain. We would like to be ambitious in that regard. By that, we mean mono-material and multi-material films, and we include cartons in that aspiration as well. We would like the Government to be more ambitious on that. Let’s get this right from the start, so the local authorities have the right signals from Government about the consistency in the core set of materials, and develop the infrastructure accordingly from the outset. That is very important to us.
I mentioned earlier that it is important that all the money raised by producers in this new system goes towards improving the system. That is why we have separate issues with the plastics tax; it does not adhere to that principle, because we have a policy of non-hypothecation in the UK. We are not in support of a plastics tax; we are in support of reforming the producer responsibility system through a few modulated fees, which would then be used to improve the system.
One specific issue we have is the exponential cost our members face in buying the packaging recovery notes. You may be aware that these prices have gone up exponentially over the past year or so for plastics and aluminium. There is no evidence that this additional money—our members are paying hundreds of millions of extra pounds in these costs—is going towards improving the recycling system. We are happy to pay the extra money, but we want to see the improvements in the system. We would like a meeting with the Minister as soon as can be arranged to discuss a range of options that we have set out in a written submission to Government about things that can be done in the shorter term to address this PRN crisis, as we regard it, within our membership. We would like the Minister to reconsider our request to have that meeting as soon as possible.
The Chair
There is no requirement on everybody to answer every question, but gentlemen, do either of you wish to add anything to that?
Andrew Poole: From our point of view, one of the things that has become abundantly clear over the past few years is that our members as small businesses are saying that they want to do the right thing, and they want to demonstrate to their customers that they are doing the right thing. Talking about the holistic approach to waste and recycling, a lot of these issues are pragmatic. How do we make it easy for small firms to play their role? On local authorities, obviously, small businesses are not allowed to take their waste to municipal sites. They are not eligible for municipal waste collections in the way that many domestic householders are, despite many of them not using many more different types of waste than those households. Again, that is in the spirit of making it as easy as possible for small firms to comply and play their role. That would be one element of it.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Q
Andrew Poole: Businesses do not have access to waste collection services provided by local authorities, which means that they have to arrange the collections themselves. That incurs a cost, but one thing that is often overlooked is the opportunity cost for small businesses; the issue is not so much the waste collection service itself. How do you identify a trustworthy waste collector? How do you know what they are doing with that waste? Do they provide all the different types of recycling that you need? Will that come at an additional cost? Do they collect on the right days, when you need it? All of those things that businesses need to think about could be made easier. Giving them access to more domestic-focused waste collection would be one way of looking at that for certain businesses below a certain threshold.
Another thing is pragmatism. If you are talking about a deposit and return scheme, for instance, with which many of our businesses will be involved, do they have the space to do it? Is there practically and pragmatically enough space? Those issues could easily be got over, but they need to be thought about. It comes back to the theme of what we can do, within the existing infrastructure, to make it easier for businesses to comply, even before we start to think about what new things are required. A lot of things could be done today to make it easier for businesses to recycle more, in particular.
Martin Curtois: Owing to the emphasis in the resources and waste strategy on domestic infrastructure and building facilities here, so that we can treat our waste and recycling within the UK, the industry estimates that there is a £10 billion business opportunity for investment in the UK, because there are gaps in regional infrastructure. It is important that we treat as much of both our recyclate and residual waste as possible in the UK. To be honest, some of the borders are closing in terms of waste being treated overseas in northern Europe. Obviously there is public demand for more plastic reprocessing in the UK, because that is best from an environmental point of view. That is really important.
Consistent collections will make things easier for households, because whatever part of the country you are in, you will essentially have the choice to recycle paper and card; plastic bottles; pots, tubs and trays, which at the moment many councils do not recycle; and steels and aluminium. There will also be separate glass and food waste. That will make it easier to recycle and easier, to be frank, to generate revenue from those materials, because they are collected separately. You can imagine that for the anaerobic digestion industry, separate food waste will be beneficial—or if it is food and green, that is used for in-vessel composting. There is a logic in that.
As for individual businesses, as my fellow witnesses will know, there will be mandatory collection of food waste above a certain limit. That is another good way to reduce carbon impact. In terms of the commercial collection schemes that we run, sometimes you can have economies of scale if you collect within a certain commercial trading estate and offer a service to all businesses within that estate. The obvious point, which really I should have made at the start, is that everyone thinks about municipal recycling and what everyone leaves outside their property, but business recycling is just as, if not more, important; there might be more waste involved. Anything we can do to simplify the system for businesses, so that it is less onerous and allows us to reduce our carbon impact quicker, has to be the right move.
The Chair
Mr Bellamy, do you want to add anything to that?
David Bellamy: I agree with Martin Curtois about the importance of developing the infrastructure in the UK. This goes back to the point I raised about the PRN crisis. It would be helpful to have an early signal from the Government about their export policy and the fact that we want to gradually reduce exports over time and build up the UK’s capacity to recycle materials. We should also look at how we can work together much more on quality standards for materials; ex-MRFs are another way to help the situation and develop more end markets. Those sorts of things should be looked at. Plus, of course, an early signal on our approach to collection consistency would be helpful. We do not necessarily need to wait until 2023. The earlier we can get signals from the Government about the direction of policy, the more it will help the market to invest, and it would provide certainty going forward.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Q
David Bellamy: On reducing plastic use, there is a presumption there that plastic can be substituted by equivalent materials; that is the challenge. Obviously the industry is happy to look at alternative materials, but they must provide that equivalent functionality. Plastic is a very efficient material for getting products through the supply chain. The issue really is plastic waste, not plastic per se. An element of responsible disposal comes into this discussion as well.
We support the work of the UK plastics pact, which looks at not only phasing out non-essential plastic items, but how we can make plastic more recyclable, compostable or reusable, and generally reducing that waste. This is a combination of things, and looking at potential alternatives to plastic, where there are equivalent materials that provide equivalent functionality. We must not end up with unintended consequences, either for food safety or for food waste. It is about finding that sweet spot and functionality.
Also, we need to look at how we improve plastics as they are used now, perhaps moving towards alternative types of plastic and looking at how we can increase the recyclability of existing formats. There is not a one-size-fits-all approach; it has to be evaluated in the round, and we have to make sure we do not move to unintended consequences. Also, we need to keep focused on the fact that plastics per se are not the issue; it is plastic waste. It is about keeping plastics in the circular economy and out of the environment. The measures in the Bill to give producers full responsibility for the system, at full cost, will make it a lot easier to deliver change.
Andrew Poole: I back up what David said. On the unintended consequences, it is worth looking at associated opportunity costs. Presumably one of the unintended consequences relates to not putting businesses out of business. Coming back to the point about carrier bags, a cost was put on bags, and the business community as a whole welcomed that, but one issue was really hard to communicate, it seemed. It was not that businesses did not want to charge for the plastic, because they could manage that; they could swap and do alternatives. However, one unintended consequence, particularly for smaller retailers, was the reporting requirements on top. We need to look underneath the physical changes that the businesses have to make, and examine the bureaucracy that underpins those changes, such as any onerous reporting burden that is not balanced or proportionate. That is often quite hidden, but so often, the opportunity cost for businesses outweighs the up-front cost.
Martin Curtois: Most major brands have focus groups based on consumers—you and me—and there has been a significant change in how brands are responding to the issue of sustainability, because they understand that the public get it and want us to improve environmental performance. We can see that in supermarkets: we now have refill options, which are great ways to encourage reuse and reduce waste from the outset.
We have agreed on most things so far. However, from a reprocessor’s point of view, the great benefit that I see arising from a plastics tax that insists that products contain 30% recycled content is that it gives certainty to invest in more plastics reprocessing facilities. That will ultimately mean that the plastic is more sustainable at the outset, because you are using less virgin plastic and more recycled content. Before this Bill has even come on to the statute book, brands that always thought of sustainability as a nice-to-have—likely with a small financial incentive as well—now think of it as a must-have. That is significant and positive, because it will mean we are getting it right at the start of the process, which reduces the carbon impact.
It has even been shown through research that if the public are offered a water bottle with clearly labelled recycled content that costs £1.24, as opposed to a bottle without it that costs £1.20, they will pay the little bit extra to have a sustainable container. We have to make sure we exert the influence that the public want us to have when it comes to performing better in this area.
Alex Sobel
Q
Secondly, you alluded to the market in waste pushing up the cost of these bales, which is a disincentive to invest in reprocessing. Do you think that the provisions in this Bill will pull that back? As an adjunct, there is the issue of transfrontier shipments of waste—that is, waste being sold overseas. Again, do you think the provisions in this Bill will help us end that practice and engage in reprocessing in order to create a circular economy in the UK?
Martin Curtois: There are a couple of elements that we have to bear in mind. First, due to the changes in China and many other markets, the emphasis in those countries is on a race to the top. They are insisting on premium quality, and if we provide premium-quality bales it is much easier to have a market, so the way that has changed has actually been beneficial to some extent. Also, the overall value of these commodities has fallen, as with many others, so it is even more important that the product you are producing is of a premium quality. It is very important that we get that right at the start.
The Bill’s emphasis on encouraging more investment within the UK was one of the very clear signals that was outlined in the strategy. To give you an example, with plastic pots, tubs and trays, it is currently inconsistent. Part of that is that they are of little value as things currently stand, but if they were being collected separately under a formalised approach, it would be easier to generate value from them. That is the case with all elements of recycling. If you can collect clean product—this is why DRS may be advantageous as well—in sufficient quantity, it is easier to make a high-grade product for reprocessing.
There are a number of principles within the Bill that are pointing us in the right direction. From the sector as a whole, if the Bill becomes a reality and, as a result, we make it easier for the reprocessors to produce a good product, and if they have confirmation that the legislation is there and they are not investing in something that, 10 years down the line, will no longer be a Government priority, the money is there to go in. There is a benefit to the UK economy as a whole, because these facilities are needed throughout the UK. It is just where people are and where the waste is, so there can be a knock-on benefit nationally to the economy.
David Bellamy: On the issue of quality, the powers in the Bill around EPR reform will help the situation. They will change the dynamic, in the sense that producers will be in the driving seat in terms of how payments are made to local authorities for collection. Those payments will only be handed over against agreed quality standards, so there will be a much bigger drive towards quality collections, which is what we need. Combined with the consistency approach, that will help the situation considerably.
We have also not mentioned the DRS, which will also help the quality of collections as far as particularly polyethylene terephthalate plastics in drinks bottles are concerned. That will also have a positive impact on quality. There is still an issue, as I suggested earlier, about the option of the industry working more with Government to develop quality standards and ex-MRF for bales and such. In many places on the continent, they have much higher standards for accepting materials, and we ought to be doing something similar here.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Q
Martin Curtois: Consistency of labelling could be one of the most significant changes in the right direction. At the moment you have this awful phrase, “widely recyclable”, and no one knows what it means. It could apply to one local authority and not to another. We would advocate literally a simplified traffic light system, whereby green is recyclable and red is not. I think the shock, for a retailer or producer, of having a red dot on its packaging would be such that it would want to avoid it. At a stroke, you would be improving recyclability straightaway.
That is one key element of it. It also drives people mad that they just do not know whether a product is recyclable or not, so you would get an improvement not only at the front end in terms of the manufacturers’ production, but in the materials we receive at the processing facilities. As you can imagine, we receive thousands of tonnes of materials a year. Anything that can be done to ensure that people are sorting it more efficiently at the outset will make our job of reprocessing it more straightforward.
Andrew Poole: For me and for small businesses, a lot of this legislation is generally about trust. The problem is that, if we do not get these things in place, everyone knows that the stick will come. There is an opportunity at the moment to be on the front foot. A lot of our engagement around the Bill has been about keeping businesses on the front foot and steering the legislation in a way that is beneficial to everyone. It is a case of giving all of these things a consistent approach, including labelling, for example. It is about trust in the outcomes of the legislation, and about making the right decisions. It is about trusting what they can see and seeing that the decisions are the right ones. It is important to have that transparency around the whole Bill.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
David Bellamy: We have not identified any shortcomings to date. Obviously, there are voluntary approaches. You mentioned WRAP, and there is also the UK food waste reduction road map. Companies are signing up to that in increasing numbers and manufacturers are making good progress. We are expecting a consultation on food waste reporting from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs soon, and there is no need for primary powers in the Bill to do that. There was talk of the potential for powers on setting targets down the track. I am not sure where the Government are on that at the moment.
We have not identified any shortcomings as such. The inertia is there with the UK food waste reduction road map, and knowing that food waste reporting is going to come in as planned as a legal requirement in line with the road map.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
David Bellamy: Yes. It is defined in the consultation, but certain companies of a certain size will be required to report their food waste. The idea is that they would do that in line with what they report under the road map, or what they do under Courtauld currently continues, so that there is no disconnect.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
David Bellamy: Yes. That is my understanding of the Government’s proposals.
Andrew Poole: Making it mandatory would be a sign of failure potentially at a certain level, in the sense that we can encourage them to do it voluntarily. I come back to the idea of making it easy for people to do it. Once we get to the mandatory stage we would then be arguing about issues. We picked on the reporting requirements of things like that. If it was risk-based and proportionate, that would be the way to go. We would hope that businesses in particular would be doing this voluntarily, to begin with.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Andrew Poole: It is quite important with those big producers that many of these requirements are not pushed down through the supply chain. If you are a small supplier supplying a big supermarket, one of the requirements is to deal with a proportionate and risk-based reporting mechanism. That has to be borne in mind if you are targeting big supermarkets such as Tesco. They have to report everything, and the burden is passed down through those that supply them as well.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Andrew Poole: I am saying it would have to be looked at quite carefully, so that the requirements were proportionate and the supply chain was taken into consideration as well.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Q
Andrew Poole: I come back to the point I keep making, which is that small businesses are signed up to this—in the broad concept. They want to do the right thing for the environment. They are human beings. What is increasingly important is that they want to demonstrate to their customers that they are doing the right thing. They are aligned with the broad concept of the Bill.
When it comes to those granular details, that is obviously what is going to make or break the Bill. Government must see small businesses as a partner for delivery at every stage where those decision have to be made. I suggest that the outcomes of this Bill will not be achieved without a fully engaged small business community playing a very active role in it. It is a plea to policy makers and legislators that small business views are taken into account fully when those decisions get made, at each stage.
Richard Graham
Q
Martin Curtois: The situation in the UK in terms of residual waste is that it is virtually impossible to export refuse-derived fuel now in a viable way, because particularly in mainland Europe the cost of that is making it prohibitive. For obvious reasons, landfill is at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, and from what I can see from the resources and waste strategy the overall aim is to prevent waste where possible, recycle more and landfill next to nothing.
So we have got to recognise that even though recycling will hopefully continue to go up—ultimately I think the aim is to get, possibly, to 65%—there is something that has not yet really been covered in depth in the resources and waste strategy, which is that we need to do something with the residual waste. We operate 10 energy recovery facilities within the UK, three of which have district heating. Bearing in mind the plans that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has for a heat road map, which I think is proposed for June, there is a role, which we need at least to recognise, for energy recovery, preferably with heat decarbonisation.
We are addressing the issue that the waste has to go somewhere. The landfills are running out. Therefore we need to do something with it that will also help us with generating electricity, given the fact that there will be even more intense pressure on the grid because of the number of electric cars that we obviously hope for, to reduce our carbon impact. There should be at least some recognition that it is an important component of the overall mix.
Richard Graham
Q
David Bellamy: The question of avoidable waste is a little bit open to interpretation, in our estimation. It may warrant a definition in the Bill. We suggest that that material might not be recoverable in any shape or form, or it might not be replaceable by something else.
Richard Graham
Q
David Bellamy: We support a binary labelling system to that effect. We have not looked at a traffic light scheme as such. The current proposal is more of a descriptor-based labelling system, which basically says that something can or cannot be recycled. We strongly support the concept of a binary system.
Richard Graham
Q
Andrew Poole: The truth is that some will, and some will not. We have tried to highlight, across the piece, in terms of these environmental challenges, the requirement to understand the business audience in more detail. Small businesses are very different. There are myriad different types of organisation. We consistently challenge policy makers on that requirement to understand in more detail the business audience that is being affected. If there are any requirements or opportunities to provide support to small businesses, that support should be targeted to those businesses that are least able to adapt. The more time that businesses are given to adapt and change the way they do things, the more likely they are to achieve those changes.
The Chair
Mr Graham, I am sorry, but I going to take a brief, final question from Ruth Edwards. I have tried to get everybody in. This will be the final question.
Ruth Edwards
Q
Martin Curtois: I believe that in Scotland, they are planning to go for an all-in deposit return scheme in April 2021. We will see how that works in practice. It seems that in Scotland they have decided that is the way they will go. It will be interesting—because they have proposed an all-in scheme rather than an on-the-go scheme—to see whether they can cope with the number of materials that will involve, as far as a DRS is concerned.
There was, perhaps, some merit to an on-the-go scheme. It would perhaps have had the advantage of primarily focusing on the plastic bottles and cans that are collected, which currently go into high street refuse bins and are virtually unsorted. We could go from 60% to 95% recycling of plastic bottles, if we have an on-the-go system that works and that focuses strictly on the bottles and the cans. It will be interesting to see what happens in Scotland and how that evolves. That will be the biggest and best test.
The Chair
Q
Andrew Poole: Absolutely. Coming back to recycling or the deposit return scheme, I think it is important to understand local issues. Locality-based solutions may be required. The solution in one area, for example, on a busy high street, will be different from that required for businesses in the middle of the countryside. The importance of consultations is to bring out the granularity of different options for the different types of businesses and different types of locations. As has been said on this panel, a one-size-fits-all approach will not necessarily work.
The Chair
Q
David Bellamy: Just to say at the outset, we support a co-ordinated approach to DRS, introduced on a GB-wide basis, and based on best practice, particularly in the Nordic countries, where it has already been implemented for some time. We are, obviously, mindful of the potential impacts on local authorities. We fully understand why they might be sensitive to a DRS. We feel that there will be savings to be made for local authorities. There will be less material for them to collect, potentially, and less litter for them to deal with.
With the introduction of EPR reforms alongside the DRS, we think there will be opportunities to refine the service provision of local authorities and deal with any potential economic impacts in that way. We think that local authorities right now might be thinking about their contracts and whether they need to be reviewed in the light of the DRS coming along. We think it might be reasonable for the Government to consider some support for local authorities to help them do that at this stage. All in all, we support the DRS. We welcome a second consultation, which is important.
The Chair
Thank you Mr Curtois, Mr Bellamy and Mr Poole. The Committee is indebted to you. I am afraid that brings us to the end of this morning’s proceedings. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm.
Environment Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 10th March 2020
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 March 2020 - (10 Mar 2020)
The Chair
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. For the benefit of the record, I shall ask our councillor guest to identify himself in a moment. I am advised that there may be a Division on the Floor of the House. That is probably slightly private information, but I do not see any reason why the public should not know what is going on. If the Division bell rings, it will not mean that an inmate has escaped; it means we will all have to go over the road and vote. There will be injury time; whatever we have to take off for the vote, which will be 15 minutes, we will add back on again.
We have half an hour for this session with the representative of local government. By the way, the other thing I have to mention, in case anybody is concerned, is that we have endeavoured to let some daylight into the room by opening the blinds. Apparently, that interferes with the broadcasting quality, so if I have ruined the picture it is entirely my fault. We felt we were enough like mushrooms as it was without having complete darkness in here.
Without further ado, the Local Government Association. Councillor Glanville, would you like to introduce yourself and explain, for the benefit of the record, what you represent, please?
Mayor Glanville: Thank you, Chair. I am Phil Glanville, the elected Mayor of Hackney and a representative of the Local Government Association. I serve on the relevant policy board covering the Bill.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Q
Mayor Glanville: There has been extensive engagement. Obviously, the original Bill dates back to last year. Our committee has been looking at various aspects of the Bill and we have submitted our package of evidence to the Committee. We are seeing new powers and responsibilities for local government. I appeared before the waste reduction investigation that was conducted last year. There has been extensive engagement and investigation into some aspects of the Bill. The challenge for all of us is that the Bill is very ambitious and sets new targets. In some areas, such as biodiversity and air pollution, the relationship with local government and where responsibilities lie are less clear.
On areas such as waste, recycling, plastic pollution and single-use plastics, the engagement has been more extensive. It depends on the areas of the Bill we are talking about and the responsibilities that are in focus. The areas of disagreement are common to those that arise when local government takes representations. Where we take on new responsibilities, we need adequate time to prepare and adequate funding in order to do that.
We have a track record of delivering improved and innovative recycling services during a decade of funding changes as a result of austerity. We have continued to improve our recycling services, investing more than £4.2 billion of resources. If we were to move towards the types of changes suggested in the Bill, the burden could be increased by up to £700 million. We will provide further information as the LGA on that. Without that increase in resources, council tax payers will have to meet that uplift in our duties around waste and recycling, or other services will have to be cut.
Those sorts of challenges go across different parts of the Bill, whether it is the work on biodiversity and planning or the clear ambition to deal with air pollution. Some of those responsibilities do sit with local authorities and we are ready to rise to that challenge, but whole industries will see changes in regulation as a result of the Bill. We believe we can rise to that challenge, in partnership with Government and industry. I am sure that over the course of the next half hour we will explore some of those areas more specifically. The main areas of disagreement relate to having the right powers and funding to match our duties.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Mayor Glanville: Biodiversity and how the planning system could lead to the net gain that is the priority within the Bill is one of the key areas. We have a system of local planning authorities that is well established. The system has accommodated various changes relating to energy, carbon and sustainability over a number of years, and we have adapted to those changes and adopted them within both our local plan development and the way our committees regulate development.
The planning context is really important, before I come to the detail on biodiversity. We have seen 2.6 million homes consented to in the past six years. A million of those have yet to be built, in the context of a 40% reduction in funding for local planning authorities. We have seen some improvements. We can set fees that allow us to recover the costs of fulfilling our planning responsibilities as local authorities, but there is still a £180 million gap between the cost of fulfilling our responsibilities and the funding that we receive from planning fees.
If we introduce new responsibilities for biodiversity, the challenge is whether we will close the existing gap and ensure that a new gap does not develop. We need to ensure that local authorities have the expertise to meet those new biodiversity responsibilities. That could be addressed either through the wider financial settlement for local government, or through a fees regime. As it is written at the moment, the Bill does not suggest that local authorities will be pre-eminent in collecting any additional resources if a development does not meet biodiversity standards.
Many Members who are involved in constituency casework, as I am as a council leader, will know that planning is always contested. People see the impact of a new development very much in their local community. If we are saying that the impact of new developments on biodiversity will be fully recognised, which we welcome, we want to ensure that any compensation is either held within that development, and the development contributes to a net improvement in biodiversity, or, if not, that local planning authorities can use those resources for the local community. That could be by placing extra requirements on a development, or by using our expertise in tree planting, and improving diversity and green infrastructure in the local area. As things stand in the Bill, we fear that there may well be a levy, but the levy would not be recycled back into the planning system, or would not result in the net improvement in biodiversity that we all want to see.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Q
Mayor Glanville: It is a positive Bill in the sense that we all share its ambitions to respond to the climate emergency, uphold the principle of “polluter pays” when we are talking about waste and recycling, and embed high standards for air quality in domestic legislation. Local government shares all those ambitions.
To take waste and recycling, there are some ambitious principles set out in the Bill, especially for dealing with single-use plastics, encouraging deposit and return schemes and improving the way recycling is delivered. Underneath that, however, is the context that I set out of the challenge of local government finance. If we are to move to the type of systems that are set out in the Bill and introduce food recycling everywhere, it would require an uplift in resources.
I welcome what the Minister said about new burdens being met with resources, but often the detail about where those burdens lie comes later. I have some experience of taking part in discussions on measures such as the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. There is normally a dispute later between central and local government about what the new responsibilities are and where they are fully accommodated. You often get transition funding, which allows some adaptation and change, but the picture for long-term revenue for local government is still incredibly challenging. I know that we are all going into a spending review and some of those things might be addressed.
There are huge opportunities for local government, because when it comes to waste and recycling, we are obviously the processors of all our consumer waste. We all want to see less of that waste produced in the first place. As I said, I gave evidence last year. If we just focus on plastics and single-use plastics, that is obviously where a lot of residents and campaign organisations are focusing our minds, but with a true waste reduction strategy consumer packaging would not be produced in the first place and there would be more upstream regulation of the types of materials that go into our waste system.
Some 70% of councils have all seven common forms of plastic recycled in their waste streams, but other types of packaging that local authorities cannot process are still going into the waste streams. Consumers often think that they can recycle them and it can be frustrating for them when they find that they cannot. Those types of packaging obviously increase the amount of residual waste.
As the Bill develops and regulation flows from it, we are hoping not just that we will focus on the work that we all need to do to continue to improve the recycling end but that we will work at the producer end, which, obviously, individual local authorities and the LGA do not have the scope to focus on. That is where we can really add value. We can clarify some of the areas where local government needs to rise to the challenge, but also where industry and consumer behaviour need to change.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Mayor Glanville: Absolutely. As I said, we all face a tremendous amount of challenge from residents, consumers and activists. We all want to play our part in responding to the climate emergency. We as the Local Government Association have been doing a lot of peer-to-peer work. My board has created a climate change emergency action plan, and we are keen to continue that work. Where we would value a greater voice is at the political and officer level, if there is a taskforce linked to the Bill, especially on climate change emergency and action. I am told that there are still some details there to work through in terms of leading that full sector-led response.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Q
Mayor Glanville: Just on the area of waste and recycling, to meet the objectives that are set out in the Bill, we have done some internal modelling that said there would be a £700 million gap in local government funding to meet those new responsibilities and burdens. That is in the context of a total amount of around £4.2 billion spent on processing household waste. Of that, £700 million is spent on recycling, so it is a doubling of the recycling and reducing element that is outlined in the Bill.
Jessica Morden
Q
Mayor Glanville: The challenge when taking enforcement action is the cost of bringing cases to court or issuing civil penalties. Local government has a lot of powers in that area, but it can sometimes be challenging to prove a cost-evidence base for implementing them, so anything to improve not just our powers but the ability to ensure that the polluter pays will help. That is the element that is always the challenge for local government.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Q
Mayor Glanville: Local authorities across the country from Hackney to Hull have declared climate emergencies. The Local Government Association itself has. Local authorities are doing a lot of work outside the scope of the Bill on energy, and there is some detailed work going on at the LGA. The challenge with air pollution and some of the aspirations in the Bill is that many of the elements are reliant on industry and consumer change. There is a lot of work on clean air zones in local government. There is experimentation in places around Nottingham on levying parking charges in workplaces. Wider investment in sustainable and public transport is needed to ensure that our aspirations on air pollution can be met.
In the Bill, there is some positive work on the contribution of motor vessels on our waterways and improving regulation of them. The Bill strengthens elements relating to domestic pollution and domestic fuels, which we very much welcome as well.
We are very keen, as local government, to ensure that we do our part in responding to the climate emergency. There are some of those upstream, “producer pays” principles around waste and recycling—for example, the car industry switching to a more electric fleet, and I know there have been announcements on bus funding—but if we are talking about the types of shift that we are going to need in consumer behaviour in the way that we travel, further work will need to be done together on that.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Mayor Glanville: That is inclusive of food waste. You identify one of the challenges. Typologies change across the country. What is required to collect food waste and the density of infrastructure in a borough such as Hackney can be very different from what is required in large rural authorities. We are nervous about having duties that do not recognise those challenges and differences. Different local authorities have set different regulations around how often they collect residual waste. Some local authorities are still doing that weekly, some are doing it bi-weekly and some every three weeks, and they vary how often they collect recycling and food waste alongside that. Many inner London boroughs that have the challenges of density and flats are still collecting waste more often than areas where there are suburban typologies where people can store more waste in their homes. In a typology such as Hackney, where all of the residential growth has been around flats, it is often impossible to do that, given the size of flats.
We hope to see the work on the Bill and regulation recognise some of those differences and challenges and get to the position where food waste is available for everyone, but makes sure that it is done in the right way with the right change in industry and the capacity within industry to roll it out. Rolling it out everywhere weekly is part of the £700 million figure. Obviously, some local authorities have invested already. One of the challenges around burden is whether authorities that are already delivering on a weekly basis receive extra resources or will they only go to those authorities that have yet to make that investment? It is an equity, fairness and transparency question across local government.
Alex Sobel
Q
Mayor Glanville: Local government has not come to a position on the 2030 target. Speaking from the LGA perspective, we recognise that we need to have ambitious targets. We need to have a pathway to get there, which will require quite a lot of action around industry. It is not local government that is producing the transport—we are dealing with the consequences. While you can introduce clean air zones and have the work that combined authorities and the Mayor have done around ultra-low emission zones, investing in disabled transport, walking and clean bus fleets, all that will not get us to the 2030 target unless industry moves as well. If that target were put into the Bill, we would need to have a clear pathway of getting there and the resources for doing that. Many organisations, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace want to get to that 2030 target. I think targets are really important, but only if you have a plan to get there. We risk setting targets that we will not meet if we do not maintain the confidence of that wider coalition—that is the challenge.
The Chair
Four people still want ask questions and we have fewer than eight minutes in which to do that, so short questions and short answers, please.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Q
Mayor Glanville: It can provide an excellent framework, especially on the waste and resources piece, introducing more of those principles around producer- paying deposit and reuse schemes. Setting out a clear regulatory framework for that backs up the work that local government is already doing. As I have answered in response to other questions, we cannot just look at the waste and recycling end. We need national Government to make a clearer ask of industry.
Industry also welcomes having frameworks that we can all work to. I do not think it wants to put labels on consumer products that suggest that local recycling streams can accommodate that recycling and then find out that they cannot. That confusion is something that both local and national Government want to see resolved. As long as the balance between rights and responsibilities between local and national Government are right, something like the work on biodiversity can be a real improvement to the planning system. It has to be done in the right way and work with local government and residents’ expectations of local government. While we as a sector are representing ourselves, it is often the through the expectations of our residents that we will have some control and influence around implementing these policies. If the legislation is not drafted in the right way, we will not have that and people will say: “Why, if it is supposed to be improving local biodiversity, is it not contributing to it?”.
In the areas around tree management, we want to be clear about the role of, say, the Forestry Commission and what new statutory powers it is going to have and does it interact properly with the local planning and regulatory system?
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Q
Mayor Glanville: Can I clarify what Veolia said?
Abena Oppong-Asare
It was were talking about how it would like a more joined-up approach with the council and, along with others on the panel, about how businesses need more support to be able to deliver their recycling and waste strategies.
Mayor Glanville: In terms of setting those strategies, it is making sure that if we have a duty to set them locally, and they are backed up within the planning system, we recognise the context of where local government is at the moment with resourcing.
There were questions earlier about how local government is rising to the challenge of the climate emergency. We, and many local authorities like Hackney, are investing in our agriculturalists and in the people who work in our parks. We have ambitious targets around planting trees and green infrastructure. We are resourcing that through our planning gain, within the existing planning system, and using policies around section 106 and the community infrastructure levy.
If local government is going to be doing even more, either the system that exists at the moment is going to have to accommodate that or those new duties are going have to be explored as well. Not every local authority is going to have tree specialists or still have a biodiversity officer. Over the period of austerity they have all too often been seen as back-office functions. There are real pressures within the planning system and pressures to make sure that we continue to deliver the housing numbers within our local plans.
It is right that we refocus on green infrastructure, biodiversity and a net increase, but without resources being in place we will either have to get them from the planning system or from some other settlement, to make sure we are able to deliver on those ambitions.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Q
Mayor Glanville: It is a continuing engagement. Obviously, as we have said, it is a framework Bill, which has advantages and disadvantages. There is a high degree of discussion around the Bill at the moment, including about what should be in it and how far it should move into clearly engaging on those ambitious targets and regulations. There is an opportunity in the engagement process with a Bill to engage with local government, with industry and with campaigners.
As you move towards regulations and statutory instruments, some of the focus and the ability for scrutiny in Parliament can be lost, along with local government’s ability to influence. We are keen to make sure that there is clarity in both those positions and that there will still be opportunities to engage around some of the specifics, as we move into further discussions about waste and recycling, air pollution, how we interact with the planning system, the work around flooding and water, and other key areas. There is still a huge amount that we can do. The Local Government Association is committed to rising to that challenge and contributing to making sure that this not just ambitious but implementable legislation at a national and local level.
The Chair
Thank you, Mayor Glanville. Rather than chop you off mid-flow, I will terminate this session now. You are probably aware that the Committee has authorised the receipt of written submissions, so if there is anything that occurs to you that you wish us to have on behalf of your association then please put it in writing and let us have it.
Mayor Glanville: Thank you, Chair.
The Chair
Thank you for joining us this afternoon. Please could we now change over as swiftly as possible as I will try to start the next session at 2.30 pm, when it is supposed to begin.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Diane Mitchell, Alan Law, Dr Sue Young and Judicaelle Hammond gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are now going to take evidence from Natural England, the Wildlife Trusts, the Country Land and Business Association and the National Farmers Union. We have one hour, I am afraid—and that is all—to accommodate what I am sure will be a very great deal of interesting information. Without further ado, Dr Mitchell, please identify yourself and give us a flavour of what the organisation you represent does, for the benefit of the record.
Dr Mitchell: I am Diane Mitchell and I am the chief environment adviser at the National Farmers Union of England and Wales, representing about 50,000 farmers and grower businesses.
The Chair
Before we go any further, for some reason, we have a problem with these microphones. Please project if you can, and if we can crank up the sound, that would be helpful as well. Mr Law, please.
Alan Law: Alan Law, I am deputy chief executive at Natural England. Natural England is Government’s wildlife adviser. We are an arm’s length body, a non-departmental public body in the DEFRA group.
Judicaelle Hammond: I am Judicaelle Hammond. I am the director of policy and advice at the Country Land and Business Association. We represent about 30,000 members who own or operate businesses based on land in rural areas in England and Wales.
The Chair
Dr Young, by a process of elimination, you are—
Dr Young: I am Sue Young. I work as head of land use policy and ecological networks at the Wildlife Trusts. The Wildlife Trusts is a federated organisation of 46 charities, it covers the whole of the UK and provides advice on nature issues and looks after nature reserves and manages land.
The Chair
Thank you very much. I should have said this at the beginning and I will say it now: if any Members and, indeed, any guests for that matter—it seems to be a bit fetid in here—wish to take their jackets off, you are welcome to do so.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Dr Young: A nature recovery network is a really important part of the solution to the ecological crisis that we are facing. It is a joined-up system of places needed to allow nature to recover. To be effective, it must extend across the whole of England, including rural and urban areas, and connect to similar initiatives elsewhere in the UK. The section on local nature recovery strategies in the Bill is really good and sets an ambitious agenda that would enable us to tackle nature’s recovery. It needs to be clearer how the local nature recovery strategies will contribute to a national network and targets for nature’s recovery.
That seems to be missing in the Bill at the moment; there is not a clear description of how the components that are set out in that part will add up to a system that works ecologically. The Bill says that the strategies will identify areas that could be good for biodiversity in the future, but that really needs to be based on ecological principles, rather than being an ad hoc set of sites where habitats could be created. That will ensure that the ambition contained within the Bill to secure nature’s recovery is realised. That could be achieved with some relatively small amendments to clause 97.
The Chair
Thank you. It will not be necessary for every member of the panel to answer every question, but to set the stage and for ease of reference, I will on this occasion simply work from, in my case, right to left—in your case, left to right. Ms Hammond, please.
Judicaelle Hammond: Thank you. Local nature recovery strategies are a real opportunity to make a difference to nature. There are a few things I would like to raise in terms of how they are going to work. First, at the moment, they are just about nature. We wonder whether there is a point to them being more holistic, so that we avoid silos and manage to have a look at how land is used in a way that maximises the various benefit types, including flood management and climate change, not just nature. This is a plea for them to not just be considered in isolation.
Another aspect is the issue of who should be leading on this. The Bill provides for a multiplicity of possible responsible bodies, including local authorities. As we heard from the gentleman from the Local Government Association, local authorities are already overstretched. We have an issue over whether they have the capacity to lead on that.
Another aspect is skills, and that was raised to the Committee. Would Natural England be better placed to do that?
It is important to have clear priorities. There need to be no gaps and no overlaps with regards to local nature recovery strategies, and that needs to be an important driver from national Government. Most of the land we refer to is in private ownership, so it will be important to consult with landowners and land managers on that.
Alan Law: The Bill has the potential to be the most significant environmental piece of legislation since the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. We have worked on conservation in this country for the last 70 years, driven by a focus on looking at the rare and putting in place protection measures for those rare site species: parks. What is exciting about the Bill and its links to the 25-year environment plan is the ambition to go from protecting small parts of the countryside—looking after the rare and the special—to trying to drive wholesale large nature recovery. That ambition around recovery is fundamental. The most important part of the Bill revolves around this nature recovery network and the links between the local and the national.
Will local nature recovery strategies alone deliver the ambition of the nature recovery network? No, they probably will not. That will not happen without further tightening up, either in the Bill or in supporting guidance or regulations. For reasons already articulated, we need to ensure that local nature recovery strategies operate within some form of national framework so that they are coherent. A national framework needs to be in place.
There need to be mechanisms for developing local nature recovery strategies so that they are quality assured and checked to ensure that they actually add up to a part of that coherent network. We need to see clear expressions of the set national targets writ into those local nature recovery strategies. At the moment we have an ambition at the front of the Bill around targets and we have a tool—a delivery mechanism—around local plans, but there is no hard-wired connection between the two. That is not difficult to achieve, so the issue is to tighten up around the links between targets, delivery processes, and some of the accountabilities.
Dr Mitchell: I have some opening words from my perspective on the Bill itself. British farmers are the stewards of our natural environment, and they have a good track record of protecting, maintaining and enhancing our environment. We welcome some aspects of the Bill, but some improvements could be made to ensure that environmental enhancement policies are carefully considered, and that food production and the environment go hand in hand. One of the key themes in the Bill and its various measures will be the need for them to work for farmers and food production as well as for the environment. Setting that context and going on to nature recovery networks and local nature recovery strategies, there is a lot of jargon around. We need greater clarity on these different phrases and how they all fit together.
How local nature recovery strategies may be used is unclear from our perspective. The suggestion is that they may be used to inform planning decisions. That makes us slightly nervous because is it some sort of designation that may be used to identify environmental priorities or opportunities that may restrict what farmers might want to do with their land in future, such as new building requirements? Farmers may want to update and modernise their buildings, but will that be restricted if they are in one of these areas? Or might they have an impact on land values?
Those are some of the questions we have in the back of our minds. Farmers get very nervous when you start drawing lines on maps, particularly when it comes to thinking about how environmental land management schemes may be ruled out in future. If these strategies are used to identify where farmers may be able to enter into one of these ELM schemes, does that mean they will be restricted in their engagement? We recommend that these local nature recovery strategies are confined to areas that are already identified for environmental value, such as sites of special scientific interest.
My final point is that we need to ensure that farmers are properly consulted at an early stage of the strategies, so that food production is considered alongside any environmental priorities.
Rebecca Pow
Q
“could contribute to the establishment of a network of areas across England for the recovery…of biodiversity”.
That is newly added since the previous Bill, in response to engagement with stakeholders. I want to know, first, whether you welcome that and what you think about it and, secondly, going on a bit, your view of the overall measures in the Bill in driving us towards this nature recovery environmental improvement.
Alan Law: We welcome the insertion of that clause. I have “could” underlined, rather than a more affirmative statement on the plan to undertake it. The ambition is clearly there to develop local strategies that add up to a coherent whole, but a little bit more in some of the supporting guidance or regulation to tighten up exactly how national standards will be met should be defined, and how those can be used in terms of local strategies. A timeline for production of the local strategies, again, would be great to see coming through while the Bill is in transition.
It will be really important to have some formal mechanism for scrutinising those plans and for advising on how fit for purpose they are. They will go back up to the Secretary of State, who provides that scrutiny. Forgive us for the presumption, but perhaps a body such as Natural England could provide that sort of role.
Dr Young: We were really pleased to see that addition in the Bill, because it makes the link. It is clear in the explanatory notes that it is talking about a nature recovery network. I will reiterate how important a nature recovery network is to tackle the massive declines that we have seen in nature over our lifetimes.
I agree with Alan’s point that the Bill uses the phrase “could contribute”. Certainly, the Bill’s ambition is clear, but there is always a danger of the ambition not being implemented in the way the Government foresee. When resources are tight, organisations will do what they must do rather than what they should do. It would be good to see a change in some of the wording in the Bill from “may” to “must” so it achieves the ambition we really hope it will achieve. The Bill uses the phrase “a network of areas”. It would be really good if the term “a nature recovery network” were included in the Bill rather than just in the explanatory notes, so that we are really clear what we want the Bill to do and what we want people to do.
It will be important to think about how this is implemented. Again, we are really pleased that the duty on local authorities in an earlier section of the Bill has been improved so that it is about local authorities not just having regard to the protection of biodiversity but enhancing it and having regard to local nature recovery strategies. However, in the past, “have regard” has not been a very strong term and has not led to sufficient action to halt the declines. A slight change of wording—perhaps to “act in accordance with local nature recovery strategies”—would really shift the focus from thinking to doing and taking action.
We would like local nature recovery strategies to be more clearly required to be expressed in the planning system. I think local authorities and public bodies having regard to local nature recovery strategies in their decision making about planning and spending would lead to stronger action. It would also help to a certain extent with the point that colleagues have made about consultation, because the planning system provides us with a ready-made administrative system for good consultation.
Alex Sobel
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: There is no reason, given the way the Bill is framed at the moment, that those standards will drop. The CLA is on record as a strong supporter of high standards remaining, not least because that gives us an opportunity to use high standards as a unique selling point both in the export market and internally. These are absolutely necessary, and we need to make sure that we maintain them.
The Committee may want to consider the kinds of issues with trade deals that are being raised at the moment with the Agriculture Bill. They apply in exactly the same way to the need to ensure that we do not get imports that are produced at much lower standards of environmental protection—and, indeed, climate change action—than would be allowed here. That is an element of the Bill on which there could be some really useful reflection.
Dr Mitchell: There are a number of safeguards in the Bill to ensure that our environmental standards are not lowered. The environmental governance aspects around target setting, the embedding of the environmental principles and the introduction of the OEP should ensure that our standards are not lowered.
One of the things that we need to consider alongside our standards is the fact that farmers are doing a lot to maintain our environment as well as creating habitats and enhancing it. We ought to recognise that as well as all the things that we do to improve and enhance our environment, there is a lot of work in terms of good day-to-day management and maintenance that farmers do to maintain our landscapes. At the moment that does not seem to be recognised in the Bill, and we would like that to be recognised a bit more.
Alan Law: There are two aspects here—differentiating ambition from certainty. On the one hand, the Bill provides the mechanism through target setting to go beyond existing standards. That is entirely welcome. As yet, we do not have the clarity around those targets, but it is entirely welcome. The other area is around potential regression. There is a protection in the Bill through clause 19 around primary legislation, but that does not apply to secondary legislation, so conservation regulations in that area could be subject to regression.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Q
Alan Law: I would reframe the question to say a 10% minimum. The work that we have done with stakeholders around those thresholds suggests that many are indeed willing to go higher than that, but there is a sense that applying a mandatory higher level at this stage would be counterproductive. We are content with it, but we apply it as a minimum. I would also say that it is 110%, of course, rather than 10%—it is 10% on top.
The Chair
You are saying that 10% is the minimum but also the maximum.
Alan Law: No, 10% is the minimum.
The Chair
Any advance on 10%, Dr Young?
Dr Young: It is important that 10% should not be a cap on the ambition for net gain. Net gain can make a really good contribution to nature’s recovery and we certainly welcome seeing it in the Bill and that it is mandatory. Having quoted 10%, however, we would not want to limit the ambition of those developers and local authorities that would like to go higher.
Dr Mitchell: Net gain provides an opportunity for some farmers who can be the deliverers of it, which is important to consider, but we should not forget that farmers can be developers themselves. They may want to replace a farm building, which may require them to meet the net gain requirements.
We are pleased to see in the Bill that there is an exemption from the need to provide net gain for permitted development. That is really helpful and important, especially for smaller developments on farms that farmers can do through the permitted development rights. We have to remember that in some areas of high environmental value, going beyond 10% might be quite difficult for the farmers, because they are doing 110%, which means that they may have to contribute quite a lot or they may have to get someone else to do the biodiversity credits for them.
We are conscious that in some areas, permitted development rights may not apply for some reason—for example, in national parks. In those areas, farmers would be disadvantaged. Not only would they have the additional costs of applying for planning permission, but they may have additional specific design requirements to meet in that national park area, and they would have to meet the net gain requirements on top of that, so they are already possibly at a disadvantage. One suggestion we have is to broaden the exemption that I just talked about to deliver the net gain to areas where the permitted development rights do not currently apply.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Q
Alan Law: At the moment, we have a range of tools available to us to deliver conservation outcomes. We can designate sites, we can offer incentives and we can engage through the planning system to try to deliver planning gain. Conservation covenants would provide another tool we could use that would be between some of those existing tools.
Richard Graham
Q
Alan Law: We could have conversations with landowners about new agri-environment agreements. Our ambition is to see public investments in public benefits in perpetuity. We could explore the desirability of a covenant with the agreement of the landowner to secure the long-term value of that investment. We could alternatively use a covenant as a different means of ensuring an area is protected in the long term, as an alternative to designation.
Richard Graham
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: Yes, as you say, we welcome the idea. Depending on how they are set up, we think that covenants are a flexible way to ensure that conservation aims are advanced. They enable two parties to enter into a contract for the long term, which my members value, because most of them will think of their business in multigenerational terms. This is an opportunity for our members to deliver some of the ambitions.
Richard Graham
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: Yes.
The Chair
Just a moment, before we move forward, you are quite entitled to ask specific questions of specific people, but does anybody else want to comment on the issues that have been raised so far? Yes, Dr Young.
Dr Young: I think conservation covenants provide a really useful tool for securing long-term environmental gains. Our concern about the effectiveness of this is that net gain, for example, which they could work well with, ought to be secured in perpetuity. It should not be too easy to discharge a covenant and risk the loss of biodiversity and other public goods. The terms used in the circumstances for modifying or discharging them ought to be clear enough to give that confidence.
Richard Graham
Q
Dr Mitchell: Yes, we do have concerns about the provisions in the Bill to revoke or amend abstraction licences. I think that is the clause we are talking about.
Richard Graham
Q
“No compensation where modification to protect environment”.
It then goes on to specific issues and I gave you an example of one. Surely, in the situation I gave you, it would be wrong to expect the taxpayer to compensate the farmer?
Dr Mitchell: What we are concerned about is not only the fact that the abstraction licence can be withdrawn or amended without compensation, but if you look at the tests to assess harm or impact on the water environment, there is a low evidential bar. They are broadbrush proposals, so there are dual concerns about this.
Richard Graham
Q
Dr Mitchell: It is a general concern.
Richard Graham
Is that the same for Ms Hammond?
Judicaelle Hammond: We share some of the NFU’s views, particularly about how the reason for the necessity of the variation or removal is framed. In the Bill, it is very broad and it is not clear that it will be evidence based. That is certainly a concern that we share. I would add that abstraction licences are a business asset and there are property rights, so from our perspective removing them without compensation is an infringement of property rights.
The Chair
Q
Dr Young: This is not an area that I work on, but I am happy to consult colleagues and provide information to follow up.
The Chair
That is fine. I just want to make sure you are not missing out on something.
Dr Mitchell: To add to what Judicaelle said, if the proposals go ahead as currently drafted, they will create a lot of uncertainty for some of our members. They could potentially undermine business liability and productivity for some of our members.
Richard Graham
Q
Dr Mitchell: Yes, but they are clearly broadbrush proposals and the evidential bar is low. Abstraction licences are important for business security and certainty. Years’ worth of investment has gone into some businesses to ensure that people have access to water. That investment has been made in the knowledge that they have permission to abstract. It could create a lot of uncertainty for a number of our members.
An additional aspect that we are concerned about is the excess headroom provisions, because we are unsure how you could develop an equitable system to assess the underuse of water. There are various reasons why you might not use your licence, including the weather or crop rotation.
Jessica Morden
Q
Alan Law: Fortunately, there is a spending review coming up. We are looking at refocusing our organisation in a way that aligns closely with the ambitions of the Bill and the 25-year plan to focus on nature recovery. That means looking to operate at a larger landscape scale and to use our statutory powers at a local authority scale, rather than solely focused at the end-of-pipe development control scale.
We welcome the powers and the ambitions set out here. I was being slightly flippant about the spending review, because wherever that money goes it goes, but our ambitions will be to refocus our organisation to use our incentive, convening, statutory advice and regulatory functions in ways that allow us to build larger-scale nature recovery.
A point was made earlier about whether we should focus on existing areas of high value for nature or wider areas. The point I want to emphasise is that we know—basic ecology tells us—that trying to protect small isolated sites over time does not work. Over the last 50 years, we have been exercising a regime that is effectively holding back the tide, stemming species extinctions on these sites. Unless we extend beyond those sites, it is inevitable that we will see losses of further species interest on these sites as the pressures from the environment and people’s activity continue to grow. This is something that we have to do and it is about rebalancing our focus to what the challenges are for the environment right now, rather than what they were 50 or 60 years ago.
Dr Young: I do not want to repeat what Alan just said, but I totally agree. I want to stress how important we feel Natural England’s role is in developing and helping to deliver the local nature recovery network and local strategies. It is able to convene partnerships, it has a wealth of knowledge and we really think it should play a central role.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Q
Dr Young: There is a real opportunity to integrate policy delivery where there is a need for action to be geographically targeted. Some of the options that will be developed under environmental land management will be much more effective for the delivery of public goods and for nature if they are targeted in particular places and form a connected network. Local nature recovery strategies have a mapping element that shows opportunity areas, so they can be used to help with targeting and alignment with other policy areas, such as water policy, so that we can see multiple benefits from delivering particular actions and therefore get more value for money.
Alan Law: Your question is absolutely fundamental. It is imperative that local nature recovery strategies provide an effective mechanism for drawing together different funding streams into a coherent delivery pattern on the ground. Whether it is ELM, net gain or potentially water company investments—a whole range of sources—we need to be able to target coherently. To do that, we need a degree of consistency of standard in place around those local strategies, because how could you offer—
Bim Afolami
Otherwise it would be apples and oranges.
Alan Law: Absolutely; farmers in one part of the country would be operating under a totally different regime from those in another part. It is really important that that consistency is put in place and that we have a network of local strategies.
The thing I want to emphasise, though, is that I am not advocating national prescription. This is not about some ivory tower in the centre coming up with a land use map and saying, “There you are—that is what has to take place on the ground.” It is about standards and principles and applying those locally, because for these plans to work, they have to be owned by local people, and particularly by the land management community on the ground.
The Chair
Q
Dr Mitchell: I think I mentioned this before. My question is whether it is appropriate for local nature recovery strategies to be used to target funding for environmental land management. I say that because if the local nature recovery strategies had been set up for a different purpose—say, for a special planning purpose—and ELM is being bolted on, do we have the same principles and an underlying objective behind the strategy? As I think I said before—I hope I did—farmers get very nervous when lines are drawn on maps, and they get very nervous if there is a postcode lottery and they may be excluded from taking part in a future scheme.
Bim Afolami
Q
Dr Mitchell: From the NFU’s perspective, we think that the ELM scheme will be really important in future, but it has to work hand in hand with food production. The measures that are developed need to consider farmers’ views, alongside protecting and enhancing the environment. Those things need to be considered together.
As I understand it, from a recent document that DEFRA has published, there will be three tiers to a future scheme—or that is what is proposed. Designing those different tiers will be really important in ensuring that the scheme remains accessible to all farmers and that the payment rates act as an incentive or are encouraging. As I say, they need to be designed alongside food production and they need to work for farmers as well as for the environment.
Can I add a point on conservation covenants? I think it came up in relation to ELM previously. We have concerns about conservation covenants. We have no objection to—indeed, we support—farmers working collaboratively, but we have a number of technical concerns about covenants. We have talked to various people, including non-governmental organisations, and I do not think our proposed changes are very controversial or change the objective of the Bill.
First, we think there ought to be clarity in the Bill to ensure that landowners do not sign up inadvertently to a conservation covenant, which I think is a danger. The Bill, as drafted, says that an agreement only needs to meet certain tests or criteria for it to be a covenant, but it does not need to state explicitly that it is a covenant. We think that ought to be addressed in the Bill. Farmers need to be aware of the seriousness and significance of signing up to a covenant. It is not a contract; it binds successors in title, and farmers need to be aware of that.
Secondly, the design of covenants needs to be sufficiently flexible. Specifics such as the length of the agreement and modifications or variations that can be made to the covenant need to be considered by the landowner and the third party. The points are quite technical, but hopefully they are not controversial and would not change the objective of the Bill.
The Chair
Q
Judicaelle Hammond: Yes, thank you for that. We agree that such a clarification would be helpful. The Bill could be tightened in that regard. The one thing I would add on conservation covenants before I answer Mr Afolami’s question is that we have reservations about covenants being de facto, by default, in perpetuity, not least because of climate change and the fact that what you do with a piece of land, given the topology and given what we know is going to happen with climate change, regardless of our success in containing it, might mean that in 30 years’ time it might make sense for nature to do something slightly different with it because the habitat has moved. That is something we need to continue being flexible about.
As for your questions about—this is my way of rephrasing Mr Afolami’s question, I hope I get it right—how we knit together food production and the environment, we do not see a divergence between the two. This Bill and, indeed, the Agriculture Bill give us the opportunity to bring the two together. There are three critical elements if this is going to work. First, clear standards and long-term targets will be provided by the Bill. The second element is advice—something that perhaps we are not talking about enough in farming and the environment. That reflects the findings of the review that Dame Glenys Stacey carried out into the future of farming inspections and regulation. Advice is the first step to improvement. It might well be that advice and different technologies work together really well. For example, precision farming is a case in point where, if you are looking at how to use your inputs as effectively and efficiently as possible, it is good for food production, it is good for your costs as a business and it is good for the environment. The third element is to make sure that the incentives work right, in the way the market is going in terms of labelling and expectations, but also in terms of public policy where there is a market failure.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Q
Alan Law: From our point of view, we think there is. The Environment Agency is a regulator. What the OEP brings is a body that looks at the operation of public bodies in relation to our environmental ambitions and duties. We do not see an inherent tension. I think there will be areas where we both have a legitimate interest in providing advice to Government. When the national planning policy framework is revised and revisited, we would probably both have inputs to make around that, but we would seek with the OEP to set out under a memorandum of agreement where our respective boundaries lay and avoid any duplication. That is certainly the intention.
Dr Mitchell: I want to add a quick point on the OEP because I think the Bill largely addresses some of the concerns we had about how the new regulator would work with the existing regulatory bodies. I think that is largely sorted out. We think that the OEP should be required to act proportionately. At the moment, the OEP is required to act objectively and impartially, and we think that ought to be extended to proportionately. At the moment, it only has to have regard to act proportionately. It seems to be an omission, so that is one of our asks.
Deidre Brock
Q
Alan Law: The Bill has provisions for the OEP to advise on the adequacy of funding. I am not sure there is much more I can add to that. Clearly, there is a requirement on the Secretary of State to report regularly.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Q
Dr Mitchell: Yes, you are right; they are voluntary agreements, and they have to be between a third party and a landowner. Our concerns are based on the fact that you could be signing up to a covenant, but it does not have to state expressly that it is one. So long as it meets certain tests or criteria, it could be considered to be a covenant, but if it does not state expressly that it is a covenant, farmers may not actually know that it will be a covenant.
I realise the Bill is not in place yet, but we had a recent example where farmers were being asked by a charity to put in ponds and to maintain them over a certain period of time. To all intents and purposes, if you looked at that letter of agreement, it could be considered to be a covenant. We are concerned that, unknowingly or unwittingly, farmers may sign up to one. Clearly, they are quite serious; they could be in perpetuity, but they certainly bind successors in title. We want to make sure that farmers are absolutely clear about what they are signing up to. A small amendment to the Bill, setting out that if something is a covenant it has to state that, would be really helpful.
Robbie Moore
Q
Alan Law: Yes, to be absolutely clear, not all wildlife will be in a nature recovery network or a nature recovery strategy, but what we are looking for in the nature recovery network and local expressions of those plans are the skeleton and vital organs of a healthy organism. We would still expect, of course, to see wildlife and other environmental features beyond that, outwith the nature recovery network itself, but we are trying to design something on a scale that can be healthy and resilient—that can deal with pressures, variation, pollution, climate change and so on—and that cannot be done on a small scale on its own. However, that is not at all to say that we are designing everything into this network and that everything outside the network does not need to be worried about.
Judicaelle Hammond: To add to that, nature recovery networks are certainly one really important and very useful element, but they are not the only one; for example, what is being set up under the ELM scheme is another way, and covenants are another way. This gives us an opportunity for a more consistent and better joined-up way of delivering what is in the Bill.
We are really strong supporters of the Bill, but if there is one thing that is probably missing from it in comparison with what is in the 25-year environment plan, it is any reference to heritage. I mention that now because for me it is part of thinking about land issues in the round and not just looking at nature, climate change or other things. Heritage is the sixth goal in the 25-year environment plan, but it does not appear anywhere in the Bill. If you think about it, heritage is part of the natural environment; it contributes to making places distinctive and has a lot to do with wellbeing and people’s enjoyment of the natural environment, but things that do not have an obvious economic use are not necessarily paid for.
People want parkland, stone walls and archaeological features, but they are not necessarily prepared to pay for them, and they can be quite expensive. We have already lost about half the traditional farm buildings. If they are not in the Bill, they will not be measured. If they are not measured, will they be reported on? If they are not reported on, will they be funded? That is an issue we had under the common agricultural policy regime and we are quite keen on avoiding that being the case under the post-Brexit regime.
Saqib Bhatti
Q
Dr Young: We would like to see local nature recovery strategies as a holistic response to the current biodiversity crisis. I agree that there is provision in the Bill for some of the things we have talked about in terms of a consistent strategy for nature. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. Ladies and gentlemen, you will have noticed that there is a Division in the House. Because we are within two minutes of the end of this session, I invite witnesses to submit any written evidence that you may feel you have not aired. Thank you for your attendance. We will resume after the vote, with injury time added.
The Chair
I apologise for the delay, which was due to Divisions in the House. I am afraid there may be a Division on Third Reading as well, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it. Good afternoon, Mr Wojtulewicz. For the benefit of the record, please identify yourself and the organisation that you represent.
Rico Wojtulewicz: My name is Rico Wojtulewicz. I am head of housing and planning policy at the National Federation of Builders and the House Builders Association.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: Clarity would be very helpful. Developers really struggle with wishy-washy comments from planners and local authorities that perhaps do not have an established strategy that they can follow. That is definitely one of our concerns about this sort of approach. It is really important that developers can be part of the strategy and are not asked to deliver somebody else’s strategy. That is vital going forward.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: Ideally, yes. The difficulty is that every site will be very different, so if you specify a particular type of site, it might be quite difficult. In somewhere like London, where you desperately want an increased density, if you specify a particular type of canopy cover, it might be very difficult to deliver that, whereas in somewhere like Cornwall you might be able to deliver increased canopy cover with less concern.
It also depends on the type of canopy cover that you are looking at. If, as part of your biodiversity strategy, you know that you would like to encourage a particular type of species to visit that site, and maybe encourage a nature network to improve, you need to know what species of tree or plant you would like to use. That information is very scant, which is a real difficulty for developers. The majority of the people I represent are small and medium-sized builders, although we have some larger ones, and they win work on reputation, so a good site is vital. That is almost part of the sales pitch in the end, but unless you have that feed-in knowledge it is very difficult.
We work with an organisation called the Trees and Design Action Group, with which we have been partnered for a while. It produces a document called “Trees in Hard Landscapes”. That allows us a better idea about what we can do on sites. That expertise is not necessarily shared across the wider industry and specifically among local planning authorities.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: I honestly could not—I do not think anyone could—give an honest answer to that. When we were approached, we welcomed biodiversity net gain because we recognise it is vital. We recognised that 10% might feel like an arbitrary figure, but if it is deliverable, why should developers not go for it?
We are at the start of understanding what we can deliver and how. I can give three perfect examples of that. We have the great crested newt district licensing scheme, which has only really come to fruition in the past few years. We worked with Natural England on that. That eDNA tests newts in a local area, which means you do not have to do a ginormous survey. That is a very new technology and has only just been introduced. Two other ones are bee bricks and swift bricks. Those allow more bees and swifts to visit a site and be part of the network of biodiversity on that site. Those are new technologies. It seems amazing that we could not incorporate those before in developments, but we are really at the early stages.
From our point view—whenever I speak to our members—we will do as much as needs be, as long as there is an industry out there. If you look at ecologists, do we have enough ecologists in local authorities to offer advice and guidance? Do we have the right network of information, so that it is simple and easy to use—so that all developers, whether self-build or building 2,000 homes, can understand what to deliver on site to reduce the burden on professional ecologists, who might want to tailor a scheme to make it unique.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: Broadly yes, but of course, again, it is site specific. Not every site can deliver. There will still be exemptions, and that is part of the Bill. Small sites have not been exempt, and we do not want them to be. This should be uniform across the whole industry, and we should all be trying to have an ambition. If that ambition is 10%, it is 10%, but Government and partners must do all they can to assist builders to deliver that, preferably on site rather than off site.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: As far as I understand it, protected habitats will remain protected. The work we have done with Natural England identifies that. They have been very keen for us to ensure that that occurs. Small developers will typically be the ones who are delivering on those sites more often than the larger house builders, because they might lose one particular site within a larger site. A lot of the larger developers specifically will be delivering on agricultural land. It is on those smaller plots of land that there perhaps may be more danger of those protected wildlife sites being lost. We think that Natural England will put the right protections in place so that it cannot just be offset.
Saqib Bhatti
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: Yes, absolutely. If we can go higher, we will. Help us to get there.
Alex Sobel
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: We assume it will be the local authorities, with their guidance and local plans. We hope it will be. All developers really want is clarity.
Alex Sobel
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: No, we are not. The difficulty is that you need to ask yourself whether a local authority really knows what it wants to deliver and how it wants to deliver it. The Bill can say whatever it likes if local authorities cannot deliver it and do not understand how to deliver it. We do not even have the right information; for example, we do not know what migratory flightpath certain birds might take. How can you deliver all that without having all the information first? That is where the Bill has to be a developing document that changes, because at this stage it is the first step to understanding how we can deliver something really special.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: The duty to co-operate between local authorities will be vital. You cannot control where a particular species will be migrating, moving or living, so that is really important for the development industry. If we look at something such as a wildlife corridor, which could stretch across a few local authorities, some people would perhaps say we should not build on any of that wildlife corridor, but we do not necessarily take that view.
We think that, depending on the species that utilise the wildlife corridor, we could be part of improving the opportunities for them to utilise it, such as by undercutting hedgerows or raising hedges so that hedgehogs can travel across the entire site. Perhaps there is a particular type of bird that utilises that corridor. How can you encourage more of that biodiversity in the plants you plant? Is it food? Is the right type of lighting used to attract them? Maybe you have a particular type of bat that does not like a particular type of lighting.
Developers can be part of that and encourage it, to ensure that we are delivering a better network. The difficulty always is that the minute a developer is announced as being part of any wildlife stretch, corridor or site—even just an agricultural piece of land that perhaps does not have strong biodiversity—the automatic reaction is, “This is going to be damaging for biodiversity.” It does not necessarily have to be.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: Yes, in a perfect world, but not always, because local parish councils perhaps become set in their ways in believing that a particular thing will damage their area. A great example that you mentioned there is building on the edge of a village. We would love to be able to build on the edge of a village. Unfortunately, opposition from parish councils is so strong that many developments end up going quite far away from the parish. Then people say, “Now we don’t have the right infrastructure in place.” That is because if you are building, say, 20 homes in a community, you may get more opposition than if you are building 200 on the outskirts.
So, yes, while that could be the case, it has to be about accepting that developers are trying to do the best thing, and not simply about having extra regulations or extra ideas put on top of them. When you go back to the beginning of the planning process, we already have the issue whereby 30 homes can take three years to get permission, and 500 homes three miles away might take six months. You think to yourself that you want the homes and you want more dense communities so you can use these bus services, and maybe even train services, and you get better commercial opportunities, but you are not really understanding the process for that. So, yes, hopefully.
Richard Graham
Mr Wojtulewicz—if I have pronounced your name correctly.
Rico Wojtulewicz: Perfect.
Richard Graham
Q
There are outstanding exceptions to that. For example, a housing association called Rooftop based in Evesham has done some things in my constituency that are largely social and affordable housing that have solar panels and electric charging points. However, it is not always the norm and the Bill seems to me to open the way for house builders and developers to think proactively about what sort of contribution they can make to a net zero carbon future. How do you think this Bill might help house builders and developers adopt that approach and come up with creative ideas that deliver the homes we want while boosting the goals of this Bill to protect and improve the environment?
Rico Wojtulewicz: I will take each one of those individually. If you are trying to put broadband into a site, you may ensure that you can have high-speed broadband throughout the whole site. It is not your job to be the BT or the Openreach of that world. You cannot connect that site, typically. It is more difficult to do that and, especially in rural communities, there are smaller groups living there. You can make sure your site is broadband ready but somebody else has to connect it.
We had the same issues with electric charging points. Many of our members have had to pay for substations to be put in when, effectively, the energy company was making money in perpetuity. Mr Graham said contributions: it is not contribution, it is cost. It is increasing the value of the property and increasing delays. We need a strategy for local authorities to do a better job of understanding where those areas will be connected and why.
Richard Graham
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: In essence, you may be correct, but if you have built a site that is high-speed broadband ready and Openreach cannot come in to connect that site for two years, and they are the only provider available—
Richard Graham
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: It is a key issue.
Richard Graham
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: No, it is not retrofitting, it is connecting the initials.
Richard Graham
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: You cannot separate the two because it is not necessarily about the cost. The cost is also in delay. It would be great in a perfect world, but if you have to connect that site up and nobody can move into that site unless it is connected up and you have to wait for somebody to connect it up for you, that is a delay that ends up being a cost. You may have to pay council tax on each one of those properties until it is inhabited. The cost—you cannot separate the two. It would be great if we could. It would be great if we had all the right opportunities in place.
I will pick on solar panels as a great example. Many of our members install solar panels. It is easy for housing associations to do that because they maintain the site themselves. When a developer does it, we have no issue about putting in solar panels, but when we look at it, we say: “Wouldn’t it be better for that money to be contributed to a district scheme where the maintenance is either done centrally by the developer or the local authority takes it over, so that in five or 10 years’ time, those solar panels are maintained and can also be replaced?”. If it is a homeowner’s choice to do that, we find that they do not get replaced or maintained and are not part of the fabric of the building. That is why in the part L regulation on energy efficiency, we encouraged using the money that might be used to enforce solar panels to be used on a district system, because solar panels themselves are an add-on, not part of the fabric. If they are part of the fabric, absolutely, but this is not a cost. What you are asking is: “How can we retrofit solar panels in the future?” We need to have an energy system that works for that neighbourhood so that we have local energy generation.
Richard Graham
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: If you accept the realities of what I have said, absolutely. The opportunity also needs to be strategic. If local authorities can play into the strategy of their neighbourhood, there are many opportunities to deliver cleaner air by having electric chargers; to ensure that broadband is better connected; and that we have local energy generation because house builders are playing their part. Those are the fantastic opportunities that we need to have a conversation about and how we deliver them, and not simply put it on the developer, because it is not as deliverable as you might think it is.
Richard Graham
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: To play their part, yes.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: It is definitely not my expertise, but if it is a real concern, the industry would support measures to ensure that that does not occur.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: Guidance on what we could do to increase the swift population, such as on what trees and food they might like and what lights do and don’t attract the food that they enjoy eating. All these little things actually make a big difference. If that knowledge is there, it feels quite isolated. I think we are very enthusiastic about the things we can do, which will effectively make our sites better at delivering what people want.
The difficulty is that sometimes politicians perhaps do not understand the development process and what occurs. We in the development industry need to ensure that we have a greater understanding of what we can do on site. Perhaps you would have a particular target in an area that you know would encourage more swifts. Perhaps you could issue specific guidance for that local authority, as part of the network.
Kerry McCarthy
I think Brighton and Hove has just done it, and Exeter. I am working on Bristol.
Rico Wojtulewicz: They have. I am from Brighton.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: I think that is a really good point. The majority of our members are small and medium-sized, where someone might be a bricklayer one day and a site manager the next. They are trained to a high level—typically level 3, with more of them taken on than level 2. This is absolutely an opportunity to ensure that the education is there, not only because it would allow for better building approaches but because it would reduce the burden on a local authority always to have an expert. The more that the development industry can do to deliver what we can, the better. That means that local authorities can be certain that what is being delivered is correct and right for their local area. That is a great idea, and it would absolutely have the support of the National Federation of Builders.
Saqib Bhatti
Q
Rico Wojtulewicz: No, I think you actually have that the wrong way around. It is the small and medium-sized companies that push this information up. We see that with bricks such as swift bricks, which were not developed by Barratt but by some smaller organisation that thought, “Can we utilise these on site?” Many of our members are now considering how to use a SUDS—sustainable urban drainage systems—pond to encourage better wildlife and better sites.
A lot of innovation comes from the bottom. Berkeley Homes is a great example of a company that really pushes to innovate. However, look at—I mentioned part L earlier—the use of air source heat pumps, which is a great way to decarbonise our grid. The majority of people using them are small and medium-sized developers. Many of our members use them. They have perhaps historically not been used as much on the very large sites.
There is a part to play for both, but we typically get into this idea that it is always the big boys helping the rest, whereas I actually think it might be the other way round. Having more education for builders is a good example. Four or five construction apprentices could be trained by a small or medium-sized developer. If they take on more level 3 apprentices, they would probably have a better knowledge than the level 2s. Already you can see that the skills element is filtering up, not down.
The Chair
Mr Wojtulewicz, thank you very much indeed for enlightening us with the information you have given the Committee, to enhance our understanding. Thank you also for your patience in staying with us during the Divisions. We are most grateful to you. Can we now have a swift change of team, please, for the final session of the afternoon?
Examination of Witnesses
Ruth Chambers, Rebecca Newsom and Ali Plummer gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon, ladies. I apologise for starting half an hour late, from your perspective, but we will finish at 5.30 pm on the dot. For the record, may I ask you to identify yourselves and the organisation for which you work, and its purpose?
Ruth Chambers: I am Ruth Chambers, and I represent Greener UK, which is a coalition of the big 13 environmental non-governmental organisations in the UK, including Greenpeace and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. We have come together to ensure that Parliament and Government hear from the sector in a united way, so that our asks our presented with clarity and purpose.
Rebecca Newsom: My name is Rebecca Newsom. I head up the political affairs unit at Greenpeace UK. As Ruth said, we are a member of the Greener UK coalition.
Ali Plummer: I am Ali Plummer. I am a senior policy officer at the RSPB.
Dr Whitehead
Q
The Chair
It is not necessary for every member of the panel to answer every question, but in answer to this first question it may be helpful for you to set your stall out a bit as well.
Ruth Chambers: That is a very important question. There are three ways in which the independence of the Office for Environmental Protection will be ensured. The first is through the legal foundations provided by the Bill. The second is through its culture, which we will not talk about today. The third is through its organisational design, and the initial budget that it will get. Again, that is not relevant to the Bill, but it is a very important issue to ensure that we get the OEP off to a good start, so that it is not hampered from the get-go.
In terms of the legal foundations, there are two main ways in which the independence of a public body can be assured through law: how it gets its money and where its members come from. At the moment, although there have been some welcome strides forward, the Bill unfortunately falls down in both those regards. In terms of where it gets its money from, we welcome the commitment that the Government made around October that the OEP will have a multi-year annual funding framework for five years, ring-fenced in each spending review. That is very helpful. We see no reason why that could not be enshrined in the Bill, to give those guarantees on an enduring basis. The route by which the OEP gets its money is also very important. We have argued that it should be able to submit its own estimate directly to Parliament in the way that other public bodies, such as the National Audit Office, can.
Secondly, where the body will get its chair and other members from will be entirely at the discretion of Government Ministers at the moment. For a body of this import, which is meant to be independent not just at the start but for the duration, we think that greater involvement from Parliament would be very helpful. We are not asking for something unprecedented. Indeed, there are very good models where that is the case in practice. The National Audit Office and the Office for Budget Responsibility have already been flagged before the Committee. They are two examples of how you could crack the same nut in a slightly different way. Either way would be better than what the OEP has at the moment.
In terms of teeth, finally, we think that the way the enforcement functions are configured at the moment is certainly a step forward but there are some serious flaws, particularly in clause 35. One example is the upper tribunal being constrained in the types of remedies that it can issue and grant, should a public authority be found to be in breach of environmental law. We think it should have more freedom to impose the remedies as it sees fit.
Rebecca Newsom: I echo everything that Ruth just said. From Greenpeace’s perspective, we have concerns around the OEP’s independence, funding and enforcement powers, which definitely need to be closed. The scale of public concern for getting this right is such that over 20,000 Greenpeace supporters have been in touch this week with their MPs about this and other issues relating to the target-setting framework.
Ali Plummer: We share the concerns Ruth has outlined. I would add that part of getting a robust watchdog in place is the likeliness of its acting at its most effective. We welcome the escalating processes in the Bill, and there are opportunities to look to resolve issues before they get to full enforcement. To our mind, the way those remedies and escalating processes work most effectively is when you have a robust stop at the end, which encourages action before you have to get to that point. We welcome and share everything Ruth said in terms of strengthening the OEP in respect of both its independence and its ability to act as a true deterrent. We need to make sure that we are remedying any environmental damage or failure to comply with environmental law.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Ruth Chambers: That is an important question. Independent accountability and oversight will definitely be crucial in ensuring that our environmental laws are not only maintained but enhanced in the future, as the Government have said they want. That is an important element, but so are environmental principles—there are clauses that embed those principles in law, but again there are flaws in how that would be done. We can come on to those later.
There are also some potential loopholes in the Bill where standards could be weakened, almost accidentally. We will not talk about it today, but clause 81 in relation to chemicals in water is a good example of that. We feel that there are a lot of good work and good standards in this Bill but there is a lot of wriggle room as well. We hope that the conversations we will have today and throughout the passage of the Bill will enable some of those loopholes to be closed.
An example of where there could be some wriggle room is in the section on the REACH regulation and chemical standards. It is a wide-ranging power, and extra oversight and accountability could ensure that the power is exercised in a faithful way. We are clear that clauses 19 and 20 are not tantamount to a binding commitment to non-regression. They are welcome and important transparency mechanisms, but that really is what they should be seen as. There are modest, pragmatic ways in which they could be improved. For example, we think that clause 19 is modelled on human rights legislation, but the way in which the Human Rights Act 1998 ensures that human rights are factored into new legislation and new policy is a little bit more stringent and strategic. There are ways in which those clauses could be tightened as well.
The Chair
Before we proceed, Ms Chambers, you indicated that we would not talk about a particular clause today. In so far as we have the time you are entirely within your rights to comment on anything that is relevant.
Ruth Chambers: Thank you.
Ali Plummer: If I could just add something, there are two parts to that question. One is about maintaining the robustness of enforcement mechanisms; what we are really looking for through the independence of the OEP is maintaining that in longevity. It is not necessarily about the intent of the body as it is being set up, but making sure that it maintains that independence and robustness going forward.
I guess a watchdog and enforcement body is only as good as the law it is able to uphold, which comes to the second part of your question. There are lots of welcome provisions within this Bill that should allow us to go much further and to build on existing environmental protections, but we would be looking for much more robust reassurance that that floor—those existing protections—will remain for us to build on. The second part is making sure that we are able to secure existing environmental legislation so that the OEP can continue to uphold that.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Ruth Chambers: I would go back to my previous answer about the lack of remedies that the tribunal will have at its disposal. It is severely constrained by the clause, if you look at the small print.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Ruth Chambers: We very much support your vision for how the enforcement system would work, where it is front-loaded, if you like, and the OEP acts as a strategic intervener and litigator rather than a serial nit-picker. Nobody wants a busybody poring over every single decision of every public authority; that is nobody’s vision for how this body will work.
However, at the moment when we get to the end of the process, if a public authority is found in breach of environmental law after all of the good work that the OEP will necessarily have done, what we are left with is a statement of non-compliance. It is very hard to know exactly what bite that non-compliance will have, factoring in the upper tribunal not having a very effective or strong set of deterrents. It is helpful to have your reassurance, Minister, that the tribunal will be able to impose a financial penalty if it sees fit. It would be even better to have that reassurance written into the Bill so that there is absolute clarity on it, and stakeholders and public authorities know that there is bite to this process. That will provide the deterrent that we all want, so that things are sorted out early on.
Ali Plummer: It is also worth reiterating that the ability to levy fines is really welcome, but what we are actually looking for is to either prevent environmental damage in the first place or remedy it. Although a fine is a welcome part of that, we are really looking for remedial action, or the ability to ensure that the public authorities or others are taking the actions needed to remedy the environmental damage. While a fine can provide for some of that, it is not necessarily—
Rebecca Pow
Q
That leads me on to the whole issue of the targets, and what we will be scrutinising in order to improve the environment, which is the focus of the Bill. We have a triple lock within the system, and I just wanted your views on how you think that will work. We call it a triple lock because we have five-yearly improvement plans; we have annual reporting on how those five-yearly plans are going to get to the long-term targets; and we have the Office for Environmental Protection analysing all of that to drive environmental improvement. We think that is very strong, so I wondered what your views on that were.
Rebecca Newsom: The thing that I would want to say about that is that reporting and analysis are really important, but are not the same as interim targets actually having a legal force. It is a top priority from all of our perspectives to ensure that the short-term interim targets that lead towards end goals have that legal bite, so that there is absolutely no wiggle room in terms of the requirement on public authorities to ensure progress straightaway to meeting that long-term goal.
That is really important, particularly also because there is a track record for voluntary targets set by Government not being met or being abandoned—for example the 2020 target of not using peat in horticulture has not been met. Another example is that site of special scientific interest targets have also now been dropped, and they were voluntary. It is really important that we have that safeguard in the Bill, guaranteeing that the interim targets will have that force.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Rebecca Newsom: I think we are agreed to a large degree on the vision. The difference is that the environmental improvement plans are not legally binding. It is good to have a policy document, but it needs to have legal force. That is what is going to guarantee the drive forward of change in the short term.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Rebecca Newsom: Long-term targets definitely, but the interim targets will not have that force, as the Bill is currently set up.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Rebecca Newsom: Yes, absolutely. It is really important to recognise that, in different environmental areas, change towards long-term goals, and progress towards meeting them, does not always happen in a linear way. We recognise that, but that is not an argument not to make the interim targets legally binding. It is an argument for the Government to apply some flexibility in the type of interim targets they might set.
For example, in some areas, such as bird species abundance, you could have an interim target that relates to the planting of wildflower meadows or to particular types of tree planting in certain areas, because there is that flexibility and non-linearity towards the long-term goal. In other areas—for example, pesticide pollution in rivers—it would be much easier to do an outcome-based interim target. In both cases, they need to be legally binding. The Government could apply that kind of flexibility to the type of target, without compromising on the legally binding nature of it.
The Chair
Thank you. The Minister invited you to set out your concerns, and you have done so very lucidly, if I may say so. We cannot engage too long, however, in a bilateral discussion.
Deidre Brock
Q
“the armed forces, defence or national security”
and
“taxation, spending or the allocation of resources within government”.
Could you elaborate a little more on your concerns regarding that? Perhaps Ms Newsom and Ms Plummer would have something to add.
Ruth Chambers: I think the environmental principles clauses are really important and, in many ways, are a slightly overlooked part of the Bill, because everyone is interested in the OEP, and many people are interested in targets. The principles have become a little bit forgotten, so I am really pleased that question has been asked today.
They should be the bedrock of the Bill going forward. We were pleased to see the Government and the Minister say that they are intended to place environmental accountability at the heart of Government. That is a shared vision for what they should do. Unfortunately, we do not think that the framework as configured in the Bill will do that, for a number of reasons. You have highlighted one very important reason, which is that there are lots of carve-outs and exclusions. For example, the duty will not apply to the Ministry of Defence and will not apply to decisions like resource allocation and spending and so on. Already, we seem to be absolving quite a large part of Government from the principles.
Secondly, the duty is quite weak. It is to have due regard not to the principles themselves, but to a policy statement. The trouble is that none of us has yet seen what the policy statement says. Ever since it was first mentioned, we have been asking to see what it is, so that we can have some comfort that it will be a helpful tool for policy makers and for stakeholders. The sooner that it can be published—ideally, that would be during the Bill’s passage—the better.
The third reason is that this part of the Bill will apply to England only. We have questions as to what will happen to the principles in the rest of the UK and how trans-boundary decisions will be guided by the principles in the future.
Finally, on the policy statement, if you look at comparable arrangements for how policy statements on, say, national energy projects are endorsed and approved by Parliament, you see that they are subject to a motion that is voted on by Parliament. There is no such thing for this policy statement. We think that, if it really is that important, there should be some tighter parliamentary oversight of it.
Robbie Moore
Q
Ruth Chambers: It is an interesting question about the EHRC. We recently came across something that, if it would help the Committee, we could provide a short note on. I think that last year the Government undertook what is called a tailored review of the EHRC. In its evidence to that review, the Equality and Human Rights Commission itself was arguing for greater independence, more accountability to Parliament and a slightly different model, but the Government said that they did not think that that was appropriate for that body. So even a body that the Minister this morning was drawing some comparison with is saying that it feels that it is not sufficiently independent from Government.
We would not say that, for us, in the NGO sector, that is the best comparator. The two bodies that we think are more comparable in this space are the National Audit Office and the Office for Budget Responsibility—not necessarily in terms of their form and function, but in terms of how their independence is delivered via laws, both now and in the long term.
Ali Plummer: It is worth saying that what we are looking for here, ultimately, is that the OEP will hold the Government to account on meeting their environmental obligations, so building in some independent safeguards just to make sure that there is that gap between what the OEP can do, in terms of holding Government to account, and how it is set up is really important. As Ruth said, there are clear examples of that happening in other places, so what we are calling for is certainly not unique or unheard of in other places. I think that it would make sense to apply it to the OEP as well.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Rebecca Newsom: Absolutely—we totally agree with what you have just said. We have to think about our global impact, as well as getting things right here. There is a major problem with the UK’s global footprint at the moment. A lot of the products that we consume on the UK market often, when it is related to meat and dairy, are somehow connected, through the supply chain, to deforestation. For example, 95% of chickens slaughtered in the UK are farmed intensively in a way that means they are fed on soya, and half of Europe’s global deforestation footprint is in relation to soya. We know that it can be tracked back, but, at the moment, there is not that kind of transparency.
The way to deal with this issue is twofold: first, reduce how much meat and dairy we are consuming in the UK, because we need to be freeing up agricultural land globally to give back to nature and allow abundance to be restored. We know the Government are very keen on nature-based solutions for climate change, and a key part of the puzzle is giving land back to nature. That requires a shift in our consumption habits. A global footprint provision in the Environment Bill to allow targets for this would enable that to happen.
The other piece to the puzzle is sorting out our supply chains and putting a requirement on corporations to clean up the supply chain and conduct due diligence. That can be delivered through the amendment you tabled on enforcing the 2020 deforestation deadline; the Government have backed that previously, but it needs legal enforcement, and also the establishment of due diligence legislation in six months’ time, which would set up that framework to enable it to be delivered.
Ruth Chambers: Can I add one thing to that? Again, this is a vital issue. If we take a step back and think about the journey of this Bill, it has been on a journey, and we have been on a journey with it. Its existence came from draft provisions from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which were intended to close the environmental governance gap I have already talked about that arose as a result of EU exit. Then the Government took a very welcome step and decided to take the opportunity to enshrine domestic ambition in law through the Environment Bill, which came out in October and was re-published in January. This is the missing piece of that trilogy.
We totally understand that the Bill has been on a fast track—rightly, because nature’s decline cannot wait a moment longer. We understand why it has not been possible until this point in time to include measures in the Bill, but we hope the Government will do all they can to ensure these important issues are addressed, whether substantively or by using the Bill as a very important springboard ahead of the international summit later this year.
Bim Afolami
Q
Ali Plummer: From my perspective, one of the things the OEP can do is help bring a strategic overview of how some of this is working, to really drive and make regulation work a bit better in this country. One of the things regulation suffers from is underfunding and under-investment, to be honest; that applies particularly to bodies such as Natural England and the Environment Agency. Natural England has suffered huge budget cuts, and when it comes to its ability to properly regulate the things it is supposed to, it is struggling to fulfil some of its statutory duties. As a result, one of the things the OEP can do is take a much more strategic overview and hopefully provide a bit of insight and guidance—and enforcement, when needed—to make sure regulation is working effectively. It is not the OEP’s role to step in and perform the roles of these regulators, but it can take a much broader view and make sure the regulators are doing what they are supposed to be doing, and are properly upholding environmental law.
Bim Afolami
Q
Ali Plummer: For the most part, when we have seen reviews of existing regulators and of implementation of environmental law, what tends to be lacking is proper implementation. It is not necessarily a question of rewriting, simplifying or restructuring stuff; it is making sure that there is access to the information and guidance that business and industry need in order to comply. I am not sure that simplifying and trying to bring those bodies together would resolve that issue. We need up-front investment in regulators and to ensure that everyone has access to information and understands what they need to do to comply.
Ruth Chambers: To my mind—again, it is an important question—the clarity and shape of the future delivery landscape are very important. That seems beyond the scope of the Bill and the provisions that we are talking about. The Bill does include how the OEP can and should relate to some of the bodies in the existing landscape. There are provisions relating to how the OEP and the Committee on Climate Change should co-operate to ensure that there is no duplication and overlap, so that they operate seamlessly. We welcome the Government amendments in that space, too.
We spoke earlier about the UK. The OEP will be a body for England and potentially Northern Ireland. The Scottish and Welsh Governments are bringing forward their own legislation with their own versions of environmental governance. We hope that some of those proposals will be live at a time when this Bill is still live. There would be considerable merit in looking at them side by side, to see how they work across a UK-wide delivery landscape.
Bim Afolami
Q
Ruth Chambers: It might well be, but that ship has sailed, unfortunately. The Scottish and Welsh Governments are now making their own devolved governance arrangements. I think the Scottish legislation will be coming shortly. It is less clear when Welsh proposals will be out, but we hope that will be shortly. It is important to look at them side by side, to ensure that they interrelate on things such as transboundary issues. There is a clause in the Bill that requires future environmental governance bodies to co-operate and share information. I think that is very important.
To go back to Northern Ireland, if I may, we spoke about environmental principles being a slightly forgotten part of the Bill; we also feel that way about the Northern Ireland clauses in part 2. Again, we talk about the OEP and principles, but the Northern Ireland environmental governance provisions are a game-changer for Northern Ireland. We should not underestimate their importance. We hope that they get due consideration in the Committee, either in the oral evidence sessions or when amendments are proposed. They are vital; we cannot stress that enough.
Ali Plummer: On the issue of co-operation across four governance bodies, it is really important for citizens to be able to access complaint mechanisms. It should be clear that if they make a complaint to one body, and that is not the right place, it will be shared with the four country bodies. If there are four mechanisms, they need to work in co-operation, because they will all be upholding devolved environmental legislation. It is important that if a citizen makes a complaint to one point, they can have confidence that it will be looked at, no matter where in the UK they made it, and that it will get to the right place, without them necessarily needing to understand the interaction between these systems.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Ali Plummer: Not currently, the way the Bill is written. The provisions to set targets in priority areas are welcome. We are looking for slightly more clarity and reassurance in two areas: first, on the scope of targets that will be set, to ensure there are enough targets set in the priority areas, and that they will cover that whole priority area, and not just a small proportion of it; and secondly, on the targets being sufficiently ambitious to drive the transformation that we need in order to tackle some big environmental issues.
While there is a welcome duty to set targets—on, for example, the priority area of biodiversity—I think we are looking for more confidence that the Government’s intent will be carried, through the Bill, by successive Governments. I am not sure that that sense of direction is there. While there is a significant environmental improvement test, I do not think that quite gives us the confidence that the Bill will really drive the transformation that we need across Government if we are to really tackle the issues.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Ali Plummer: If I can look at the biodiversity provisions for a bit longer, we really want targets that drive the recovery of biodiversity across the board. With the way the Bill is drafted, we have concerns that you could see quite narrow targets set in some areas to do with biodiversity. For example, you could see targets set around habitat extent that would not necessarily speak to the quality of that habitat. They might not necessarily drive the improvement that we need in order to not just halt the declines in biodiversity but drive recovery.
We would want broad targets around species abundance, populations and the quality of habitat, as well as the extent of the habitat. I appreciate that the Bill is framework legislation, but we want to make sure that when targets are set and revised, it is within a strong and ambitious framework, with a clear vision of what we are trying to achieve, which, ultimately, is recovery of our natural world and our environment more broadly.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Thanks. Rebecca?
Rebecca Newsom: I echo everything that Ali has said. In terms of the target-setting framework and making sure that the long-term and interim targets are comprehensive enough, that really comes down to amendment 1, which would require an appropriate number and type of targets to be set in each priority area. Also, amendment 81 is about requiring the taking of independent advice, and full public consultation, which will inform the target-setting process. Finally, there is the one on ensuring that global footprint is included in the list of priority areas, so that there is a holistic view of the environment nationally and internationally, and improvement across the board is being pushed through that target-setting framework.
While those changes are absolutely vital, there are two areas where, in our opinion, such is the sense of urgency, the evidence base and the public demand for action in the short term that two short-term targets need to be put in the Bill. The first one is the 2020 deforestation target, which I have already touched on. The second would be a 50% plastic packaging reduction target by 2025, which is basically about providing a level playing field for retailers and suppliers, off the back of the voluntary commitment that Sainsbury’s has made, but no others have, and off the back of calls that retailers have made to us. They say they would support a plastic packaging reduction target in law, to allow the drive towards reuse as a level playing field in that sector.
Abena Oppong-Asare
That is really helpful.
Ruth Chambers: Very briefly, because I think my colleagues have covered the position extremely well, all I would add is that what we are seeking is not a different policy objective from the one that the Government are set on. We very much agree with the policy objective, which is to ensure that ambitious, enforceable, legally binding targets are set to drive environmental improvement; there is nothing between us on that. I think our difference is on how the framework is configured to achieve that, and whether what is written in the Bill is sufficient and gives the right signals, not only to business, as you heard this morning, but the public, and future Governments in which current Ministers may not have such an active role. It is about that clarity and the clear direction of travel, which we do not think is there, for the reasons that my colleagues have explained.
Alex Sobel
Q
Ruth Chambers: As we discussed with Deidre, the carve-outs are not helpful, because they absolve much of Government from applying the principles in the way that they should be applied. The most simple solution would be to remove or diminish those carve-outs. We do not think that a very strong or justified case has been made for the carve-outs, certainly for the Ministry of Defence or the armed forces; in many ways, it is the gold standard Department, in terms of encountering environmental principles in its work. There seems to be no strong case for excluding it, so remove the exclusions.
There are also proportionality and other limitations on how the policy statement should be taken forward. Again, we do not see a strong case for those being embedded in the law. As I mentioned, we should strengthen the duty, so that it is not just a duty to have due regard to a policy statement, which is a next-step-removed duty, but a duty in relation to the principles themselves. To repeat the point, it would be brilliant if we could see the policy statement soon, so that we can help the Department and the Government shape it into a really helpful vehicle for everybody.
Robbie Moore
Q
Rebecca Newsom: It is really important. There have been indications from companies that they are interested and support the idea of a due diligence framework. Again, it is about setting up a level playing field. There have been voluntary commitments over the last decade through the consumer goods forum to deliver deforestation-free supply chains by 2020. Those commitments have not been met or delivered on, basically because it has been a voluntary framework and the mechanisms have not been in place to deliver on it. The Bill is an opportunity to do that, and to set it in law and give the direction of travel. There is business interest in doing that because it means that the companies that want to move ahead and be progressive are not going to be at a competitive disadvantage.
Ali Plummer: More broadly, getting business on board across the whole Bill is really important. As we have talked about quite a lot, it is a bit of framework legislation. An awful lot will need to be delivered through actions taken elsewhere—for example, actions coming through the Agriculture Bill and through house builders. You had a session earlier on planning. It is about getting business on board and getting understanding. This will need to be delivered across society. It is beholden on us all to contribute to delivering the ambition of the Bill.
Getting understanding and input from business, particularly in the target-setting framework in terms of what will need to be in place to deliver that, is really important—not just for the global footprint bit but for the Bill more broadly. Finding that coherence and narrative between the first and second half of the Bill, and in other Bills including the Agriculture Bill, is also really important, so that they work together to deliver the Government ambition on environmental restoration and recovery.
Ruth Chambers: Again, this is a really important question. From our engagement with businesses across the piece—our members have many contacts with all sorts of businesses—we do not detect that business is opposed to such measures in any way. Of course businesses want to know the detail and the nature of the measures and any particular mechanisms that are proposed. The easiest way to do that is to set out a policy proposition and then consult on it. We would encourage the Government to do that as quickly as possible. That consultation can be done at the same time as the passage of the Bill. That is not unheard of. Certainly, we would want to see that. I worked on the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which did a similar thing in relation to a transparency-in-supply-chains requirement. That was done with the consent and help of businesses.
Finally, there is a group called the Global Resource Initiative, which is a taskforce that has been looking at the questions that we have been talking about. We hope that it will publish its report while the Bill is still live. If it does, we would encourage you to look at those recommendations as well.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Ruth Chambers: In our evidence we very much recognised that point. Our preferred position would be not to introduce charges just for single-use plastics, because although it sounds really good, it could have unintended consequences. If we really want as our policy objective to drive down single-use cultures and practices, we need to look at including a broader range of material. We would suggest an amendment to that part of the Bill that related not just to single-use plastics, but to all single-use materials.
Dr Whitehead
Q
The Chair
Ms Newsom? You are nodding.
Rebecca Newsom: I do not have a specific recommendation on a waste export ban date, but it is important to remember the big picture. Plastic production globally is set to quadruple, at the same time as a lot of countries across the world are due to enforce their own plastic waste export bans, coming from the UK. The only way to deal with the problem without causing a massive spike in incineration is to reduce how much plastic is used in the first place. That is why we have placed the emphasis on the reduction side of things. We need to emphasise the waste hierarchy. Reuse needs to be at the top of that, without emphasising as much on the recycling side because of course we need infrastructure there. But there is no way that the UK’s recycling infrastructure, even with a lot of extra investment, will be able to cope with the anticipated rise in production and with the waste export bans, so we need to turn the tap on the production at source.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Rebecca Newsom: Definitely. As Ruth said, we would support making sure that there are reduction targets stemming from the waste priority area across all materials. Such is the urgency specific to plastics that Greenpeace would support a plastic reduction target for packaging in the Bill in the short term, with an emphasis on reuse to avoid unintended environmental consequences.
Ruth Chambers: I definitely agree with all of what Rebecca has just said. Certainly one of the schedules in the Bill talks about disposal costs, which does not seem to sit readily within the strategic framework that Dr Whitehead has outlined. I do not have a view on the date, but you should certainly put that question to my colleague Libby Peake when she gives evidence on Thursday.
Finally, to reinforce a point that was made in the discussion, a key to ensuring that such a ban is to be enforced effectively is resourcing—the resourcing of bodies such as the Environment Agency. That point has come up a few times now in the discussion. It is obviously not an issue that the Bill has much ability to direct—it is an issue of much broader import than that—but it keeps coming up. If the Bill is to matter and to be delivered and implemented successfully, the resourcing needs to be there to match that over the long term.
The Chair
I need to bring the Minister back in. Ms McCarthy, do you want to come in briefly?
Kerry McCarthy
We are having a sitting on Thursday, when we may be looking at things such as the waste hierarchy, so I can probably save my question for that. It was mentioned earlier today that, because there is already technically a waste hierarchy that is enforceable in law, we do not need anything here. I would like to return to that, but I think we can do it at the Thursday sitting. I am flagging it up now in case Thursday’s witnesses are listening.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Ali Plummer: I think they are really welcome and vital. This area of the Bill is quite sparse. The targets are difficult. We are trying to tackle some challenging and difficult issues. One of the things that we will be looking for is the welcome conversation that the Government will open with experts, practitioners on the ground and stakeholders to make sure that we are genuinely setting achievable and ambitious targets. We are setting a high level of ambition but we are also clear what we need to do in order to achieve those targets. Those two conversations need to go hand in hand. We cannot set high-level ambitious targets without having a genuine conversation about how we are going to get there. Otherwise, we will end up setting long-term targets and potentially arguing for the next 15 years about how to do it and then have to start the whole process over again.
We are looking to build some of that Government intent into the Bill. We then have certainty and clarity that not just this Government but successive Governments will continue that intent and make sure that the Bill is going in that direction—in particular, on the advisory function, making sure the Government have access to good-quality expert advice. It follows more of the model we see in the Climate Change Act 2008, where there is a “comply or explain” mechanism built in. The Government can take this expert advice, which is public, transparent and clear, and comply with it, or give a good, clear explanation why not. Those are the sorts of things we are looking for. As Ruth reiterated earlier, I think we are as one on this. We totally recognise the Government intent. We are looking for a Bill that will make sure that successive Governments hold that intent. That open dialogue, where we can all have a genuine conversation about what we need to put in place to tackle these issues, is welcome.
Rebecca Newsom: I basically fully agree with what Ali has just said. I am also grateful for the intent; it is about translating it into a robust legal framework. I would add that, alongside getting the advice functions right, it is also about the public consultation through the target-setting process. As you said, continuing this conversation through formal consultation processes is key for the ongoing target-setting framework.
Ruth Chambers: Again, I endorse what my colleagues have said. I want to say two final things. First, we are asking for some of the very good intentions and objectives that we have talked about today to be more explicit, rather than implicit, so that whether we are a business, a member of the public or a future Minister, we have that clarity going forward.
Minister, you helpfully referred to the target development process, which will not form part of this Bill but will nevertheless be an important match to it. It will happen over the next few months, and if the targets in the first tranche are to be set by 2022, although that sounds a long way away, we all know from the way Governments work that it is actually not that far. The sooner that process can start in earnest and the sooner there can be clarity about how stakeholders can be involved, how we can feed in and when the consultation is going to be, the better, so we can make sure that we play a full and meaningful part in that.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed. I think that brings the proceedings fairly neatly to a conclusion. As I have said to everybody else and will say to you, earlier this morning the Committee passed a resolution agreeing to accept written submissions. If there is anything that you feel you missed out or wish you had said, please put it in writing and let the Committee have it, and it will be taken into account.
Ms Chambers, Ms Newsom and Ms Plummer, thank you very much indeed, both for your patience and for the information you have given to the Committee. We are all grateful to you, and look forward to a successful resolution.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)
Environment Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 12th March 2020
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 March 2020 - (12 Mar 2020)
The Chair
We now come to the first panel of witnesses this afternoon. We will hear oral evidence from Mr George Monbiot, a journalist and environmental campaigner, and Dr Richard Benwell, chief executive officer of the Wildlife and Countryside Link. Welcome. I have already introduced you, but can I invite the two witnesses to say a few words about who they are and what they bring to proceedings?
George Monbiot: George Monbiot; I have a long-standing interest in wildlife, environmental and countryside issues. Many of those wildlife issues are covered by this Bill.
Dr Benwell: Wildlife and Countryside Link is a coalition of 56 organisations working to improve the natural environment, animal welfare and people’s access to a healthy environment.
The Chair
We have until 2.45 pm before we reach the end of this session. I will call Dr Alan Whitehead to open up with one or two questions and then go to the Minister.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Q
George Monbiot: There are several areas that are clearly missing, because of the scale of the impacts and a long-standing failure to engage with them. One is the unlicensed release of game birds. They amount at some times of year to a greater biomass than all the wild birds put together and have a massive ecological impact, yet their release is unregulated and uncontrolled.
The Chair
Sorry to interrupt, but the acoustics are not brilliant in this room. If people could speak up a little, it would be helpful.
George Monbiot: I am so sorry. Associated with that is the widespread use of lead shot. It is completely incomprehensible and unacceptable that in the 21st century we are still allowed to spray lead shot all over the countryside with, again, significant environmental impacts. We have also, as a nation, completely failed to get to grips with phytosanitary issues; as a result, we are in a situation where just about every tree will eventually meet its deadly pathogen, because we are so successfully moving tree and other plant diseases around the world.
A previous Environment Minister, Thérèse Coffey, said that one dividend of Brexit would be that we could set much tighter phytosanitary rules. Well, I think we should cash in that dividend and see how far we can push it. There might be an option to say, “No live plant imports into the UK that are not grown from tissue culture.” At the moment, ash dieback alone is likely to cost around £15 billion in economic terms. The entire live plant trade has an annual value of £300 million, so in raw economic terms, let alone ecological terms, it makes no sense to continue as we are.
A fourth issue that I would like to introduce as missing from the Bill is the release of the statutory environmental agencies from the duty imposed on them in section 108 of the Deregulation Act 2015: to
“have regard to…promoting economic growth.”
Doing so might be appropriate in some Government agencies, but when you are meant to be protecting the natural world and ecosystems, that should come first. Very often, promoting economic growth is in direct opposition to the aims of protecting the living world, so it seems perverse to me that agencies such as the Environment Agency or Natural England should have a duty to promote economic growth.
Dr Benwell: I would like to start by saying that this is not a run-of-the-mill Bill; it is a really, really exciting piece of legislation that has the potential to be amazing. It has a huge job of work to do. The latest “State of Nature” report found that 44% of species are in long-term decline and that 15% of species here in the UK are at risk of extinction.
The trend of the decline of nature has been going on for a very, very long time. To put a Bill before Parliament with the aspiration of finally bending that curve to improve nature is a really big aspiration, and this Bill has many of the building blocks to start doing those things. It is really exciting; in particular, the promise of legally binding targets for nature is a tremendous step forward from where this Bill started—we really welcome it, so thank you for that. I hope that the Committee is excited about the prospect of considering a Bill that, hopefully, people will talk about for a very long time. That said, of course, I think that improvements need to be made to realise that ambition. If we were able to talk about two areas of improvement and one area of missing provisions, I would be very grateful.
Two areas really need improvement. The first is the targets framework. Although we have that promise of legally binding targets, at the moment the duty in clause 1 could be satisfied by setting a single target in each of the priority areas of air, water, waste and wildlife. Consequently, I think the first thing that we need to think about is how to shore up that provision, so that enough targets of the right ambition are set to deal with that whole natural environment improvement.
The second area that I would like to turn to if possible this afternoon is the nature chapter, in which there are, again, some really positive provisions. The system of local nature recovery strategies has the potential to start directing how we spend our natural environment money with much greater efficiency. At the moment, we spend our environment money in separate silos in the most inefficient manner imaginable—we spend our flood money here, our biodiversity money there and our air quality money there, and all that is usually tagged on after the end of the development process. In those local nature recovery strategies, we have the chance to align development planning and environmental spending in a way that can really up value for money and improve the way we use our cash.
The second bit in the nature chapter that really has good potential is the promise of net environmental gain in development. I have always thought of this as a sort of Jekyll and Hyde policy: if it is done badly, it can be a licence to trash, but if it is done well, it can be extra money from development to internalise some of that environmental cost that at the moment is not factored into the damage of development.
Again, those areas need a couple of improvements. Particularly on net gain, we need to ensure that it is properly covering the whole of development. At the moment, major infrastructure projects—nationally significant infrastructure projects—are not included. That is a big lacuna.
On local nature recovery strategies, the things that we need to tighten up are the duties to use those strategies. At the moment, there is a duty to do five-yearly planning and policy making, but that does not necessarily feed through into day-to-day planning and spending decisions. Focusing in on that duty, which is the one that also operationalises the local nature recovery strategies, is another really important way to fix the Bill.
If that can be done, not only can we start to think about bending that curve here in the UK—it is really important to remember that some big international negotiations are coming up this year: in Glasgow in November and before that, in autumn time, in Kunming, for the convention on biological diversity, where the world will come together to set biodiversity targets.
If we can fix this Bill and make it one that genuinely says, “Here in the UK, we will have a legal commitment to restore nature and the tools to do that”, not only could we start to bend the curve here but we could once again set a model for improving nature around the world.
Dr Whitehead
Q
I wonder whether you have any thoughts on how the Bill, though its various clauses and powers and permissions, actually does the task that it needs to do between Administrations and different stages of the process of protecting the environment, which will take place over a number of years. I am talking about how the Bill really does the job of surviving between Administrations and perhaps doing something like the Climate Change Act 2008 is doing—not necessarily binding future Administrations, but standing there as something that has to be done, so that an Administration must have very good reasons why they should not do the things subsequently, even if they are not as well disposed towards environmental improvement as the one we have at the moment.
Dr Benwell: I will make three points on that: two about the targets framework and one about the Office for Environmental Protection.
We want the targets framework to be a legacy framework—one that will keep having statutory force from Administration to Administration and ensure that the suite of targets can work for the natural environment as a system in place over time. That is why, even if this Government intend to set a really strong set of targets, we need to ensure that the duties in the Bill are strong enough so that when we come to a period of review later, any gaps that emerge are once again filled.
We talked earlier about the marine strategy framework directive targets, which end in 2020. We talked about the water framework directive targets, which end in 2027. We have thought about the ambient air quality directive targets, which end in 2030. The Bill needs to do the heavy lifting of ensuring that when those targets come and go, future Governments are obliged to revisit them and see which need to be put back in place.
I thought the Minister started a really fun game earlier of, “What’s your favourite target?”
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
You should chip in!
Dr Benwell: Thank you; I could do a little list now.
On biodiversity, we would have species abundance, species diversity and extinction risk. On habitat, you would have habitat extent and quality. On waste and resources, you would have resource productivity and waste minimisation. On air quality, you would have SOx, NOx—sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides—ozone and ammonia. And on water, you would have biological quality, chemical status and abstraction. There is a great set there, but some of those exist in law at the moment, so we do not need them now. What we do need is a framework that will ensure that when they come and go, future Governments have to fill that gap.
There are several ways to do that. You have heard about the options in relation to an overarching objective that could be a touchpoint for setting targets. You could simply list those targets in the Bill and say that they all have to exist somewhere in law. Alternatively, you could look at the significant environmental improvement test in clause 6 and make it clear that it needs to achieve significant improvement for the environment as a system—not just in the individual areas listed, but across the whole natural environment. That is so we know that we will have a strong set of targets now and in the future.
I will be briefer on the next points, but that was point one. Point two would be about ensuring that action actually happens. The environmental improvement plans should link to targets. There should be a requirement for environmental improvement plans to be capable of meeting targets and for the Government to take the steps in those plans. And the interim targets to get you there should be legally binding.
Point three—I promised I would be faster—is about the Office for Environmental Protection and ensuring that it has the independence and powers to hold the Government to account on delivery.
I have just remembered one thing missing from the Bill, in response to Dr Whitehead’s first question: the global footprint of our consumption and impacts here in the UK. Adding a priority area for our global footprint and a due diligence requirement on business would be a really remarkable step, again, to show our leadership around the world.
George Monbiot: All I would add to that brilliant and comprehensive review is that there has been an extraordinary failure on monitoring and enforcement of existing environmental law in this country. We see that with Environment Agency prosecutions and follow-ups, and similarly with Natural England.
You can have excellent laws in statute, but if the resources and the will to enforce are not there, they might as well not exist. At every possible opportunity in the Bill, we need to nail that down and say, “That money will be there, and those powers will be used.” That is particularly the case with OEP, but it also applies to the existing statutory agencies.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Q
Given that we have left the EU, I personally see this being a much more holistic system. I would like your views on that. You might also touch not only on the opportunities for improving the overall environment, but how this will touch on our society and business; we have to bring those people along with us.
George Monbiot: I think there is a fantastic opportunity in clause 93, which inserts the words “and enhance biodiversity”. That is something we can really start to build on. We find ourselves 189th out of 216 countries in terms of the intactness of our ecosystems. We have seen a catastrophic collapse in wildlife diversity and abundance, yet for far too long our conservation mindset has been, “Let’s just protect what we have”, rather than, “Let’s think about what we ought to have.” I would love to see that built on.
We can further the general biodiversity objective by saying, “Let’s start bringing back missing habitats and species to the greatest extent possible,” with the reintroduction of keystone species, many of which we do not have at all in this country, others of which we have in tiny pockets in a few parts of the country, but we could do with having far more of.
We could re-establish ecosystems that might in some places be missing altogether, such as rainforests in the west of the country; the western uplands of the country would have been almost entirely covered in temperate rainforest, defined by the presence of epiphytes—plants that grow on the branches of the trees. There are only the tiniest pockets left, such as Wistman’s wood on Dartmoor or Horner wood on Exmoor. Those are stunning, remarkable and extraordinary places, but they are pocket handkerchiefs. They would have covered very large tracts.
We need to use this wonderful enhancement opportunity, which the Bill gives us. There is a lot to build on in clause 93. We can say, “Okay, let’s start thinking big and look at how we could expand that to a restoration duty and, hopefully, a reintroduction and re-establishment duty.” That harks back to clause 16, where we have five very good environmental principles; I think they have been introduced from international best practice. But perhaps we could add one more to those, which would be the restoration of damaged or missing habitats and ecosystems and the re-establishment of nationally extinct native species. We will then not only be firefighting with the Bill, but looking forward to a better world, rather than a less bad one than we might otherwise have had.
Dr Benwell: That is a lovely way to put it: starting to think about restoration and improvement, rather than clinging on to what we are missing. That is the opportunity provided by the Bill.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Dr Benwell: I am with you. I am saying that is a very good thing. Ensuring that we do that at a systemic level rather than improving one or two cherry-picked areas is something that we need to lock down in the targets framework.
You are right: the approach of doing things in a holistic manner, rather than just choosing one or two favourite options, is so important. It is the core insight of such a broad swathe of environmental thinking, from James Lovelock’s Gaia theory, on the one hand, to Dieter Helm’s theory of natural capital on the other. The common insight is that the environment has to operate as a system. If you choose one thing to focus on, you end up causing more problems than you solve. Think of tree planting. When that is the only, myopic target, we end up planting trees on peatlands and making things worse, or doing what was proposed the other week: planting trees on beautiful, wildflower meadowland. You have to think about the system. That is the promise here.
There are two other big opportunities, if you are asking where we could get excited about with the Bill. We need to think about the benefits of the environment for human health. If we could get a handle on the World Health Organisation target regarding the 40,000 premature deaths from air pollution a year, and demonstrate to the Government that there are wide-ranging benefits from environmental improvement, that would be thrilling.
On the business point, it is such a cliché but it remains true that what businesses really want is certainty. In the natural environment sector, they have never had anything more than fluffy aspiration. So many environmental policies of the past have said, “Ooh, we’ll do nice things for nature and we might see some improvement.” If we nail it down with a strong set of legally binding targets, businesses will know that they need to start changing their practices and investing money, and we will see some change on the ground.
There are lots of particular provisions in the Bill that could work well for businesses, such as net gain—at the moment, it is a patchwork from local authority to local authority, but we can standardise that now—and local nature recovery strategies, where we will know about targeting business investment in the future. There are big opportunities. We just need to tighten up those few provisions.
George Monbiot: To pick up on Richard’s second point about health and connectedness, almost all Governments have always agreed that outdoor education is really positive, yet nobody funds it. There is a massive loss of contact between schoolchildren and the living world, and I hope the Bill might be an opportunity to put that right. That is another thing that I would add to the shopping list.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you very much, gentlemen. The 25-year plan is being enacted through the Bill, and the plan does touch on the area that you mention, but thank you.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Q
On clause 20, and the requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to report on international environmental protection legislation every two years, do you think it might be more appropriate for the OEP to do that, and to decide what international legislation is really important, rather than the Secretary of State?
Dr Benwell: On the exemptions from the principles policy statement, it is important to think about the weaknesses in that section as a whole. It is unfortunate that the legal duty attached to the principles is to have due regard to a principles policy statement, rather than some sort of direct duty on the principles themselves. I am hopeful that the principles policy statement, when it comes out, will do some beneficial things, if it reaches into all Government Departments and sets a clear process for the way the principles should be considered. I hope that the Department will be able to share its thinking on the principles policy statement as we go. Engagement has been very good, on the whole, with the Bill, but it would really help to see that principles policy statement in public.
The exemptions are very wide-ranging. It perhaps makes sense for certain activities of national security to be exempt. However, there is no reason to exempt Ministry of Defence land, for example, which includes areas of extremely important biodiversity. In fact, that is probably one area where we will see net gain credits generated on public land under the net gain clause, so it is strange that that is exempt.
Perhaps the weirdest exemption is the one that essentially takes out everything to do with the Treasury. When we are thinking about things like the principle of “the provider is paid and the polluter pays”, it is very strange that nothing to do with taxation or spending will be considered in the principles policy statement.
As for clause 20, I think you could do both. It would be perfectly possible for the Government and the OEP to consider international examples, and I think it would be very useful to benchmark both primary legislation and secondary legislation, in terms of non-regression. The Bill as a whole can make sure that we never have to rely on that if it is strong enough and brave enough.
The Chair
Mr Monbiot, do you have anything to add?
George Monbiot: No, that was a lovely answer.
Caroline Ansell
Q
Dr Benwell: The opportunities are to align spending in a much more targeted manner and to build in environmental thinking at a much earlier stage in development and other decision making at the local level. At the moment, there is no real strategic planning for nature above the local authority level. This is an opportunity for local know-how to combine with national priorities in a way that will help to bake in the environment right at the start. That should explicitly link to policies such as environmental land management, so that farmers who invest in measures that make sense for the local environment will be paid more. That is a very sensible way to target agri-environment schemes and a very good way to target things such as net gain spending.
The problem is that, at the moment, the duty to use local nature recovery strategies is a duty to have regard to local nature recovery strategies in the exercise of the new biodiversity duty, which itself is a duty only to make plans and policies. There are several levels before anybody actually has to use a local nature recovery strategy. The worst-case scenario is that we put a new obligation on local authorities to come up with these plans.
Caroline Ansell
Q
Dr Benwell: We hope that all sorts of stakeholders will be involved in the production. We hope that Natural England will sign off the plans, to show that they are ecologically rational, and that non-governmental organisations will come together with water companies, developers and local businesses to make it happen. However, all of those need to be sure that the plans will actually be used in day-to-day planning and spending decisions; otherwise, they will waste a lot of time and money putting together things that will just sit on the shelf. The duties to actually use them are not quite there at the moment.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Q
We heard from one witness that the Bill is slightly lacking an overarching vision, which they thought could be addressed by having not just environmental objectives but objectives on health and wellbeing—I see that they are debating that in the Lords today—a bit like in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. The other issue mentioned was resource use, because there is stuff about reducing single-use plastics but not about consumption patterns overall. Decarbonisation was mentioned as well. Do you feel that the Bill could encompass those things without being unwieldy?
The other thing, which is slightly connected, is the global footprint, and I have put down some amendments on that. I entirely agree that there is not much point in doing things here if you are buying in stuff that causes environmental degradation elsewhere, or if we are funding it. I wonder whether you can say a bit more. George, on that point, one of my amendments would add to the four priority areas of the global footprint. What would be the sort of targets that we would be looking at? What would be the first things that we would address on that front?
George Monbiot: Of course, footprinting is now quite a technical and well-documented field, in which we can see what our footprint is as a proportion of our biological capacity. In land use, for example, we are using roughly 1.7 times as much as the agricultural land that we have here. A fantastic objective—it would be a long-term one—would be bring that down to 1. If we were to look at living within our means as far as key ecological resources are concerned, that would be a wonderful overarching objective for anyone.
Dr Benwell: On global resources, we should set out with an aspiration to deal with the UK’s entire environmental footprint eventually, including embedded water, embedded carbon and all those sorts of things, but for now it is very difficult to come up with reliable metrics for everything, so we should start where we can. One of the most straightforward ways is dealing with products in the supply chain that cause deforestation. It is basically the point that George was making. We know what those products are—it is things like leather, beef, soya, cocoa—
George Monbiot: Palm oil.
Dr Benwell: Palm oil, of course. It is perfectly possible to measure that footprint and set a target for reducing it. Businesses themselves came up with a voluntary commitment back in 2010, and it has had no real effect on the UK’s impact on global deforestation in some of the most amazing areas of the world. It is time to back that up with a regulatory commitment, and that would be good for the businesses that have shown a lead. At the moment, the only ones who properly investigate their supply chains, disclose what they find and take due diligence are the ones that are trying really hard. Unfortunately, it makes them look bad when the ones that are doing the worst and most damaging practices are just not bothering to report.
We should start off with a priority area for the global footprint being a metric for deforestation. Then we should have a due diligence duty that requires all businesses to look across their supply chain for deforestation risks and, crucially, to act to reduce those risks where they find them. That would be a massive step forward. It would be such an unlocker in international negotiations, where the refrain is always that developed countries are not doing their bit, but are just exporting their harm. If we show that we are not going to play that game anymore and are actually going to take responsibility, that would be an amazing thing to lay on the table in international talks.
George Monbiot: To Richard’s list of commodities with very damaging impacts, I would certainly add fish. We currently import all sorts of fish with devastating by-catch rates. The Fisheries Bill aims to improve performance within UK waters, although it is pretty vague at the moment. It would be profoundly hypocritical if we were to carry on importing fish from places with very poor environmental performance.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Dr Benwell: It should definitely be in there. I think there is full potential for that to be covered in the Bill. If there is not, it should be broadened out. Yes, definitely, we should think of our approach to the natural environment as serving wildlife and people. Setting an overarching objective is one way to do it, or you could deal with specific areas.
George Monbiot: And specifically listing children and future generations as people for whom there is a particular duty of care in terms of protecting the natural environment.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Q
I feel that the Bill is the overarching framework for a positive way forward, and that were we to try to lock in all sorts of specific targets it would lose what it is trying to achieve, because there would be so much going on. What is your opinion on taking the matter to secondary legislation in the future so that we could listen to experts? I do not know what the experts would say about somewhere like Dartmoor. They might have differing opinions, and then how would we know what success looks like?
George Monbiot: You raise the fascinating issue of baselines. What baseline should we be working to? Should we be working to an Eemian baseline—the previous interglacial, when there were elephants and rhinos roaming around, with massive, very positive environmental effects, and there was an identical climate to today’s? Should we be aiming for a Mesolithic baseline, when there would have been rainforest covering Dartmoor; a Neolithic one, when it would have been a mixture of forest and heath; or a more recent one, which is basically heath and grass, with not much heath left?
The truth is that baselines will continue to shift because we will move into a new climatic regime. All sorts of other environmental factors have changed, so we will never be able to recreate or freeze in time any previous state. That is why I think that a general legislative aim should be restoration and the re-establishment of missing species, without having to specify in primary legislation which ones they will be. The restoration of missing habitats, as well as the improvement and enhancement of existing habitats, is the bit that is missing from clause 93. We could add in habitats that we no longer have but could still support. However, we should not lock it down too much.
A big problem with existing conservation, particularly with its single-species and interest-features approach, has been to lock in place previous instances of environmental destruction. You will go to a site of special scientific interest and it will say, “The interest feature here is grass no more than 10 cm high.” Why is that the interest feature? Because that is the condition in which we found the land when we designated it as an SSSI. Is it the ideal condition from an ecological point of view? Certainly not.
We need flexibility, as well as the much broader overarching target of enhancing biodiversity and enhancing abundance at the same time. We could add to that a target to enhance the breadth and depth of food chains: the trophic functioning of ecosystems, through trophic rewilding or strengthening trophic links—“trophic” meaning feeding and being fed upon. Having functioning food webs that are as deep as possible, ideally with top predators, and as wide as possible, with as many species at every level, would be a really great ecological objective.
Dr Benwell: You are right: we would not want to set detailed targets for the condition of Dartmoor in the Bill. That would not make sense. Nor, indeed, do we necessarily want to set numerical targets for anything else. What we need is the confidence that the suite of targets will be comprehensive and enough to turn around the state of nature. In the Bill at the moment, that legal duty could be fulfilled by setting four very parochial targets for air, water, waste and wildlife. I do not think that that is the intention, but when it comes down to it, the test is whether the target would achieve significant environmental improvement in biodiversity.
You could imagine a single target that deals with one rare species in one corner of the country. That could legitimately be argued to be a significant environmental improvement for biodiversity. Unquestionably it could, but what we need—I think this is the Government’s intention—is something that says, “We are not going to do that. We are going to treat the natural environment as a comprehensive system and set enough targets to deal with it as a whole.”
I can think of three ways of doing that. You could set an overarching objective that says what sort of end state you want to have—a thriving environment that is healthy for wildlife and people; you could list the different target areas, as I had a go at before, on the basis of expert advice, and make sure that those are always there; or you could look again at the significant environmental improvement test and make it clear that it is not just talking about individual priority areas but about the environment as a whole, on land and at sea. It does not matter how the Government do it. I think that is their intention. However, at the moment, we are not convinced that the legal provisions in the Bill would require that now or in future iterations of the target framework.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Q
Dr Benwell: The test is not really a metric; it is a subjective opinion of the Secretary of State. Of course, that will be an informed opinion, but the significant improvement test is, “In the opinion of the Secretary of State, will a significant improvement be achieved through a particular target?” I am sure the Secretary of State will take advice on that, but it is a fairly loose test at the moment, and one that does not necessarily guarantee that sort of overarching improvement. I will leave it at that, because I am hopeful that in 3.5 minutes, we might return to net gain.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
George Monbiot: No, I will leave the space for—[Laughter.]
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Q
Dr Benwell: “Empowers”, possibly; “requires”, not quite yet. We are hoping that the environmental improvement plan will be cross-departmental, and that it will contain specific actions that are demonstrably capable of reaching a target, just as we do with carbon budgets. That environmental improvement plan should set interim targets that are binding, and it should say, “These are the steps we are going to take to get there in the Department for Transport, in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.” That will give us the confidence that stuff is going to happen, rather than waiting 14 years and then realising we are going to miss it.
George Monbiot: To add one small and specific thing to that, clause 86 contains what appears to be a very heavy reliance on internal drainage boards and a potential enhancement of their powers. Those drainage boards are not accountable to any Government Department, so there is a remarkable democratic deficit there. If you go ahead with clause 86 in its current form, you are effectively letting go of governmental control over a very important and large area. They are a quite extraordinary, almost feudal set of organisations; for instance, there is a property qualification for voting in internal drainage board elections. They really are effectively a law unto themselves, with appalling environmental credentials and very poor flood prevention credentials as well. If you want departmental responsibility, I would disband the internal drainage boards—as they have done in Wales—and bring their duties into the Environment Agency or another statutory agency.
The Chair
I am afraid there will not be time for any further questions; we have to move on. [Interruption.] Well, I am afraid we have a very tight timetable. I will try to make it up subsequently to those who were unable to get in, but we have to conclude this session by 2.45, and it is now 2.44 and 35 seconds. Anybody who asked a question would be unlikely to get anything like a coherent answer in the time available, so we have to close this session.
I thank our two witnesses for the benefit of their experience and the advice they have given. We are very grateful. It has been useful and helpful to our deliberations.
Dr Benwell: Thank you.
Examination of Witnesses
Libby Peake and Richard McIlwain gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Keep Britain Tidy and the Green Alliance. We have until 3.15 pm for this session. I ask our witnesses to briefly introduce themselves and their organisation.
Richard McIlwain: I am Richard McIlwain, deputy chief executive of the charity Keep Britain Tidy. We work on issues of litter, resource and waste consumption, sustainable living and the improvement of quality places. We ultimately want to see a zero-litter and zero-waste society.
Libby Peake: I am Libby Peake, head of resource policy at Green Alliance, which is a charity and think-tank focusing on ambitious leadership for the environment. To achieve that, we work with other NGOs, including through the Greener UK coalition, as well as businesses, to identify the most resource-efficient policies.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Libby Peake: I think you are absolutely right. We would certainly welcome the framing in the resources and waste strategy, which is trying to maximise resource use and minimise waste—we think that is the right strategy. There are some things in the Bill that would lead in that direction. The resource efficiency clauses could be very useful. One of our concerns is that these are enabling measures and we are not entirely sure how they will be used.
In terms of what has been talked about and debated, the focus has overwhelmingly been on municipal waste and plastics. To give a bit of perspective, it is worth remembering that plastics make up about 10% of municipal waste; municipal waste makes up about 12% to 13% of all waste; and waste is the final stage of the material cycle. Looking at the overall material impact that the UK is responsible for, 81% of the materials that meet final UK demand occur outside the UK. In terms of measures that we would like to see in the Bill, which we think could improve things, it would be really useful to take greater account of the global material footprint. That would send a powerful signal.
There are some simple measures in the Bill that could potentially be changed quite easily. The extended producer responsibility clauses are welcome. The clauses themselves look at things such as preventing material becoming waste and products becoming waste. The overall framing of it, however, is still on end of life and disposal costs, which does not necessarily point people in the right direction in terms of preventing waste and respecting the hierarchy.
I am sure that we will come on to the single-use plastics charge, which is also potentially worrying because it applies just to plastics. There are lots of other materials with impacts that could be avoided if the Bill took a bigger view towards that sort of thing.
Richard McIlwain: I completely agree. In many respects, all the key words and phrases are in the Bill, but it is about looking for the joined-up flow from a waste hierarchy perspective.
To go back to clause 1, where it sets the idea of long-term targets at 15 years-plus, it is very brief about waste and resource. I wonder if there, in terms of painting a picture, it could outline the sorts of issues that we are looking to push targets towards, such as becoming more resource efficient, reducing the amount of waste we produce overall, and improving our recycling rates across the whole range of wastes.
As Libby says, when we talk about recycling rates, we often talk about household waste and municipal waste, but a lot of inert waste and soil still go to landfill. There is an opportunity there to look more broadly across the whole piece.
Libby touched on a number of points, including the specific detail about extended producer responsibility and charges for single-use plastics. There are opportunities there to frame the language a bit more and, as Libby said, to be specific when we are talking about things such as charges for single-use plastics. We should not get hung up on the issue of plastic. Plastic pollution is an issue, but plastic itself is a valuable material. We want to reduce consumption of it but keep what is in the system going round and round as far as we can. That is where the targets that look at resource use, waste minimisation and recycling will be key.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Libby Peake: The Government have said that they are going adopt the measures in the circular economy package, but we have not determined yet whether we are going to exactly match what the EU does in future. Yesterday, the EU published a circular economy action plan, which we will not be bound by. It is really welcome that the Government have said on multiple occasions that they want to at least meet, and preferably exceed, what the EU does, but there are some ways in which the document that was released yesterday is potentially more ambitious than the measures laid out here.
One of the things in that document is that the EU is planning to regulate and tax single use and planned obsolescence, and it is not focused specifically on plastics. If the UK wants to get a jump on the EU, there is an opportunity to do that by simply changing the language in the Bill so that we are tackling single use, rather than just single-use plastics.
Richard McIlwain: I agree that the EU has already talked about an ambition, even by 2030, to halve waste produced. That is very ambitious, granted, by 2030, but that is the level of ambition it is looking at.
As is always the case with enabling legislation, primary Acts, the devil will be in the detail of the statutory instruments, but there may well be some framing to do in the Bill to set the level of ambition about where we are ultimately trying to get to on the materials we consume, the amount we recycle, and the amount of waste we produce.
Even in the circular economy package, there are some targets that have been talked about in the resources and waste strategy, such as 65% household waste recycling. We are currently bumping around 45%, so we have some way to go, but Wales is up above 70%. Perhaps we should be looking across at Wales as a leader, as much as we look to the EU.
Libby Peake: An earlier leaked version of the circular economy action plan that was released yesterday included a much more ambitious target, which was to halve resource use—not just halve residual waste. That did not make it into the final version, but it would have been revolutionary. It was widely applauded by the environment sector. It has not made it into the EU legislation, but that does not mean that the UK cannot aim for that and up its ambition. That is certainly something that we would like to see in the targets.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Yesterday, we had some business interests explaining how the measures in the Bill would help them change the design of their products so that they are more reusable and recyclable, longer lasting and so forth. What are your views on measures in the Bill that would help consumers to take more considered actions towards reducing waste and recycling? I am thinking particularly about the requirement for local authorities to be more consistent in their waste collections.
Libby Peake: I would say that, in terms of recycling collections, a lot of the things that the Government have proposed will certainly correct some of the long-standing shortcomings of the system we have had in the UK. We have a postcode lottery, because people do not necessarily know what can be recycled and it is quite confusing.
In terms of getting people to feel responsible for their decisions and the materials they create, the main mechanism in the Bill that does that is the deposit return scheme, because that is the one thing that will indicate to people that the material they have actually has a value; it is not just a waste material that you need the council to take away. We would certainly encourage the Government to come forward as quickly as possible with plans for an all-in deposit scheme that can encourage such thinking.
Richard McIlwain: I completely agree. There has been an awful lot of focus over the last few years on how we incentivise business to do the right thing. Often, that is about economics and the bottom line, and we sometimes forget that that is equally important for the citizen. We often come up with campaigns and ways to raise awareness—they involve pictures of dolphins and whales—and we appeal to people’s sense of morality rather than making it cheaper for them to do the right thing.
Libby mentioned a deposit return scheme, which works brilliantly in over 40 countries and regions around the world. We should absolutely be doing that on time, by 2023; we should not be delaying. Charges on single-use items, not just single-use plastics, is another economic nudge for people. On recycling, there are twin sides of the coin. We need to extend producer responsibility and simplify the types of packaging material, which will hopefully all be recyclable. On the other hand, having a harmonised collection system that allows people to collect those at home will make a big difference.
One further step that could ultimately be considered is whether you could place an economic incentive in the home through a scheme such as “save as you recycle”. Once you have harmonised people’s collection systems, you would make waste a separate chargeable service, so people pay for what they have taken away—in the same way that, if you are on a water meter, you pay for what you use. That would really focus minds. There is a real relationship between the producer’s responsibility and the citizen’s responsibility, but we need to incentivise both—not just business.
Libby Peake: That is a logical extension of the “polluter pays” principle. It is great that that is part of the Bill and that part of Government thinking is that the polluter must pay. At the moment, however, you are tackling only one side: the producers. People’s decisions produce waste as well, and not having “save as you recycle” variable charging, or what is traditionally called “pay as you throw”, puts people off a bit. Not having that does not necessarily carry through the logic of producer responsibility and “polluter pays”.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Libby Peake: I think it is a really big step forward in sorting out the long-standing problems of the recycling system. It is not yet clear how it will deliver the Government’s commitments and aspirations on waste reduction and resource use reduction. In a way, it is slightly unfortunate—not that I would want to the delay the Bill—that this has come out before the waste prevention plan update, which was due last year and which I understand will be consulted on soon. Hopefully, that will set out some more ambitious policies for how resource use and waste will be minimised before we get to recycling.
Richard McIlwain: That is a fair point. Absolutely, from a Keep Britain Tidy perspective, we welcome the measures in the Bill. The extended producer responsibility, DRS and charging for single-use items—we hope it is not just single-use plastic items—are big steps forward. As Libby says, in terms of extended producer responsibility, it talks about promoting not just recycling but refill. You would hope that the modulated sums applied to each piece of packaging would be far less if an item can be refilled or reused rather than simply recycled.
There does not seem to be much in there in terms of how we reduce our material footprint overall and how we reduce our waste overall. That is probably an area that we need to consider.
Deidre Brock
Q
Richard McIlwain: In a word, no.
Deidre Brock
Q
Richard McIlwain: The Bill allows for five-year plans and for interim targets within that. I do not believe they are statutory targets. We should be looking at statutory targets that are within a parliamentary cycle.
It is all very well having long-term, 15-year targets—that is absolutely the right way; the Climate Change Act 2008 is a classic example of that—but having statutory targets that are agreed at the beginning of each Parliament and then enforced through that Parliament will be key, not just in terms of arriving at the 15-year target, but in terms of giving investors, business and others confidence that they can invest in things that are not ultimately going to be stranded assets.
Libby Peake: It is quite difficult to say, because we do not know what the targets are going to be. Obviously whatever the targets are, we want them to be as ambitious as possible, and we want to have interim statutory targets to make sure that we are meeting them, like you get with the Climate Change Act.
The Chair
We have 14 minutes left and six people who want to use up that time. It is highly unlikely that I will get all six people in, but those who do get the opportunity to ask questions, please be as rapid as possible.
Marco Longhi
Q
The Chair
That is exactly what I mean by a well-targeted question.
Richard McIlwain: I guess it depends what you mean by the impact on local authorities. If extended producer responsibility transfers the costs of dealing with packaging—whether it is in the recycling stream, the residual waste stream or as litter—and if that is a 100% net transfer and is fairly apportioned, that is a win for local authorities.
I do think there is a transition period; we need to look at how we transition from the systems we have towards the systems that we may well need, for instance in terms of harmonising waste collections. There is a role for the Government in looking at where they can overcome some of those transition needs, such as in contractual matters—for example, if local authorities look to break contracts early to comply with the harmonised systems, because some of them will be in longer-term contracts with the waste providers—to ensure that the costs do not fall unfairly on local authorities.
Ultimately, what I say in my role—we work a lot with local authorities—is that local authorities should look at this very positively. There are a lot of benefits coming down the line, not just in terms of the cost transfer but in terms of the service that they can provide to citizens, such as allowing people to recycle more and better, as long as those material cost considerations are ironed out early on.
Libby Peake: We know that local authorities are concerned about the impacts of the Bill, but as Rich said, what they need to remember is that the extended producer responsibility reform could really help them. We are moving from a system where local authorities and, ultimately, taxpayers pick up about 90% of the costs for our recycling system to a system where the producers pay 100% of the costs.
Certainly, in terms of how DEFRA officials have been looking at it and the consultations we have seen so far, they are very aware that they do not want to negatively impact local authorities. If you look at things like the commitment to bring in universal food waste collections, which is an incredibly important bit of this legislation, they have said that that will be fully funded. That is really important.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
My second question, quickly, is that on the Environmental Audit Committee we had a lot of evidence, including from Zero Waste Vietnam, that our waste that was being exported was not being recycled or reprocessed, but was literally being dumped. Do you think that the Bill can raise people’s confidence that that that will no longer happen?
Richard McIlwain: Yes, that is ultimately what we should strive for the ambition to be. When we talk about single-use plastics, we must also remember cigarettes and cigarette butts, which are a form of single-use plastic. By count—by the number of them—they are the most widely littered item across the country. There is no reason, for instance, that an extended producer responsibility scheme could not be applied to the tobacco industry as much as to the packaging industry. Let us get some money in to sort that issue out, and plan prevention campaigns to stop that sort of littering.
Evidence from Cardiff University, Wouter Poortinga and others suggests that citizens respond more strongly to the idea of a loss than a benefit. I would argue that is why there is single-digit use of refillable coffee cups, as compared with paper cups. The discount is not attractive to people, and not many people know that if you turned that into a charge, every single person buying coffee would be subject to that charge, and it would get home much more quickly.
We did some YouGov polling—it is two years old now—which suggests that once you get to a 20p or 25p charge, not many people say that they would like to continue paying that for the benefit of having a paper cup. If we get this right and we look across the spectrum of single-use items, plastic items and cigarette butts, and apply extended producer responsibility charging and deposits correctly, those economic incentives could make a big difference, and we could take the public with us.
Libby Peake: I would like to add to the bans and charges point. Bans on stirrers, cotton buds and straws absolutely make sense, because those things are likely to wind up in the ocean. In advance of those bans coming in, we have seen lots of shifts to other equally unnecessary single-use items made from other materials. McDonald’s is now switching from plastic straws to 1.8 million straws a day that are made out of paper and are not recyclable. We know that bans will cause environmental problems down the line that could be avoided if we used foresight now. It would be great if the Government took that stance and did not simply look at plastics. They can anticipate the perverse outcomes that we know are coming, and that can be prevented right now if we introduce the possibility of charging for all materials.
In terms of waste dumping, it is important to remember that it is absolutely illegal for the UK to send polluting plastic and polluting waste abroad. We are an independent signatory to what is called the Basel convention, which obliges wealthy countries such as the UK to ensure that we are not sending any material abroad if we have reason to believe that it will not be reprocessed in an environmentally sound manner. It is welcome that the Government are saying that they want to stop the practice, but what really needs to be done to stop it is much better resourcing of the Environment Agency and the other sorts of regulatory bodies. The EA’s funding went down by 57% from 2010 to 2019, and that has had the knock-on effect of not allowing it to carry out the necessary inspections and ensure that this sort of waste crime, or this sort of contamination, is not leaving our shores. In 2016-17, it only carried out about one third of the targeted inspections of recyclers and exporters. In 2017-18, it only carried out three unannounced inspections. There is a vanishingly small possibility that people who are deliberately exporting contaminated waste are going to get caught. I think that speaks to the importance of properly regulating and resourcing all the regulators and the Office for Environmental Protection going forward.
The Chair
We are really running short of time now, so I am going to take two questions and put them to the witnesses. First, Richard Graham, and then Jessica Morden.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Q
Richard, you have said how important it is to have the cost of collecting waste separated, so that people know what they are paying for, are incentivised and so on. Do you think that those opportunities are actually in the council tax? That is what people are really paying, is it not?
Richard McIlwain: Yes, they are under council tax, and because they are under council tax—
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Q
Richard Graham
My question was only for Richard.
Richard McIlwain: It is within the council tax—absolutely. People sometimes think that they pay an awful lot for waste disposal, when actually it is quite small as an overall approach to council tax. I would perhaps like to see local authorities being more obvious about the way that council tax breaks down. I know that sometimes you get a letter with your council tax bill and a nice little pie chart, but I think we could be more active in explaining to people exactly what that tax does, which would then allow us at some point to break out waste as a chargeable service, as people would be used to it by then and would see the cost. Also, potentially, they would see the benefits of reducing their waste and having a smaller residual waste bin, because it will save them money.
Do you want me to say more, on fly-tipping?
Jessica Morden
Q
Richard McIlwain: The Bill touches on elements of fly-tipping. I think the electronic waste tracking will be a big step forward, but again there are some people who simply do not bother with a written transfer or an electronic system, no matter what. I think it will make the system more effective and more efficient, but I also think that there is work to do to think about how we drive down 1 million fly-tipping incidents every year.
What we need to do, in my opinion, is reform the system of carriers, brokers and dealers, so that it is much harder to become a registered waste carrier. I would then have a big national campaign that makes people aware that if they give their waste to anyone who is not a registered waste carrier, they can receive a £400 fine, or potentially a criminal conviction, because far too few people are aware of that. Make the system better and more robust, and make people aware that they should ask about the system, and I think you could cut off the source of waste to fly-tippers at the very beginning.
Richard Graham
Q
Libby, clauses 49 and 50 spell out in huge detail the opportunities for businesses to consider redesigning their products in a more environmentally friendly way. The Bill also talks about food collection, not only from households but from businesses. What encouragement do you think that gives to businesses to redesign products, and also to local councils to get stuck into anaerobic digesters?
The Chair
Before you answer that, can I bring in Abena Oppong-Asare to ask a very quick question, and then it will be the final two?
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Libby Peake: The resource efficiency clauses are welcome, and they are very broad. They are deliberately broad, and they can affect lots of things throughout the materials life cycle. At the moment, it is really difficult to say what sort of impact that will have on businesses, because there is no clear timeline yet for implementing any of these powers; they are enabling powers, and we do not know how they will be used.
One thing that is slightly concerning, which I hope the Government can clarify, is whether or not these sorts of powers and this sort of ambition will also apply to energy-using products—to creating resource-efficient, durable, repairable electronics. That is one of the fastest growing waste streams. Those are the areas that you would most likely think would be useful. They have been deliberately left out of the Bill, on the grounds that those powers are coming to the UK through the withdrawal Act, but I do not think it is yet clear whether the ambition on energy-using products matches the ambition and the potential in the Bill to change how materials and products are used and made.
The Chair
Can we have a 10-second answer to Abena’s question, if possible?
Richard McIlwain: Very quickly, roadside litter is an absolute disgrace. Most people agree on that. I would like Highways England to be given the powers and resources to enforce against littering. Local authorities need more resource to undertake the necessary work, because it is a very transient crime. A deposit return scheme, given that lots of cans and bottles get thrown out of cars, may damp down littering. Picking litter up is one thing; preventing it from being thrown in the first place is another.
The Chair
Thank you very much.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Michael Warhurst, Bud Hudspith and Nishma Patel gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the CHEM Trust, the Chemical Industries Association and Unite. We have until 4 pm. I ask the three witnesses to introduce themselves briefly and state which organisation they represent.
Dr Warhurst: My name is Michael Warhurst. I am the executive director of CHEM Trust, which is an environmental charity that works on chemicals health and pollution at UK and EU levels.
Bud Hudspith: My name is Bud Hudspith. I am the national health and safety adviser for the trade union Unite.
Nishma Patel: I am Nishma Patel, policy director at the Chemical Industries Association.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Nishma Patel: For us, it is—
The Chair
Sorry, may I stop you there? The acoustics are very bad in this room, so may I ask our witnesses to speak up a little?
Nishma Patel: Okay. For us, it is about the detail behind how the schedule will be implemented. At the moment, there is no clarity on consultation and how that will take place. We would like to know the policy behind UK REACH, how it will be implemented, and exactly how it will work—not just the protected parts, but the entire UK REACH regime. We, as industry, see a number of issues—perhaps others see them as well—on which further consultation will probably be required. For us, it is about clarity on the process behind it.
Bud Hudspith: I think there are some broad requirements in the Bill to consult, but they are very broad, and specify something like “other possible stakeholders”. We would like to see much more formal and arranged consultation. In the area I largely work in, health and safety in the workplace, we are used to being consulted. We think it is a very useful way for Governments to find out what is actually going on on the ground, so we would welcome that. I agree with you: we would like to see a slightly tighter indication of who should be consulted and when.
Dr Warhurst: The CHEM Trust position is that we agree with that. The consultation is limited, and the consultation on this measure as a whole has been limited; for example, there was no consultation on which protected articles should be in there, and there has been no rationale as to why those are protected and others are not. We are very involved in EU-level work on chemicals, and we find that process is a lot more open and consultative than the UK process.
Dr Whitehead
Q
Dr Warhurst: On the protected articles, REACH is a huge piece of legislation. You could decide to protect everything, but that might cause some problems. One of the things we particularly noticed is that article 33 of REACH is about consumers’ right to know about the most hazardous chemicals in the product, and article 34 is an obligation on the supply chain to report problems with chemicals up the chain. Those would certainly be added to what we would view as protected.
However, it goes beyond that; as you said, it is about the level of protection for the public. The problem with chemicals regulation is that we are dealing with tens of thousands of chemicals in millions of different products. It is a very complex area, and it has been very challenging over the decades as Governments and regions have tried to control them. EU REACH is the most sophisticated system in the world, but it still has a huge amount of work to do. There are a lot of chemicals to be got through, because when one chemical gets restricted, the industry moves to a very similar one. Our worry is that some of the decisions around that require huge amounts of work and data, and are subject to legal challenge by industry. We do not see any way in which the UK can replicate that system. In many ways, it would be more straightforward—although possibly not in terms of legal challenge—to be more focused on following what the EU does, rather than trying to create another system that to some extent may be a bit of a hollow shell, because there is not the resource to really control new chemicals.
Bud Hudspith: I pretty much agree with that. I do not think I need to add much to it.
Nishma Patel: Again, this comes back to the process and detail behind the Secretary of State being able to consult, who the consultation is with, and how it would take place. One point to consider is that anything that would be changed under UK REACH overall—any article—would have tso be in line with article 1 of REACH, which is about providing the highest standard of environmental protection to consumers, as well as reducing testing where possible. It is not about the principle of “Is there a possibility for the regulations to digress, because a justification needs to be provided?” It is about how that will be consulted on, and how that information will inform policy making in the UK through various stakeholders.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Nishma Patel: From an industry perspective, if we look at the trade of chemicals leaving and coming back to the UK, 50% of our trade goes to the European Union and 75% comes to the UK. To work from two pieces of legislation, which go in the same direction, communicate with each other and co-operate, makes sense from a commercial perspective, as it does from an environmental perspective.
The opportunities are there, in terms of doing something differently or making amendments. As it stands, however, we see that the need to stay close to the European chemicals regulations far outweighs the opportunities.
Bud Hudspith: I think we are coming from a similar position. We start from the basis that alignment is one of the most important things. We have interesting problems. We have members in the south of Ireland as well as in the rest of the UK. It would be pretty unacceptable to us if there were different protections, in terms of chemicals, for those two groups of people. That extends from a broader view across the whole of Europe among people at work.
I would agree with Nishma that alignment is most important. We accept that in theory there could be improvement made through the UK position, but I suppose I am a bit cynical about whether that is likely to happen. Therefore, we would be supportive of—I think an amendment was proposed—making it clear that the Minister needs to improve on what is there. Clearly, however, consultation about what we believe is an improvement and what is not is quite important, because an improvement to someone may not be seen by others as an improvement.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Bud Hudspith: Yes, we welcome that. That was the point made before. Parts of it are fairly vague and we would like it to be much clearer as to who should be involved. There should be clear consultation with the chemical industry—the people who work in the chemical industry and the people who represent them.
Dr Warhurst: The principles sound good, but the point of principles is how they are interpreted—not just the political decisions about interpretation, but these capacity issues. The problem we see is that it is very difficult for the UK to be in a position, even if it wanted to, to go ahead of the EU, which we have not seen as very likely. In parallel areas, such as chemicals and food contact materials, where the UK could have gone ahead of the EU, it has not, even though countries such as Germany, Belgium and France have.
I will give a practical example. Perfluorinated chemicals are in all our bodies. They are in our blood. They were talked about in a recent film, “Dark Waters”. They are in food packaging, ski wax and textiles. The EU is proposing to do a general restriction on these chemicals for non-essential users. This is thousands of chemicals. That will be a huge job for the 600-person ECHA and member states around the EU. There will be challenges from industry. We know that Chemours is already challenging a decision on one of the chemicals in the group.
We do not see it as credible that a UK-only agency, which will have to spend a lot of time just administering the registration system that is set up or the applications for authorisation, will really have the potential to copy that. But we would obviously like the Government to make a commitment that they will follow this and ban these chemicals.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Bud Hudspith: I would follow on from Michael’s point. We have concerns about the resources available to the Health and Safety Executive and the technical ability of people in the HSE to mirror what has gone in the European Chemicals Agency, its size and extent, and the amount of work that has gone on over many years to get to the position that it is in now.
It seems as though we will be in a situation where we will start again from scratch. Even if we achieve what has been achieved in ECHA, it will take us many years to get there. We are worried, especially about that intervening period. Where will we be? I do a lot of work with the HSE, and I am aware of the kind of pressures it is under. It is easy to say that the HSE will do this, or that the HSE will do other things, but unless it is given the resources and people to do that, it is words rather than action.
Kerry McCarthy
Q
Bud Hudspith: Yes. The position with the EU— ECHA—is that it has come an awful long way. We are getting to the stage where it is probably working better than it has before, and I do not want to wait another five years to get to that position in the UK. It may take more than that—I do not know whether or not it will be five years.
Kerry McCarthy
The UK, in “The Future Relationship with the EU” document, talks about
“the separate regulatory requirements of the two markets”.
What impact would that have on the chemicals industry, if there is that level of divergence—or is it about trying to keep up?
Nishma Patel: Following on from what Bud said, REACH has been there for 10 years, and a big chunk of the work under REACH has been done in the past 10 years. The UK contribution has been second in that, in terms of registrations and in providing the data behind the chemicals. To start that process again would put us on a behind path on EU REACH and REACH in general.
The annex, in what we see of the UK position at the moment, allows for the two regulations to co-operate, to talk to each other, if that is the way the negotiations go. It might also allow a mechanism to share data, evidence, on the input put into the European Chemicals Agency database. It is not completely negative. The door is still open in terms of starting from the same evidence base and regulating chemicals; it is just how UK REACH will work—that will depend on what is negotiated in that annex on chemicals, and the extent of the co-operation.
Dr Warhurst: We would agree with many of the points that have been made. We have to remember that, at the beginning of the process, the UK will essentially have an empty database and will be asking for material to be submitted to it from industry. There are already a lot of complaints from industry about the new costs that that will generate—for the chemical companies that are used to doing it, and then for all the people who import substances registered in REACH in a different country, who will suddenly have to register as well. There is a lot of cost to get a database that, even when it is full—in two years or however long—will be much less detailed than the EU one.
It is worth saying that the UK is already not good at enforcing chemicals laws at the moment. We talk a lot about the risk-based approach in the UK regulations, but we did a survey a couple of years ago of how councils were enforcing the laws on the safety of consumers—toys with illegal levels of phthalate chemicals, for example—and we found that large numbers of councils do no testing at all, and that even the ones that do some testing do not do much. Yet, when they do testing, they find lots of failure. We know that banned chemicals are on our high streets and in our markets, now. That really does not give us confidence that somehow there will be this amazing leap in UK capacity to implement and enforce these laws.
Marco Longhi
Q
Bud Hudspith: I must admit that I was not clear what the safeguards were. Broadly speaking, we are supportive of the Bill and the things that it is trying to do. Our doubts lie with how deliverable that is and what resources and expertise the UK is able to apply. As I saw it, there did not seem to be too many safeguards. I was aware, again, of the amendment whereby at least there is some effort to institute safeguards.
Clearly, large parts of the REACH regulations are being transferred into the UK position. An example is that the stuff on data sheets, which is currently held within the EU REACH regulations, is going to be transferred into the UK REACH regulations, and that is fine. There are lots of things that we are happy with in respect of the change. I suppose that, on a broader level, we would like to see huge improvements to the speed at which things are done and the way things are regulated, but whether that is going to happen is, I think, questionable.
Dr Warhurst: We would back that position. The problem is that the Bill is so much about a process, and the process itself has no targets and timelines. It does not say, “You will assess this many chemicals each year. You will check this many chemicals.” This is a problem at EU level. There has been pressure, and now it has set its own targets and is doing much more.
The danger is that you end up with this sort of hollow system here. It exists in theory, but if the system does not say, “Actually, this chemical is not adequately controlled so we are going to restrict it,” it could essentially just sit doing very little, dealing with all the things that it needs to exist, and you end up with something that is hollow.
We are already in a situation where you can have a chemical such as bisphenol A in till receipts; you ban that; and then the industry moves to bisphenol S. This is demonstrated with tonnage data. That is what has happened in the EU, and the EU has not yet restricted bisphenol S; it is just going to define it as a reproductive toxin, hopefully in the next few months. These things are happening. Movement is happening. The market is moving from one chemical to another. Will the regulator move? We have no evidence. There is no obligation in the Bill for the regulator to actually do new restrictions or new authorisations.
Richard Graham
Q
Bud Hudspith: We are broadly supportive of the whole Bill. We have lots of interest in other aspects of the Bill as well.
Richard Graham
Good. But you are supportive of it, I think you said.
Bud Hudspith: Broadly.
Richard Graham
Q
Bud Hudspith: In principle, REACH has been more popular with people such as Unite and various trade unions than it has with many parts of the UK chemical business. What is interesting is that, in spite of all the complaints in the past about REACH, once REACH was under threat it was clear that industry was much more supportive of its continuance. We support very much what people such as the Chemical Industries Association are saying and what the chemical business is saying. Obviously, we have members who work in the chemical industry and we want a strong, thriving chemical industry, because we want it to employ people whatever.
On a secondary level, we are also concerned about some of the things that Michael was raising about the hazards of various chemicals. Although REACH is predominantly environmental, that has a knock-on effect for workplace requirements. If you have a chemical that is on the list or is banned—those things need to happen—it affects our members.
Richard Graham
Q
Bud Hudspith: Predominantly because of the resources and the expertise.
Richard Graham
Q
Bud Hudspith: Do we accept a position where things are massively bad and say, “We’ll carry on with things being bad”? That is nonsense.
Richard Graham
Q
Bud Hudspith: I think I have already said that, in theory, that is the case, but we are very doubtful about whether that will actually happen.
Richard Graham
Q
Dr Warhurst: There are two different issues. There is the enforcement of the laws, which is about what the councils are doing and the fact that there is no real national co-ordination of that. That has been entirely the UK Government’s decision, inasmuch as it has been an active decision. That is different from the broader regulatory system. The councils example shows that the UK has not been very effective in this area so far.
On the broader regulatory system, you can put a lot of people in an agency, but they will start with an empty database, and we are dealing with more than 20,000 chemicals in many applications. It is also wrong to assume that there is no opportunity for close collaboration with REACH. The UK currently talks about some sort of memorandum of understanding. Our view would be that it needs to go further up from the countries that it is mentioning at the moment that do not have access.
Richard Graham
Q
Dr Warhurst: Yes, a lot of it gives us concern, because we are not convinced that it will provide the protection of public health. The consultation is very limited. The idea that you can replicate REACH—
Richard Graham
Q
Dr Warhurst: I do not have the figures. I know that ECHA is about 600 at the moment. It was said, a year ago, that the EA and HSE would have something like £13 million a year in full operation. You are dealing with 23,000 chemicals and however many registrations.
Richard Graham
Q
Nishma Patel: In terms of UK REACH in particular?
Richard Graham
Yes, in terms of UK REACH, the Environment Bill and the measures in it.
Nishma Patel: We think the measures in the Environment Bill are adequate and appropriate, primarily because we have article 1 in REACH, which protects the regulation itself. In terms of opportunities, the biggest opportunity for UK REACH is essentially to try to look at what the national issues are, in terms of environmental protection, and to look to address them. That could potentially be in the UK chemicals strategy that is being developed and is under consideration.
Alex Sobel
Q
Nishma Patel: For us, the Bill and some of the amendments that we have seen so far are doing what is intended around environmental protection. The only other thing that I would ask to be considered is the other justified reasons, for which, as we have seen under EU REACH and under UK REACH so far, regulations have had to be amended. For example, the European Commission put forward regulations around data sharing and cost sharing to ensure that there is a level playing field on the cost of data between different businesses and how that has all been shared.
Some of the changes that may come forward under a UK REACH may not just be environment-related. UK REACH has itself been amended twice to help its implementation and workability, so there are other reasons for that regulation to be changed, particularly because we have not yet implemented. Fair enough, it is a transposition of an existing regulation, but we are already doing it slightly differently to EU REACH.
The Chair
We do not have any further questions, so I thank the three witnesses. It has been a really useful session, and we are very grateful for the expertise that you brought to our deliberations. Thank you very much.
Examination of Witnesses
Lloyd Austin, Alison McNab and John Bynorth gave evidence.
The Chair
I welcome the three witnesses. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to come and act as witnesses before the Committee. I hope that starting slightly earlier has not inconvenienced you too much. The session has to conclude by 5 pm, although it does not have to go on until then if there are insufficient questions. We will open the questioning with Dr Alan Whitehead.
Dr Whitehead
Q
One of my concerns, about which I do not know enough, is the extent to which we are putting things in the Environment Bill and expecting everything to happen in the same way in all the different Governments and Administrations within the UK, which all clearly have quite different practices. Are you confident that the Bill, certainly as far as Scotland is concerned, will enable us to have UK-wide environmental protection standards that are good for everybody, bearing in mind that species, waste and various other things do not worry too much about borders and are of particular concern to the whole of this part of the world? Are you happy that the Bill does that job, or are there things that could go into it to better reflect the particular circumstances in different parts of the UK, particularly for the Scottish Government?
The Chair
Before anybody answers, I neglected to ask people to introduce themselves, so would you perhaps make up for my deficiency by introducing yourselves as you go along?
Lloyd Austin: We are all looking at each other to see who goes first. My name is Lloyd Austin. I am an honorary fellow of Scottish Environment LINK and convener of Scottish Environment LINK’s governance group.
My answer to the question is that it depends. Different parts of the Bill work in different ways. It is clear that environment has been devolved for the whole time. Lots of environmental regulations and, as you say, practices differ between the Administrations already, and they will continue to do so. On the other hand, there is also a need, as you rightly say, for proper co-ordination, co-operation and joint working, so we would encourage all those things. In a way, it is not for us to comment on whether the devolution settlement or any other constitutional arrangement is right or wrong; we simply try to encourage the Administrations, in whatever arrangement there is, to try to achieve the best environmental outcome.
There are different ways of doing that for different things in the Bill. On the EU environmental principles, we have a question mark about how they are applied in Scotland and Wales in relation to reserved matters; that seems to be a gap in the Bill. We understand that the Scottish Government are bringing forward their own legislation in relation to the EU environmental principles, which will apply, obviously, to devolved matters. That is positive and welcome, but we would encourage the Administrations to work together to try to agree some form of statement about how those principles, which are the same at the moment because they are in the Lisbon treaty and therefore apply to all Administrations, will operate coherently across the piece and how they will replicate, in a sense, the way they work at the moment. We believe there are discussions between the Administrations about that at the moment, but it would be useful to stakeholders for such a thing to be consulted on before the different bits of legislation get finished off.
John Bynorth: I am John Bynorth, policy communications officer at Environmental Protection Scotland. Certainly, devolution is one of the main challenges facing the UK legislation that is coming in. It is important to ensure that standards are common between the different countries. There is no point having one set of standards in England and not having the same standards in Scotland. Ministers and civil servants in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Northern Ireland should talk to each other to ensure consistency, so we do not end up with two different types of air quality policy, for example, which could be quite damaging, and just in general, as Lloyd said, in respect of environmental standards.
The SNP Government launched their environmental strategy for Scotland last month. They have made it very clear that they will retain or even try to exceed the EU standards that we have just left behind by leaving Brussels. They have been a lot clearer on that. We do not see so much of that in the UK Environment Bill. Those are important distinctions. On the clampdown on domestic burning—the sale of solid wood fuels and wet wood—you cannot have two different policies in England and Scotland, for example, because somebody would just sell something across the border that was illegal in England. We need to have a look at things like that and to ensure that people are talking to each other and that the links we have are maintained.
Alison McNab: I am Alison McNab. I am a policy executive with the Law Society of Scotland. We are the professional body for solicitors in Scotland and have an interest not only in representing our own members but in acting in the public interest.
Your question raises an interesting point. It is important, of course, to bear in mind that deviation is a natural consequence of devolution. Equally, I agree with the comments by both Lloyd and John that there is merit in consistency and coherence in the approach. We know that, in attempting to avoid regulatory tourism, there are aspects where Scotland may be said to be slightly ahead. In Scotland, we have seen regulations on the introduction of a deposit and return scheme.
In terms of the Bill, Lloyd made a point about the environmental principles, and how reserved functions of UK Ministers in Scotland will be dealt with. We anticipate Scottish legislation in the coming weeks. That may give some clarity around that. There may be opportunities where the consistency of the work of the Office for Environmental Protection can be strengthened. There are provisions in clause 24 of the Bill about a requirement for the OEP to consult, and an exemption from the restriction on disclosing information in clause 40. There is potential scope for strengthening those provisions.
In relation to everything else in the Bill and common frameworks around environmental matters more generally, the extent to which consistency is sought is somewhat of a political matter for the Joint Ministerial Committee to give consideration to. At the moment, it appears clear that there is a desire to achieve consistency on at least a number of environmental matters.
Rebecca Pow
Q
John Bynorth: Obviously, there are different laws in Scotland, particularly regarding regulation. They should definitely work more closely together, liaising between the Office for Environmental Protection and the body that has just been announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment in Scotland, Roseanna Cunningham, which will be set up as a similar sort of regulatory and enforcement body. It will be good to have the two talking to each other, so they can learn from each other’s experiences. We should not have two distinct bodies that do not pick up the phone and talk to each other between Edinburgh and Bristol, or wherever the OEP will be based. We can see closer co-operation between the two, just to ensure that the whole of the UK is covered.
Things such as air pollution do not respect boundaries—it is a bit like the coronavirus, except it does not even respect inequality: it affects the poorest and those with underlying health conditions more than anyone else. Anything that is learned or being put into place by the UK Government should be taken up by the Scottish Government and vice versa, because they are doing a lot of work to improve air quality through air quality management areas. There are 38 in Scotland; they are introducing four low emission zones for the main cities in Scotland, to reduce the amount of transport pollution.
I see a lot of opportunities there. Politics should not come into it; whether there is an SNP Government, or a Conservative Government here, should be disregarded, because air pollution and the environment affect people’s health. We are talking about it more from an air quality perspective. There are other views as well.
Rebecca Pow
Potentially, water would be the same.
Lloyd Austin: First of all, I agree with John about the need for the OEP and the Scottish body, whatever it is called, to have stronger powers and duties to co-operate and liaise. If a citizen of Scotland wishes to raise an issue and they go to the wrong body, it is very important that that body is able to pass on their complaint or concern. That relates to my earlier point about reserved matters. It is obvious that the citizens of Scotland will look to the UK Government and the Bill to address any reserved matters that fall within the definition of environmental law under the Bill.
It is not for us to say whether a matter should or should not be reserved. We would like what is reserved to be more transparent. There are quite a lot of discussions about which areas of environmental law are reserved. That is not very clear to citizens at this stage. The OEP will be responsible for reserved matters under the Bill as drafted, but as I indicated there is a lack of clarity about the application of the principles to them. The Committee might want to look at that, to see whether that gap could be filled.
As was commented on earlier, devolution leads to differences. There were differences between Scotland and the rest of the UK before devolution, when we had the Scottish Office and administrative devolution, and that has continued. From an environmental point of view, we would like those differences to lead to a race to the top rather than a race to the bottom. The more that each of the Administrations can lead the way and encourage others to follow suit, the better.
For instance, you indicated, Minister, that the Scottish Government have opted in to some and not other parts of the Bill. I think that is fine. It is very welcome that they are moving faster on a deposit return scheme. On the other hand, it looks as though there is agreement on extended producer responsibility, and all Administrations will move together. I hope that the race to the top will encourage all Administrations to move faster. The fact that the Scottish Government have moved faster and further on a deposit return scheme will encourage the other three, and vice versa. In relation to England, the Bill does some very positive things regarding biodiversity and the recovery of nature, and the setting of targets. I would argue that the Scottish Government could learn from that and then go beyond it.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Alison McNab: I echo the comments made by Lloyd in relation to the OEP. I suppose the key thing is that the benefit to consumers may come in clarity on who is dealing with what, where they seek assistance, where they take complaints, and so on. It is important that the law is clear and that people are able to guide their conduct based on a clear understanding. That will be important to achieve in the context of the Bill and all that comes from its enabling provisions in particular.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Alison McNab: What is important is that whatever is set up can work well alongside the OEP. Perhaps there is scope for strengthening provisions in the Bill for the OEP to work alongside bodies in the devolved Administrations to ensure good working relationships, consistency, the sharing of information, and so on.
Deidre Brock
Q
Lloyd Austin: From the point of view of environmental NGOs, we agree. Greener UK colleagues made this clear earlier in the week, and we support those comments. The definition of environmental law is perhaps too narrow. We are interested in policies and measures that have an impact on the environment, because we are interested in environmental outcomes and achieving good environmental objectives. That is the key thing. If any policy or piece of legislation has an effect, whether good or bad—many things are good, and many may not be so good—it should come under the remit or gamut of somebody considering the impact on the environment. Therefore, the definition should be as broad as possible.
In reality, we accept that there will be exceptions. Those exceptions should be based not on the kind of broadbrush things indicated, but on a degree of justification for why—reasons of national security or whatever—the environmental issue has to be overwritten. Nobody thinks the environment will always trump everything but, on the other hand, where the environment is trumped, there should be a good reason, and that reason should be transparent to citizens.
John Bynorth: The question of exemptions may be for the military. I understand that they currently apply the principles of environmental law, but why should they be exempt? They use a huge amount of machinery and there are air quality issues there. It seems that the Secretaries of State will have the final decision on which targets are implemented, so there are concerns about that. It is a bit arbitrary and unjustified that the military, for example, should not be subject to the same conditions as everyone else.
Alison McNab: Without touching on the specific exemptions, it strikes me that there may be scope for greater specification within the Bill about what the exemptions are to be. If memory serves me correctly, when the Bill was consulted on at draft stage in late 2018 and early 2019, there was an additional exemption around anything else that the Secretary of State considered should be exempt. We have come some way from that view. There may also be greater scope for scrutiny within the Bill on the exemptions, which the Committee may wish to consider strengthening. Essentially, there are opportunities for more specification and more scrutiny.
Caroline Ansell
Q
Alison McNab: I referred to environmental regulatory tourism earlier on—call it whatever you wish. There will always be issues around people trying to beat the system, and that is a risk if there are varying standards. However, on the flip side, there are opportunities to drive improved performance or improved outcomes. There may be commercial interests that need to be taken into account, so it may not be viable to do a different thing in one jurisdiction from another.
Caroline Ansell
Q
Alison McNab: Absolutely. I referred earlier to clarity’s being key for both individuals and businesses in determining how they conduct their business.
Caroline Ansell
Q
Alison McNab: There is the potential for it to be. I suppose what is important is that there are clear routes for people to be directed to—not only legislation, but guidance and other information on how to take things forward. It is important to bear in mind that there may be opportunities to support businesses in how they work cross-boundary, and opportunities in the context of the Bill to think about the functions. One that springs to mind, for example, is the function of the OEP to advise Ministers. Of course, it may be advising on matters that relate to English or reserved matters, but that may have a cross-boundary effect, and it is important that that is considered.
Caroline Ansell
Q
Alison McNab: Do you mean in terms of specific topics?
Caroline Ansell
No, areas within the Bill.
Alison McNab: The OEP is probably key. The environmental principles raise an interesting issue: at the moment, the Bill provides for them to apply in England and it is not clear how reserved functions of the UK Ministers that apply in Scotland will be covered. We do not yet know the detail of the Scottish legislation, but is there potential for a gap there? I suspect yes, but we do not know the detail of that yet.
REACH is an area that the Committee has already heard about this afternoon, and there are powers within schedule 19 for the devolved Administrations to make some regulations on that in terms of the enforcement. Given the wider scope of REACH in the reserved issues, that is perhaps something that would merit collaboration.
John Bynorth: Certainly, there is no point in having two sets of rules, two sets of penalties and two sets of punishments for each part of the country. In a multinational world, there are UK-wide operators such as haulage, oil refineries and petroleum companies. We have a problem at the moment in Scotland with Mossmorran in Fife, an ExxonMobil-owned company, which is having problems with flaring that are affecting local communities. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency is trying to deal with it, but it keeps happening again and it is causing terrible problems for people living in the area, with noise and other issues. You need to have consistency in dealing with that between the different parts of the country.
The other issue is that if penalties in Scotland were different from those in England, companies might up sticks and move their business completely to England, which would affect the economy. Consistency is vital. The same applies with emissions: we have clean air zones down here, but low emission zones in Scotland. The types of restrictions on bringing petrol and diesel vehicles into cities, and on haulage companies, need to be very similar—I think that is happening—so that our economy is not damaged, but the rules and penalties are made clear to people and are UK-wide.
Maybe there should be a joint memorandum of understanding between the new protection body that we will get in Scotland and the OEP, once they are up and running. That could be a key part of what they do, with the civil servants from each body talking to each other and ensuring that they set out what our principles are, what we have in common and where the differences are, so that people, and businesses in particular, are clear on that.
Lloyd Austin: To follow on from the last thing John said, some kind of agreement about how the new bodies work together would be very useful. In terms of the Bill, that could be an amendment included within the clause dealing with the OEP’s having to set its strategy. It already sets out various aspects of what should be in that strategy, and a simple line indicating that, as part of determining its strategy, it must set out how it plans to work with similar bodies in Scotland and Wales would be very useful.
Regarding your generic question about risks, the biggest risk is the race to the bottom, as I described it before. We must try to prevent that and to encourage the race to the top.
Regarding specific issues, the scale of the risk depends on the mobility of the risk. John mentioned the issue of businesses moving waste and Alison mentioned regulatory tourism. Those are risks, and waste tourism is another. If the two Administrations are too different in terms of their waste management policies, it is very easy for businesses to stick the waste on a lorry and take it over the border, and that sort of thing. It therefore depends on mobility.
From an environmental perspective, one of the key things is specific environments that cross borders. We have a very good system of cross-border river basin management plans, which is reflected in the water part of the Bill for, in our case, the Tweed-Solway area. That is a shared environment, where the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Environment Agency have to work together, and the plan is jointly signed off by Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State. There is a similar model for the cross-border areas between England and Wales, and between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Those types of cross-border arrangements should be continued for those cross-border types of environment; that is a good mechanism.
Having mentioned Northern Ireland, when we talk about these devolution issues within the UK, it is important that we remember that we also have a border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland and the EU on the island of Ireland. The issues that you are asking us about—regarding the difference between Scotland and Wales—apply equally between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is a challenge that needs to be addressed.
Equally, in relation to our marine environment, all of our marine environments have borders with other nation states—some with EU nation states and, to the north, with Norway and the Faroes. In managing our marine environment, we must work through mechanisms such as OSPAR to ensure that we have good co-ordination with Governments outside the UK, in exactly the same way that we need good co-ordination between Governments within the UK. The environmental issues—I always come back to focusing on the environmental outcomes—are in principle much the same, irrespective of whether the borders are national borders or sub-national borders, if you see what I mean.
Jessica Morden
Q
Lloyd Austin: We cannot really answer in terms of co-operation between the Governments; we are not the Governments. We speak to all four Governments, and sometimes we hear signs of good co-operation and sometimes we hear signs of challenges—shall I put it that way?—whereby different Governments give us different indications of the nature of the discussion.
One thing that I am certainly aware of is that through our Greener UK and Environment Links UK network, there is good co-operation between the NGOs across all four countries. I am speaking as the co-chair of the Greener UK devolution group as well; that is how I am familiar with some of the work going on in Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as Scotland. There are examples of good co-operation; equally, there are challenges.
In relation to nature recovery, one of the key challenges is that the Bill requires the Secretary of State to set a target on biodiversity, and it is unclear whether that is for England or the UK. If it is for the latter, what will be the role of the devolved Administrations in delivering that target? Will they agree the UK target, and what proportion of it would be for England and would be delivered by the English nature recovery network? There is scope for greater thinking and clarity on how the Administrations might agree some kind of high-level objective, to which each of their individual targets and recovery processes would contribute.
Perhaps as a precedent, I would point you to a document that all four Governments agreed prior to passing separate marine legislation back in 2005 or 2006. The four Governments all signed a document on the high-level objectives for the marine environment. Subsequently, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 was passed by this Parliament, the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 was passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Marine Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 was passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, each piece of legislation contributed to the agreed high-level objectives document.
It would be beneficial to environmental outcomes if the four Governments could sign up to similarly generic, high-level environmental objectives. It would not involve one Government telling another what to do; the document would be mutually agreed in the same way as the one on marine legislation. The Secretary of State’s targets would indicate what the English contribution to those high-level objectives would be, and Scottish Ministers would have their own process for the Scottish contribution—likewise for Wales and Northern Ireland.
John Bynorth: Anecdotally, I hear that the Scottish Government and civil servants talk quite regularly to DEFRA and other UK organisations—it would be stupid not to.
On air quality, we have two different strategies. The UK Government have the clean air strategy and Scotland has the “Cleaner Air for Scotland” strategy, which is currently subject to a review and will be refreshed and republished later this year. Within that, you have different sources of air pollution. The Scottish Government will be talking to DEFRA and there are continuous conversations, particularly about indoor air quality. Whether you are in Scotland or England, that does not change. Having different types of properties might affect indoor air quality, but it is fundamentally a national issue.
There is concern at the moment about the rise in ammonia from agriculture, particularly in Scotland. That is an issue where they will learn from what is happening down south with DEFRA. It is not just DEFRA; even though we have now left the EU, we should not shut the door. We have to keep the door open to the EU. There is a lot of really good work going on in the Netherlands and other parts of Europe that we can learn from. We need to keep the door open, although we have now gone and cannot do anything about that. Just keep the door open and learn from it.
There is close working, but it could always be better. Hopefully, the Environment Bill will improve that, as will Scotland’s environment strategy. We need to keep those conversations going.
Alison McNab: I do not have much to add to the comments that have been made already. There are perhaps two things that strike me, one of which relates to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee—perhaps there is a role there. It demonstrates quite good collaboration across the UK.
Looking a bit more widely, Lloyd touched on marine issues as an example. The joint fisheries statement set up in the Fisheries Bill has the four agencies—the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations—coming together to talk about how they will achieve the objectives. That perhaps presents quite a good model for thinking further about other things in the environmental field.
Rebecca Pow
Q
Lloyd Austin: You would be right, as long as it is co-operation. It is not for us to say where the boundaries of devolution or other constitutional arrangements should be.
Rebecca Pow
No, I understand that.
Lloyd Austin: The marine examples that I quoted and the fisheries examples that Alison quoted are areas where things are mutually agreed, and as I tried to say earlier, that applies beyond the UK as well as within it.
As John indicated, we should not forget our European partners, both those within the EU and those such as Norway, the Faroes and Iceland to our north that are not in the EU, but interestingly are all in the European Environment Agency. In terms of data collation, data reporting and environmental science, we would very much like to see some continued association with that agency, which goes well beyond the EU members. Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Turkey, Belarus and lots of countries like that are partners in the EEA, engaging in simple sharing and publication of environmental data. It seems very short-sighted to pull out of the EEA when it has nothing to do with EU membership, so that is another form of co-operation that we would promote.
John Bynorth: Being in the EEA would be very good from an information and data sharing point of view, and for maintaining consistency of standards, so I definitely agree with that and support it. I go to a lot of conferences south of the border, just to find out what is going on down there regarding air quality and other environmental issues. Everyone is talking about similar things: transport emissions in urban areas, domestic burning—how we deal with wood-burning stoves and the problems they are causing with air quality—agriculture and industrial emissions. Those are all common issues, and there are nuances about the way you deal with them, but we can all learn from each other.
The Scottish Government might not be doing things right all the time, and the UK Government might not be doing things right. We should come together regularly to discuss these things and find out how we can improve and work together. We are still part of the UK, and it is very important that we do that.
Alison McNab: Strong collaboration between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations is essential. You have highlighted the transboundary effects of the environment, which are well recognised. Back in 2017, the Cabinet Office published a list of areas where EU law intersects with devolved powers. The revised list, which is from April of last year, highlights 21 remaining areas in which it is hoped that legislative common frameworks will be achieved. Seven of those 21 relate to environmental matters, so it is going to be crucial for there to be good collaboration between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to achieve the desired aims regarding those matters.
Marco Longhi
Q
Lloyd Austin: From my point of view, I would say it is very important that the governance gap, as we called it soon after the referendum result, applies everywhere in the UK, and it should be filled everywhere in the UK, whether that is for devolved or reserved matters. We very much welcome the recent announcement by the Scottish Government that they will be establishing some form of body. We are yet to see the detail; we understand that detail will be published later this month. We are less clear on the proposal for Wales. Of course, this Bill addresses Northern Ireland in schedule 2. Wales is the area that still has the biggest question mark, but we would want the Scottish body to be as good as or better than the OEP.
John Bynorth: I would totally back that up. The Scottish Government’s environment strategy, which has only just been published, says that there will be robust governance to implement and enforce laws for their equivalent body. We do not know the detail of that—who will be leading it, and what sort of people will be on it and how they will be appointed, but it has got to be totally independent. You cannot have a body for the rest of the UK that has a different standard; they have to have the same standard and the same quality of people involved, and the same toughness to really crack down on people and organisations that breach the law. Our job as an independent and impartial organisation is to ensure that they are held to account on that, so once it is published and we know more details, we will be able to push on that.
I certainly think that having a strong figurehead for the two organisations is important—the OEP and whatever it will be called in Scotland. Personally, I think John Gummer, Lord Deben, does a brilliant job at the Committee on Climate Change. He has vast experience as a former Environment Minister, right at the top level of the UK Government. You need figures like that, who are also independent of politicians, so they can actually make decisions. Those sort of people inspire others to come on board. You need a strong staff who will stand up to organisations that flout the law—they have got to be very strong. It is up to us to ensure that whatever the Scottish Government produce is to that sort of standard. Hopefully, organisations similar to us down here will do the same with the OEP.
Alison McNab: I agree with the comments that have been made. It is clear that there is going to be a governance gap once we reach the end of the transition period, and it is important that there are provisions put in place to mitigate that. Whether that is done by way of a single body, as in the OEP, or by different bodies taking different roles, is a matter up for grabs. The Scottish Government have announced their intention to have a single body, which we presume will be similar to the OEP. I think what will be crucial is the way that those bodies work in terms of how they set their strategy. The OEP requirement to consult on the strategy is a good thing and will enable stakeholders to contribute to devising how that body is going to operate. I hope there will be similar opportunities for the body that is created in Scotland in terms of what direction it is going to take and how it will undertake its functions.
Deidre Brock
Q
Alison McNab: I would have to go away and give further consideration to that. On the one hand, there are laudable reasons for having that provision, but, equally, we recognise that there is a potential for something like a race to the bottom, where bodies are perhaps not subject to the same degree of scrutiny that they might be.
Deidre Brock
Q
I want to ask you, Ms McNab, about clause 19. In your Law Society of Scotland briefing paper, you raised a couple of concerns that I am keen to hear a little more on.
Alison McNab: Absolutely. The clause you refer to relates to statements about Bills containing environmental provisions. It provides some degree of scrutiny. However, it might be somewhat limited in its scope. There is no recourse provided in the Bill if, for example, Parliament or external stakeholders felt that a matter had not been given proper consideration. Also, there is a question around how that is tested. How is the statement tested and how is it subject to scrutiny?
Lloyd Austin: On your first point, like Alison I need to think about it a bit more, but I see that there is some degree of logic in one public body not being able to complain about another. Public bodies should have existing mechanisms to raise concerns with central Government.
From the point of view of NGOs and our members, ordinary citizens, the really important thing to make sure exists—this applies to the OEP and the Scottish or Welsh bodies—is a mechanism that enables ordinary citizens to raise concerns with the OEP. That is in there to some degree. There are ways in which that could be strengthened, but it is vital that that exists in the other bodies in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, with, as I said earlier, an ability for the OEP and the Scottish and Welsh bodies to pass one citizen’s complaint to another if that is necessary. If the citizen has inadvertently complained to the wrong body, it should be able to pass it on, and in some cases bodies maybe should be able to work together in a joint investigation. Some issues that citizens might be concerned about may be caused by both a reserved and a devolved matter, or may be caused by, as we discussed earlier, the Scottish and UK Governments not working together very well. The two bodies working together to encourage better co-operation might be one form of remedy that they would have available to them. We represent ordinary members of the public who are members of our organisation, and it is those citizens’ right to complain. Most public bodies can normally find a citizen if they want to.
John Bynorth: There is an increased awareness of the environment. A poll last week showed increased awareness of climate change impacts, and the poll was taken even before the recent flooding in south Wales, Shropshire and the midlands. People are increasingly taking an interest in these things. Communities in Newcastle, for example, and even in Edinburgh, have low-cost monitoring centres to check air pollution in the towns and streets where they live, so there is huge awareness of that and climate change as well. People will want an outlet where they can complain if they think something is wrong. The office will need to be aware of that and will need to respond to that. It is a changing environment: people’s attitudes are changing all the time.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Q
John Bynorth: Obviously, if the Office for Environmental Protection had teeth, clout and the ability to fine people in the rest of the UK, I would want to see that in Scotland, too. In other respects, certainly the Governments work together. There are differences, as I say, but if they could work together, that would be one of the best things.
Lloyd Austin: From my point of view, the varying extent of different parts of the Bill is appropriate, because it tends to reflect the arrangements that have been agreed between the Scottish Government and the UK Government. For instance, the deposit return scheme does not apply to Scotland, and that is because they have already got their provisions in place. Those other areas, such as extended producer responsibilities, are included and, as the Minister said earlier, they have opted in. I think the different extent is a consequence of developments to date; it reflects those developments.
The biggest gap is the issue of reserved areas, or the application of EU environmental principles to decisions by UK Ministers relating to reserved matters in Scotland and Wales. Those are excluded from the Bill, and it is a gap. It may be—as stakeholders, we do not know—that the Governments have agreed to legislate for that in some other way, through Scottish legislation or subsequent Welsh legislation. However, because we have not seen that, we do not know, and there has been no statement to that effect. As far as observers are aware, that gap still remains. It may be filled by an amendment to the Bill, or by Scottish legislation with the agreement of UK Ministers or whatever—we do not know—but we want to keep highlighting that it is a gap that does need to be filled.
Alison McNab: The Scottish Government have joined where they have felt that they can, or where they have felt that to be appropriate. Certainly Roseanna Cunningham, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, made the statement before the relevant Committee in the Scottish Parliament back in October that an agreement had been reached in relation to the extended producer responsibility. There may be other areas where harmonisation can be achieved.
As Lloyd says, there is potential for a gap in the environmental principles. There is also some uncertainty around reserved matters and the OEP, and what those matters are; there may be some matters involved that appear in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. Product labelling and product standards spring to mind; there are certain exceptions there. There may be some issues that still need to be considered. REACH is another example where there is quite a complicated mix of reserved and devolved issues. What is important is having clarity on those things. Where collaboration can be achieved, that is good, but you need to ensure that no gaps are left.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Q
Lloyd Austin: If I could borrow a term that my colleague Ruth Chambers used earlier in the week, I think that boat has probably sailed. Two years ago, I remember, we had discussions with Governments north and south of the border, and east and west of Offa’s Dyke. We encouraged a discussion about which is the best route—separate bodies or one single body that would somehow be collectively owned by all the Governments, if you see what I mean. The challenge would be creating that sort of body that had the means to respect the devolution settlement, so that in relation to devolved matters it was accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and in relation to reserved matters it was accountable to this Parliament.
Creating a single body that is somehow accountable to different legislatures is a challenge, although I do not think it would have been impossible, because there are means of creating joint committees, and that sort of thing; but I think, given the way in which the devolution settlement is arranged, that kind of thing had to be mutually agreed. With the way in which the various Governments have proceeded, for their own different reasons, that was not possible. Therefore we are now in a situation where we have one body for England, reserved matters and Northern Ireland, because of circumstances over the years in Northern Ireland, and other bodies for Wales and Scotland. In a sense it is not for us to question the reasons why we arrived at this position. We are in this position, and the best way of addressing it is to ensure that the bodies work together in the way that we have described. I think you could answer that question with, “I wouldn’t start from here”—but we are here.
John Bynorth: There is not much we can do about it, I think. The Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency work together. There are common areas—noise policy, for example—and the bodies feed off the World Health Organisation, and things like that, in policy areas. With devolution, you do have to have an organisation that is accountable to MSPs in Scotland, but there is no reason why the new Office for Environmental Protection cannot work very closely with whatever is going to be set up in Scotland. You would have to have that accountability, under the devolution settlement, to the Scottish Parliament, however. I do not know whether there is much more we can do or say about that, but that is the situation. I think you are going to end up with two bodies, really.
Alison McNab: I agree with the comments made. As I referred to earlier, I suppose the extent to which consistency is achieved is really a political decision. The reality is that it appears that we will have the OEP and a separate Scottish, and potentially a separate Welsh, body as well. What is important is looking at how that can work together now—the practicalities of that, and how the risks can be overcome. Probably the greatest way to do that is to ensure that there are strong provisions in each of the relevant pieces of legislation for the bodies to work together. That may be a requirement to work together, strengthened from what at the moment is a requirement to consult on relevant matters.
The Chair
Thank you to our witnesses. It was really important for the Committee that we got a Scottish perspective on this. I think we got that very thoroughly, and we are very grateful for it.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)
Environment Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 17th March 2020
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 March 2020 - (17 Mar 2020)
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we start, a couple of housekeeping matters. Please make sure that your electronics are turned off. No tea and coffee, I am afraid; you will have to go outside if you want that, as it is not allowed during the sittings. Members may remove their jackets if they wish.
We now begin the line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list is available on the table if you do not already have it. We had a discussion on this during the evidence-taking sessions, but I repeat that amendments are generally put into groups on the same or similar issues for debate. Amendments are decided on not necessarily in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they come up in the Bill. You will find yourselves debating matters that are not immediately voted on, and there is sometimes a tendency, particularly on the part of the Opposition, to panic and say, “We wanted to vote on that.” You may well be right that we have missed something, and if we do, please remind us, but bear in mind that the vote happens at the right place in the Bill, and not necessarily because of where the amendment appears in the group. If that does not make sense, ask me and I will try to clarify it.
My policy—Sir George may have a different one—is that it is often helpful to have a fairly broad-ranging debate at the start of a group of amendments on a clause. I have no problem with that; it tends to facilitate the discussion, but—and it is a big but, for the benefit of the new Members—at the end of consideration on each clause, we have a debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. There cannot be a stand part debate at the beginning and the end of proceedings on a clause, so if you choose to talk a lot at the beginning, you will not get two bites at the cherry. The Chair will decide whether there will be a stand part debate.
I hope that is clear. Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom; if you have any cause for concern, or you do not understand what is going on, please ask, and someone will endeavour to provide you with a tolerably intelligent answer.
Clause 1
Environmental targets
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment seeks to ensure the power given in this Bill to the Secretary of State to set long term targets is exercised.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Gale, as it will be, I anticipate, for many more mornings and afternoons. I will not say it is a pleasure every time I speak, but please take it as being one.
I would like to say a few things about how the Opposition intend to pursue matters in this Committee. As hon. Members will see, a substantial number of amendments have been tabled, and we will go through those in Committee. I hope that upon scrutiny of those amendments, hon. Members will conclude that every one is an attempt to make a good Bill better. They are not in any way intended to be subversive of the Bill’s purposes, to wreck the Bill’s outcome, or to divert the Bill from its intended outcomes. Rather, they are intended to make the Bill as good as it can be. I echo the sentiments of one of the star witnesses in our evidence sessions last week, Richard Benwell of Wildlife and Countryside Link, who said that this could be a brilliant Bill. I hope that it will be by the time we finish our considerations in Committee.
I am fully dedicated to making sure that when the Bill gets on to the statute book, it has the purposes that we all, I think, agree on, and is a serious marker of what this country has to do to develop environmental biodiversity and a healthy environment—a healthy environment in which nature recovers, and we have clean water and, in the context of the climate change emergency, everything that will allow our natural environment to be in a healthy state for the future. I want the Bill to mark this House’s contribution to that process.
I am completely at one with the Minister in that aim; I know that is what she wants to achieve. I know from her environmental commitment and credentials, which she has worn on her sleeve ever since she has been in this House—she has a fine, nature-friendly outfit on today—that she is completely dedicated to getting the Bill passed in the best possible way. I hope that our discussions in Committee, and our amendments, will be viewed in that light. Regardless of party affiliation or other considerations, I hope they will be looked at based on one criterion: do they or do they not make this a brilliant Bill? I hope that is how we will judge our proceedings; I will certainly try to conduct myself in that spirit.
That brings me to my concerns about what is in clause 1—and a number of other clauses throughout the legislation, as we will find as we go through the Bill. In addition to being a potentially brilliant Bill for now, this has to be a brilliant Bill for the future. The House, and this Committee in particular, has to turn it into legislation that will really last—that will commit future generations of parliamentarians and Governments to the actions it sets out. It has to be very robust in the instructions that it sends to those future generations, but we are particularly concerned that it simply is not, in a number of respects.
The Bill derives in substantial part from the Government’s 25-year nature plan. There is a clue there about how long its provisions are supposed to last. The things we consider today have to be robust and relevant for tomorrow. The Bill has to work in that way, and we have to know that it will work across Administrations. However, clause 1 demonstrates that it may not easily do so.
In the clause, and a number of others, the Secretary of State is given the option of implementing, by regulations, a particular part of the Bill. Throughout the Bill, a number of provisions are couched in terms of not “may” but “must”. For example, clause 92 states:
“The Secretary of State must publish information…The Secretary of State must publish reports…A report must relate to a period”,
and
“A report must set out”.
Those provisions are all clear about what has to happen, but the same is not true of clause 1 and a number of other clauses.
There is an even more worrying double lock—or double unlock—regarding the Bill’s way of doing things. When I look at a Bill, I always turn to the end. It is rather like looking at the last three pages of a novel to see what happens before starting to read it. I do not recommend doing that for a novel, but I do recommend it for this particular Bill.
Clause 131, the commencement clause, is clear. For Members who are less familiar with how such clauses work, the commencement clause sets out a number of dates on which clauses in the Bill should be taken as commencing—that is, become live legislation. Clause 131 states that a number of provisions in the Bill come into force on the day that it becomes an Act. A number of other provisions come into force two months after the Bill becomes an Act. Part 1 of the Bill, which contains clause 1 and is probably the most important part of the Bill, comes
“into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”.
There is therefore a double lock on the clause. The Secretary of State “may” decide to make it live—or not. If they decide not to make it live, it simply does not become real, and what is set out in the clause does not happen. Even if they decide in principle that it will happen, and the clause is live, its wording means that the Secretary of State can decide that what it sets out will not take place, and need not implement the regulatory process.
Hon. Members may be thinking, “He protests too much. This doesn’t happen in real life, surely. This is just how things are set out in legislation,” but I assure them that this does happen in real life; it has happened on a number of occasions. The statute books are not exactly littered with, but are substantially populated by, things in Bills that simply have not happened because of the way the legislation was constructed. I can give the example of the Energy Act 2013. I happened to sit on that Bill Committee. Part 5 is on the construction and designation of a strategy and policy statement, which would set out imperatives that would bind authorities and bodies dealing with low-carbon energy. When that Bill was passed, I really thought that the statement would happen; I considered that really important—and still do—in making sure that Ofgem would be guided by a low-carbon imperative.
The wording on that policy and strategy statement was couched in the same way as the provision in this Bill. The 2013 Act said:
“The Secretary of State may designate a statement as the strategy and policy statement for the purposes of this Part”.
The 2013 Act was stronger than this Bill. Part 5 of the Act became live two months after the Act became law. However, the Act was passed during the Conservative- led coalition of 2010 to 2015, and in a subsequent Administration, a Minister decided, because they could, that there was no need for a policy and strategy statement, and that it would not be produced. I have asked a number of questions about why that statement has not appeared. The situation does not help at all to ensure that Ofgem does what it should on its low-carbon commitments and imperatives. But the Minister in that Administration decided that they were not going to produce the statement, and that was it. I hope that this Administration will take a different view and finally introduce such a statement, which I think is essential.
Dr Whitehead
But I might do if no consideration at all is given to this particular point.
I hope that the Minister will be able to come at least some way towards me in reshaping the Bill so that the confidence we both want to have in this legislation can be seen by the outside world, and so that we can ensure that what we say in this Committee actually gets done—not just by this Minister, but by subsequent Administrations. With that, I assure the Committee that that is the longest I am going to speak on this subject. I rest my case. I hope that the Minister has something positive on her piece of paper in this respect. We shall see how we go.
Rebecca Pow
It is a huge pleasure to have you as our Chairman, Sir Roger. Hopefully we are all going to have a long and fruitful bonding experience over the next few weeks.
I thank the shadow Minister for his opening remarks and for describing this legislation as a “good Bill”; we all welcome that tone. I echo his general comments about wanting to do the right thing for the environment. I believe everyone on this Committee wants to do that, but I do in particular. I also thank him for his personal comments. I must actually throw some similar comments back at him. He and I have appeared many times in the same Committees, environmental all-party parliamentary groups and all that, so I know that he has a great deal of experience in this area. In many respects, we sing from the same hymn sheet. I welcome his involvement, as he brings a great deal of experience to the table.
Let me turn to the detail of the amendment. I understand the shadow Minister’s desire for there to be a duty on the Secretary of State to set targets. However, such a duty would remove the flexibility and discretion needed by the Secretary of State in relation to target setting. The Bill creates a power to set long-term, legally-binding environmental targets, and provides for such targets to be set in relation to any aspect of the natural environment or people’s enjoyment of it. It is very wide-ranging, so flexibility is required. It is entirely appropriate to give the Secretary of State flexibility as to when and how the power ought to be exercised. That is the beauty of this power.
As I am sure the shadow Minister knows, primary legislation consistently takes this approach to the balance between powers, which are “may”, and duties, which are “must”. I welcome the fact that the shadow Minister has raised this point, because I have been quizzing my own team about those two words and exactly what they do, and it is quite clear to me that this is the right approach. When the Government are under a clear requirement, the word “must” is used. This recognises that the circumstances, scenario and background to the use of the provision are clear.
In other scenarios, it might not be possible definitely to say that something must be done, due to factors outside our control—for example, if public consultation is still under way, and there will be a great deal of consultation as the statutory instruments are laid before Parliament.
The Secretary of State is already under a duty—that means “must”—to exercise this power to set “at least one” target in each of the Bill’s priority areas. That is in the next few lines of the Bill. They are also under a separate duty to set the PM2.5 target. That is a legal requirement and the Government cannot get out of that. The Bill’s statutory cycle of monitoring, planning and reporting ensures that the Government will take early regular steps to achieve the long-term targets and will be held accountable through regular scrutiny by the Office for Environmental Protection.
The shadow Minister asked whether the system would be robust. I assure him that it will be—that is its purpose. The need for new targets will be reviewed every five years through the significant improvement test that we will come on to later. That is also a legal requirement, and the Secretary of State will use the review’s outcome to decide whether to set new long-term environmental targets.
The significant improvement test provisions of the Bill will form part of environmental law, with the OEP—the body that will be set up to hold the Government to account—having oversight of the Government’s implementation of the provisions, as it will over all aspects of environmental law. That is my summary of the shadow Minister’s queries.
Dr Whitehead
Does the Minister not accept that, as I pointed out in my analysis of the Energy Act 2013, if a number of obligations or “musts” in a clause are subservient to a fundamental “may”, they have no independent existence? That was exactly the case in that Act: the Minister had a number of musts to do, but they were all subject to the original may. As the original may turned out to be just a may, all the musts completely fell away. The Minister has given examples of some musts in the Bill, but unless we have a first must or duty—it might not be time-limited, so that the Minister has flexibility over when exactly to do it—those other things are not of any great significance. It is the first may or must that is key.
Rebecca Pow
We are muddling a lot of “musts” and “mays” here—it is a good job that Theresa May is not still Prime Minister.
Rebecca Pow
It is clear that there is flexibility in the power to set long-term targets by regulations, but clause 1(2) says that the Secretary of State “must exercise the power”. That brings in the duty, which is a legal requirement to set the targets. If there is a “must” provision—and there is: to set targets in those four key areas—it must be exercised. It is quite clear.
Dr Whitehead
Mr Gale, I think you can gather that I am not terribly convinced. I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity for a minute. Indeed, I wonder whether, had the Minister been in post during the Bill’s construction—I think this part was originally constructed in 2018—she would have gone along with that particular wording. I appreciate that she has a Bill in front of her with the wording as it is, and she has advice that the wording is as it is because that is how it should be.
Rebecca Pow
I want to point out one other thing. The Office for Environmental Protection will be able to enforce against the Government if they do not set the targets. That indicates that the process and structure we are setting up are strong.
Dr Whitehead
The Office for Environmental Protection can intervene against the Minister, but the Minister will see later on in the Bill that not even the office has to be set up under these circumstances. The word “may” is so pervasive in the Bill that a number of the things that can act to do what the Minister wants to do are contingent. That should give the Minister some concern, as well as me.
The Minister makes the strong point that once the mechanism is up and running, arguably it will be quite robust. We would like the mechanism to be a little more robust. However, if the whole thing depends on the idea that a Minister may or may not decide that it will be implemented, the rest of it does not necessarily follow strongly. I urge the Minister to please go away and think about this, despite what she said this morning, and see whether a formulation—not necessarily exactly the formulation in the amendment—can be arrived at that will give us and the outside world a much better series of assurances about the Bill’s robustness overall. I may speak on this matter again later in the Bill, but I have done my best this morning and we will see where we go from there.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman did not make the request, but I think he indicated that he wished to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must exercise the power in subsection (1) with the aim of establishing a coherent framework of targets he or she considers would, if met:
(a) make a significant contribution towards the environmental objectives, and
(b) ensure continuous improvement of the environment as a whole.
(1B) Where the Secretary of State considers that a target is necessary but the means of expressing the target is not yet sufficiently developed, he or she must explain the steps being taken to develop an appropriate target.”
The amendment aims to bind the target setting processes into the environmental objectives.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—The environmental objective—
“(1) The environmental objective is to achieve and maintain a healthy natural environment.
(2) Any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures arising from this Act must be enforced, allowed and followed for the purpose of contributing to achievement of the environmental objective.”
This new clause is intended to aid coherence in the Bill by tying together separate parts under a unifying aim. It strengthens links between the target setting framework and the delivery mechanisms to focus delivery on targets.
New clause 6—The environmental purpose—
“(1) The purpose of this Part is to provide a framework to enable the following environmental objectives to be achieved and maintained—
(a) a healthy, resilient, and biodiverse natural environment;
(b) an environment that supports human health and wellbeing for everyone; and
(c) sustainable use of resources.”
The new clause is intended to give clear and coherent direction for applying targets and the other governance mechanisms contained in the first Part of the Environment Bill.
Alex Sobel
I am afraid that my level of expertise does not match that of the shadow Minister, but I will do my best with the time, space and knowledge that I have to do justice to the three amendments.
Amendment 103 is listed in the names of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who is Chair of the Select Committee for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee; and myself, as vice-chair of the EAC. It is therefore clear that these are not partisan amendments. We took it upon ourselves to table them as a result of the prelegislative scrutiny we undertook. The scrutiny applied by this Committee last week underlines the need for the amendment.
I will speak to amendment 103 and new clauses 1 and 6, and will then refer to some of the things that were said my our expert witnesses last week, which underline the need for the amendments to be included in the Bill. All three are complementary, although they all provide something slightly different to strengthen the Bill. I say to the Minister that these proposals will strengthen the Bill and give it clarity; I do not intend to wreck the Bill or change its intent.
Amendment 103 would give the Secretary of State the power to look at environmental objectives holistically, and would ensure that the overarching goal of the Bill and of the Department is the continuous improvement of the whole environment. It would also make the targets richer, as the Secretary of State must explain why targets are being set at that stage and the necessity for them.
The amendment links target setting with environmental objectives. Evidence from last week’s expert witness sessions explains why that is important and why the Bill may not yet be strong enough to ensure it. I am not saying that the Minister or Secretary of State would not do such things, but we have to legislate for future Administrations that may not be as committed as the current one.
Last week, we took evidence from Ali Plummer of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead asked her:
“Do you think the clauses give a sufficiently clear direction of travel on the sort of targets that will be set?”
The amendment relates specifically to that matter. Ali Plummer responded:
“Not currently, the way the Bill is written. The provisions to set targets in priority areas are welcome. We are looking for slightly more clarity and reassurance in two areas: first, on the scope of targets that will be set, to ensure there are enough targets set in the priority areas, and that they will cover that whole priority area, and not just a small proportion of it; and secondly, on the targets being sufficiently ambitious to drive the transformation that we need in order to tackle some big environmental issues.”
The amendment speaks directly to that evidence—for me, not strongly enough, though it takes us a long way towards the goals that Ali Plummer set out.
Ali Plummer also said that
“on, for example, the priority area of biodiversity…I think we are looking for more confidence that the Government’s intent will be carried, through the Bill, by successive Governments.”
We will come back to that. The amendment is not about the aim of the present Government, but about successive Governments and setting a long-term framework. She went on to say:
“I am not sure that that sense of direction is there. While there is a significant environmental improvement test, I do not think that quite gives us the confidence that the Bill will really drive the transformation that we need across Government if we are to really tackle the issues.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2020; c. 75, Q118.]
The point about transformation being needed across Government, not just in the Minister’s Department, brings me on to a question that I asked of Ruth Chambers of Greener UK, regarding the carve-outs and exclusions in the Bill. She responded that they
“absolve much of Government from applying the principles in the way that they should be applied. The most simple solution would be to remove or diminish those carve-outs. We do not think that a very strong or justified case has been made for the carve-outs, certainly for the Ministry of Defence or the armed forces; in many ways, it is the gold standard Department, in terms of encountering environmental principles in its work. There seems to be no strong case for excluding it, so remove the exclusions.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2020; c. 76, Q120.]
The amendment provides a framework to do that, although not wholly.
I will move on to new clause 1, and return later to some of the expert witness statements. I was honoured to table the new clause with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test; hopefully he will not be dissatisfied with the way I speak to it. The intention of the new clause is to enshrine an environmental objective in the Bill. The new clause complements amendment 103, because it is about achieving and maintaining a healthy natural environment. That goes very well with the point that we need continuous improvement of the environment.
The new clause also says:
“Any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures arising from this Act must be enforced, allowed and followed for the purpose of contributing to achievement of the environmental objective.”
It would give all those powers—or duties, shall we say, as “powers” are one of the things listed—to the Secretary of State and would give the Bill an overall coherence that it lacks. It would tie things together and give confidence that there is a single unitary aim, and would start the process of tying target-setting to the aim.
That was underlined by the excellent evidence that we had from Dr Richard Benwell of Wildlife and—
Alex Sobel
I thank my hon. Friend—Wildlife and Countryside Link. We also heard from George Monbiot in that sitting. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth asked last week—I am sure that it relates to her constituency —how far back we would need to go in terms of preserving Dartmoor, and they gave a good answer. Parts of their answers are useful with reference to the new clause. George Monbiot said:
“We need flexibility, as well as the much broader overarching target of enhancing biodiversity and enhancing abundance at the same time. We could add to that a target to enhance the breadth and depth of food chains: the trophic functioning of ecosystems, through trophic rewilding or strengthening trophic links”.––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 121, Q163.]
That, again, is a broad aim, which is included in the new clause.
Dr Benwell said in answering the same question:
“In the Bill at the moment, that legal duty could be fulfilled by setting four very parochial targets for air, water, waste and wildlife. I do not think that that is the intention, but when it comes down to it, the test is whether the target would achieve significant environmental improvement in biodiversity.”
I do not think that the Minister or the Secretary of State would set very parochial targets in those four areas, but perhaps a future Minister or Secretary of State would. That is why I think that not only would a much broader environmental objective, as in the new clause, be welcome, it is necessary.
Dr Benwell continued:
“You could imagine a single target that deals with one rare species in one corner of the country. That could legitimately be argued to be a significant environmental improvement for biodiversity.”
For instance, our entire biodiversity target could relate to red squirrels, which now mainly reside in Cumbria. That would be our whole objective. If a future Secretary of State were obsessed with red squirrels, and did not care for any other aspect of biodiversity, that might happen. I know that the current Secretary of State does not have those views, but while I have been in Parliament, and sat as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, there have been four Environment Secretaries, so they come and go fairly often, although I hope the present one stays longer in his role.
Dr Benwell said:
“You could set an overarching objective that says what sort of end state you want to have—a thriving environment that is healthy for wildlife and people”.
That is what new clause 1 would do. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test does not seem to be shaking his head, so I assume I am getting that right. Not much later in the sitting, the hon. Member for Dudley North asked whether the Bill sufficiently empowers all Departments to protect and improve the environment. Dr Benwell said:
“‘Empowers’, possibly; ‘requires’, not quite yet.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 121-22, Q163.]
New clause 1 responds to Dr Benwell’s response, and goes from “not quite yet” to now. That is why it is a necessary improvement to the Bill.
Many of the amendments and new clauses that we shall talk about later and during the passage of the Bill will bring us back to new clause 1, which is an anchoring point from which to improve the Bill. Even if the Minister does not accept it today, I hope that through in Committee and on Report she will consider taking a much broader environmental objective as part of the Bill, to help us improve it.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for these amendments to be included in the Bill, and has said most of the things that I wanted to say about them. What I will add for the clarification of the Committee is that, as hon. Members can see, new clause 1 is very similar to new clause 6, which has the support of the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The purpose of these new clauses, particularly new clause 1, is—as the title of new clause 6 suggests—to add an overall clarification of the environmental purpose of the Bill, and to draw together a Bill that, for all its merits, has in many ways turned up via a process of iteration.
The first two sections of the Bill originally surfaced at the end of 2018, and it was then amended to some considerable extent and appeared as part of a larger Bill in 2019. That Bill did not get through all of its stages before the election was called, although it passed on Second Reading. Significantly, between the original Bill and the 2019 Bill appearing, no less than six parts had been added, including the Office for Environmental Protection part. As a result, the Bill does not have a coherent overarching principle that applies to all its parts. Historically, that has been done in some instances by what is called a preamble clause, which is pretty obscure and has fallen into disuse when writing Bills in this country. I would have preferred a preamble clause to do the job, but an environmental purpose clause does the job just as well. Indeed, there are numerous examples in different pieces of legislation. In health and safety legislation, for example, there is a purpose clause to pull everything together.
The clauses differ only very slightly in their definitions, so I would be happy with any of them. New clause 6 brings together the purposes of the Bill within a stated framework that enables,
“a healthy, resilient, and biodiverse natural environment”
and
“an environment that supports human health and wellbeing for everyone; and...sustainable use of resources.”
It defines the overall purpose of the Bill, which is important. It keeps the different elements of the different parts of the Bill’s metaphorical noses to the grindstone. It makes sure that all the things we are thinking of doing in the Bill have an overall purpose behind them: a healthy, natural environment. The Minister might say that that is a bit of a free hit for environmental lawyers who might come in on the environmental purpose and say, “You are not putting forward a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment with what you are doing.” I might say that that is precisely the purpose of the amendment, which is to enable the overall objective of the Bill to be judged against the actions of parts of the Bill as they fall for individual action in any clauses that we might pass.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West has said, that is the idea of these clauses. I think they would add considerably to the robustness of the Bill—a theme we began to talk about seriously this morning—because of the way in which they would gather everything together under an umbrella of purpose. That point is arguable. Some might say there is sufficient purpose in the Bill, and there is indeed plenty of purpose in the Bill. It is just a question of whether it is fully gathered together in the relationship between the parts of the Bill on biodiversity, water, air and waste, and gathered together into the fundamental purposes of the first part of the Bill and put together as an overall whole.
I hope the Minister will think about what I have said carefully. As you have reminded us, Mr Gale, the clauses would not come up for a vote until the end of our proceedings, so they will not be voted on today. However, we feel strongly about this, and I think we would consider dividing the Committee when they come up, if there is no reasonable response to the intent put forward in these new clauses.
The Chair
Thank you, Dr Whitehead. We will make a note, and whoever is in the Chair at the time that the new clauses are reached will take cognisance of what you have just said.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North West and the shadow Minister for their input, and I acknowledge the input of the Chairs of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee. I have a great deal of respect for both Committees, having been on both of them myself, as have some hon. Members here.
I thank hon. Members for the interest they have shown in part 1 of the Bill, which genuinely and openly talks about the new framework of environmental governance. I welcome their input and the fact that they want to look at the intention to ensure that the targets, the environmental improvement plans, the environmental principles and the Office for Environmental Protection work together to protect our natural environment.
As this was one of the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Leeds North West, I want to touch at the outset on driving significant environmental improvement and to reassure him that through the Bill the Government will set at least one new long-term target in each of the four priority areas of water, air quality, waste and resources, and biodiversity by 31 October 2022. Those targets will be set following a great deal of robust evidence-gathering, consultation and engagement with experts, advisers and the public, and they will have to be approved by Parliament through the affirmative process when the statutory instruments are set. People will have plenty of opportunity to engage.
I also want to reassure the hon. Gentleman, since he in particular raised this matter, about other targets. I think the witness from the RSPB raised that in our session last week. I want to offer reassurance that the target-setting process is an ongoing process. It is not a one-off thing, where we set one target and that is the end of that. That is why we will also need to consider what other targets might be needed to ensure that we can significantly improve the natural environment in England—in the area of biodiversity, for example, which he mentioned, because it is complicated and involves all sorts of areas linking into each other.
We will conduct that review at the same time as the first statutory review of the environmental improvement plan, and report to Parliament on its outcome by 31 January 2023. The first environmental improvement plan is the first plan of this Bill; it will help us to deliver what is in the 25-year improvement plan. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman that target setting is not a one-off thing, but will be a constant, flowing landscape.
I also want to reassure colleagues that a huge amount of thought has gone into the setting of this framework, so that it is a coherent framework for environmental protection and improvement. I would say to the shadow Minister that it does have an overarching purpose: it has the environmental principles. Those principles will work with all other areas of the Bill to improve the natural environment and environmental protection. It is a huge and wide commitment. The policy statement will explain how those principles will be applied to contribute to that environmental protection and to sustainable development. In my view, we have those objectives right there at the top of the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
I wonder if the Minister could help me. Let us take the example of a habitat in extremely poor condition and facing further decline. That habitat could be significantly improved simply by preventing further decline and intervening to bring the habitat up to a poor but improving condition. That would be a significant improvement, but it would not constitute a high-quality or healthy habitat. Does the Minister accept that that is a problem with the definition of significant improvement? Or does she think that other elements in the Bill would define significant improvement to make that definition of a poor environment improvement—[Interruption.] I see the Minister has been provided with inspiration. Does she think that other parts of the Bill would make that argument superfluous—namely, that significant improvement would equate to healthy, with the other elements of the Bill being in place? I am not sure it does.
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. Before I read the inspiration that has been passed to me, let me say that the whole point of the significant improvement test, which is a legal requirement—we have other requirements to keep on checking, testing and monitoring targets through the environment improvement plan, which is also checked every five years —is that it is a holistic approach. The shadow Minister is picking one thing, but with the range of targets that will be set, that one thing will be constantly reported on and monitored. Later in the Bill, we will discuss the nature recovery networks and strategy. The point he raises will be addressed through those other measures in the Bill that, on the whole, will be the levers to raise all our biodiversity and ensure nature improvement.
We have a constant monitoring system in place where we raise up the holistic approach. Every five years the Government have to assess whether meeting the long-term targets set under the Bill’s framework, alongside the other statutory targets, would significantly improve the natural environment. That is all open and transparent; the Government have to respond to Parliament on their conclusions and, if they consider that the test is not met, set out how they plan to close the gap, setting other powers. There are many powers in the Bill for target setting, but also for reporting back. I hope that will give the hon. Gentleman some assurances that the things I believe he wants in the Bill will get into it through the levers provided in it.
Clause 22 sets a principal objective for the Office for Environmental Protection. It will ensure that the OEP contributes to environmental protection and the improvement of the natural environment in exercising its functions. Not only do we have measures for Government, we also have an overarching body checking and monitoring everything and saying what it thinks should or should not happen—whether there should be new targets or whether the targets are being addressed. All those measures are closely aligned; the idea is that they will work together to deliver the environmental protection mentioned in the amendments, concerning improvement and protection of the natural environment as well as the sustainable use of resources.
The shadow Minister said that the Bill had come and gone a few times and has grown a bit; I say it has grown better and stronger, and that we need lots of those measures. The framework now is coherent. I have done a flow-chart of how this all works together, because it is quite complicated. However, if the shadow Minister looks at all the measures together, they knit in with each other to give this holistic approach to what will happen for the environment and how we will care for it.
The hon. Member for Leeds North West and the shadow Minister mentioned this “healthy environment” wording. Clearly, there are many different views on what constitutes a healthy environment, and the Government could not assess what they needed to do to satisfy that new legal obligation, and nor could anyone else. The Government cannot support an amendment that creates such an obligation. It would create uncertainty to call just for a “healthy environment”, because everyone’s idea of that is different. The Government cannot support such a commitment, because the legal obligations are too uncertain. However, we support the overarching architecture of everything working together to create the holistic environment, and an approach where all the targets work together and we are on a trajectory towards a much better environment. The shadow Minister and I are in complete agreement with each other that that is the direction that we should be taking.
To sum up, the Government do not believe that amendment 103 or new clauses 1 and 6 are necessary. I ask hon. Members kindly to withdraw them.
Alex Sobel
I will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
On a point of order, Mr Gale. I want to be clear that amendment 103 and new clause 6 are to be withdrawn, with no effect on new clause 1.
The Chair
That is absolutely the case. Let me restate, because none of us has a monopoly on wisdom: formally, only the lead amendment is moved. If any other amendments or new clauses are to be moved, we have to have an indication of that fact at the right time, when they will be moved. Only the lead amendment can be withdrawn, because only the lead amendment has been moved, at this stage. Everyone happy?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) The Secretary of State must exercise the power in subsection (1) so as to set the appropriate long-term targets within each priority area for the purpose of achieving and maintaining a healthy environment on land and at sea”.
This amendment seeks to provide legal clarification to show that the Secretary of State’s purpose when setting targets is to maintain a healthy environment. It also seeks to explicitly include the marine environment links to which are currently sparse in this Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 85, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, at the end insert—
“on land, and at sea.”
This amendment makes explicit that the review of environmental targets should consider both marine and terrestrial environments
Dr Whitehead
We have not yet got beyond the first page of the Bill because, I suggest, it is a particularly important page for the rest of the Bill. These two amendments seek to put clearly on the face of the Bill what we are talking about in terms of the environment. They add “on land” and “at sea”, first to the targets in line 11 onwards. They do so because we think—as we have made clear by tabling an amendment to clause 6—that the Bill ought to be completely clear that we are talking about the threats not just to the environment but to the marine environment as well. The two are indissolubly linked.
Later, we will talk about beaches, which one might say are neither terrestrial nor marine, but involve a particular series of concerns about both of them. The Bill needs to be clear that that all comes within an definition of what we are talking about.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Minister for amendments 1 and 85, which would include specific reference to
“on land, and at sea”
in clauses 1 and 6. The Bill requires that at least one long-term target is set in each of the four priority areas, as has been explained. That provides clarity and certainty about the areas on which policy setting will focus between now and October 2022.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the power to set targets is not limited to those priority areas alone and can be used in respect of any matter relating to the natural environment. I give him absolute reassurances that the definition of the natural environment includes consideration of the marine environment. Indeed, I welcome this being raised. The fact that we are discussing it and getting that in writing will clarify the position. He is absolutely right to raise the issue. The marine environment will be included, and it is explicitly highlighted on page 57 of the explanatory notes. The shadow Minister is not alone in calling for that; the Natural Capital Committee also wanted clarification, and we gave it reassurances.
The Secretary of State will consider expected environmental improvement across all aspects—terrestrial and marine—of England’s natural environment when conducting the significant improvement test, which is a legal requirement. That involves assessing whether the natural environment as a whole, including the marine environment, will have improved significantly. Such an approach is aligned with comments made at the evidence session. The Committee may remember that Dr Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, stated that
“the environment has to operate as a system.”—[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 116, Q157.]
Of course, the system has to include marine and land—all aspects. Furthermore, the Office for Environmental Protection has a key role, and if it believes that additional targets should be set, it can recommend that in its annual report on assessing the Government’s progress. The OEP could therefore comment on the marine environment specifically, and the Government must publish and lay before Parliament a response to the OEP’s report.
The process ensures that Parliament, supported by the OEP, can hold the Government to account on the sufficiency of measures to significantly improve the natural environment. I hope that provides clarification and reassurance about the word “marine” and references to “on land” and “on sea.” I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
As the Minister said, the fact that we are discussing these matters, and that our words are going on the record, is useful in buttressing what is in the legislation. I am grateful to her for her clarification, which is also on the record. On that basis, I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Kerry McCarthy
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
“(e) global footprint.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 77, in clause 1, page 2, line 16, at end insert—
“(10) Without prejudice to subsection (6), the global footprint target is required to be met with regard to ecosystem conversion and degradation, and to deforestation and forest degradation, by 31 December 2020.”
Amendment 78, in clause 44, page 27, line 24, at end insert—
“‘global footprint’ means—
(a) direct and indirect environmental harm, caused by, and
(b) human rights violations arising in connection with the production, transportation or other handling of goods which are imported, manufactured, processed, or sold (whether for the production of other goods or otherwise), including but not limited to direct and indirect harm associated with—”.
Kerry McCarthy
Amendments 76 to 78 are intrinsically linked with new clause 5, which we will come to, which is about the enforcement mechanism and due diligence in supply chains that would allow us to ensure that actions takes place. I will try to separate the amendments from the new clause and return to this issue in a bit more detail when we get to the new clause.
Amendment 76 would add “global footprint” to the four priority areas in which a long-term target must be set. As the Minister is aware, the target is only in respect of at least one matter within each priority area. Some people may think, at first glance, our ability to know what the global picture will look like over a long period is limited, particularly given the uncertainties we face. However, as the Minister will know, this measure is about trying to drill down and find an action we can take in each priority area.
Amendment 77 is not about long-term targets but about a very short-term target we could address on ecosystem conversion, degradation, deforestation and forest degradation by the end of the year. I will come in a moment to why the date given is important. Amendment 78 would define “global footprint”, and we will come later to new clause 5, on due diligence in the supply chain, which is really important.
The amendments in the group address the climate and ecological emergencies that we all recognise. The 25-year environment plan commits to leaving a lighter footprint on the global environment, but that is not supported in any way by legislation. The overseas impact of our consumption, production and, I would add, financial investment—banks lending to the companies that are doing these things—is partly about the embedded carbon and water in the products that we produce and consume, but it is also about the depletion of natural resources, including deforestation, and it often comes with a human cost, too. We hear about indigenous people being displaced from their land and we hear terrible cases of environmental defenders being murdered or disappeared, particularly in Latin America. We hear about modern slavery in the food supply chain, or exploitation of workers.
I took part in a debate last year or the year before—I lose track of time in this place—linking up World Food Day and modern slavery. The cheap food that we consume comes at a cost. Sometimes, that is an environmental cost. Often, it is at a cost to the people who work within the food system.
If we need an economic reason to pursue this agenda, as opposed to just caring about the environment and climate change, the World Economic Forum “Global Risks Report 2020” ranks environmental risk as the greatest systemic threat to our global economy, although I suspect that the report may have been published before coronavirus hit us. It says that the decline of natural assets will cost the world at least £368 billion a year, which adds up to almost £8 trillion by 2050, and the UK will suffer some of the biggest financial losses because of our trading patterns, consumption and so on.
As we all know, the extraction and processing of natural resources globally has accelerated over the past two decades. It accounts for more than 90% of our biodiversity loss and water stress and around a half of our climate impacts. That is having a particular impact on the world’s forest.
From other debates, we know about the importance of our land and our oceans in terms of carbon mitigation—acting as natural carbon sinks. Land and oceans could offer as much as one third of carbon mitigation needed globally by 2030, to contain global warming at 1.5°. We have had that debate in the UK, about tree planting and peatlands and so on, but obviously, the huge forests of the world, such as the Amazon, are incredibly important. However, the world’s intact tropical forests are now absorbing a third less carbon than they did in the 1990s, owing to the impact of higher temperatures, droughts and deforestation. In the 1990s, the carbon uptake from those forests used to be equivalent to about 17% of carbon dioxide emissions from human activities. That figure has now sunk to around 6% of global emissions in the last decade. If dramatic action is not taken now to halt deforestation, tropical forests may even become a source of additional carbon into the world’s atmosphere by the 2060s.
Much of this global deforestation is the result of agricultural production. Some 77% of agricultural land is currently used for livestock, through pasture grazing and the production of animal feed, such as soya. Soya imports represent almost half of Europe’s deforestation footprint, and around 90% of that is used for animal feed. Many of the products that we consume in the European market, particularly embedded soya in meat and dairy, as well as palm oil, cocoa, pulp and paper, are directly or indirectly connected through the supply chain with deforestation and human rights abuses in some of the most precious and biodiverse ecosystems across the world, including the Amazon and Indonesian forests. For example, 95% of the chickens slaughtered in the UK each year are intensively farmed—a model of production that relies on industrial animal feed containing soya.
The solution is to stop deforestation and to give significant areas back to nature. The 2015 United Nations New York declaration on forests committed to restoring an area of forests and croplands larger than the size of India by 2030. We need three significant interventions to meet that goal.
The first is significantly to reduce global meat and dairy consumption and to give large areas of existing agricultural land back to nature. Another is to end the use of crop-based biofuels, to prevent further land conversion away from high-quality natural ecosystems. We also need to clean up global supply chains, to limit deforestation, which new clause 5 particularly addresses. This is one way that the UK can show leadership as we approach COP26. It would also show leadership towards one of the draft targets for the Convention on Biological Diversity at Kunming in China later this year, if that goes ahead.
Dr Whitehead
I apologise, Sir Roger, for having inadvertently deknighted you earlier. I do not wish to continue with that practice any further. It is a new world, but it is quite useful, I think.
My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for the amendments, which we strongly think should be supported. It would be an omission if the Bill did not recognise what the international footprint of our actions is all about and how intrinsically linked that is, in a world where sugar snap peas are grown in Kenya—[Interruption.] I am merely saying that they are grown there, Minister—our choices are our own in those respects. Things are flown around the world at a moment’s notice and flowers are put in cargo plane holds. There are the effects of our attempts at reforestation, but we then observe deforestation in substantial parts of the world as a result, quite probably, of them taking part in the processes by which we get soya milk on our tables in the UK. We might deplore such practices in principle, but actually, we substantially support them as a result of our preferences for particular things in this country. That causes those international events to occur, which we then deplore further.
The idea that we are intrinsically linked through our global footprint, in terms of what we do in this country as far as the environment is concerned, seems very important in the Bill’s successful passage through the House. Although amendment 77 makes very specific points, the amendments are more than slightly contingent on new clause 5, which we will debate later. I would like to hear how the Minister thinks that in the absence of a something that includes our international environmental footprint, the Bill can do justice to what should be intrinsic elements of concern when we talk about our domestic environment. Not only did my hon. Friend make a powerful case, but we are completely convinced that this needs rectifying in the Bill, and I hope that we can do that by not just passing the amendments, but taking serious cognisance of new clause 5 when we discuss it later on.
Alex Sobel
I have signed amendments 76 and 78 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), but not amendment 77—that is an oversight, however, and I also fully support it. I will talk about two specific things relating to our global footprint in the Amazon and West Papua, and it is worth declaring that I am the chair of the all-party group on West Papua, although I have no pecuniary interests.
My hon. Friend and the shadow Minister made excellent cases, but I want to add a bit more detail. Three weeks ago, Chief Raoni, one of the indigenous leaders of the Amazon, came to the House and I met him, and last week, I hosted WWF Brazil’s chief executive here. They also met the Minister’s colleague, Lord Goldsmith, while they were here, and one of their key asks was that the UK Government are very clear about the import of goods from the Amazon. The range of goods is very broad. The dangers in the Amazon are live at the moment, with concerns that in just a matter of months, wildfires could rage in the Amazon as we saw last year, destroying millions of hectares of rainforest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East made good points about soya and cattle farming, but there is also extremely widespread mining—not just by large companies, but the wildcat mining, in which the family of the Brazilian President have traditionally been involved —for metals such as aluminium, iron, nickel and copper. The sourcing of the materials for many of the everyday products that people use involves deforestation and mining in the Amazon. That has further effects because activities such as farming and mining require infrastructure, such as roads right through the rainforest. The use of the river and of heavy diesel vehicles creates water and air degradation.
We spoke about biodiversity in the UK, but our biodiversity pales into insignificance compared with the biodiversity in the rainforests of the Amazon or West Papua. It is the Committee’s duty not to forget that the UK is a major importer of goods and a major world centre for resources and raw materials, which are traded in London and imported into the UK. That means that we have a much broader responsibility.
West Papua is a lesser-known area that is part of Indonesia and has one of the world’s largest mines, the Grasberg Freeport mine. There, beyond the loss of environmental habitat and the pollution of water and air, there are also human rights abuses. There is a well-documented history of extrajudicial killings around the operation of the mine. Offshore, BP—a British company—is involved in oil and gas resources. Our global footprint is huge and the Bill must focus on that. If we are to enshrine environmental protections in domestic law, we cannot close our borders and say, “We are doing sufficient things here,” while forgetting our global footprint and the effects of our markets, imports, production facilities and export investment in causing global environmental degradation.
Rebecca Pow
I thank hon. Members for their contributions on this really key subject. I remind the Committee that the Bill gives us the power to set long-term legally binding targets on any matter relating to the natural environment.
I will pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol East about the 25-year environment plan, which is of course the first environmental improvement plan under the Bill. That plan talks about “leaving a lighter footprint” and the whole of chapter 6 is about,
“Protecting and improving our global environment”.
That is there in writing and I assure the Committee that the power in the Bill to set long-term legally binding targets on any matter relating to the natural environment allows us to set targets on our global environmental footprint.
Kerry McCarthy
I know that the 25-year plan will be incorporated as the first environmental plan, but my point was that by adding amendment 76 and the fifth priority on the global footprint, we would ensure that the Bill specifies that global footprint targets would have to be set. Simply referring to the 25-year plan is just warm words rather than any clear commitment to action.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I recognise all the work that she is doing on this issue; she speaks knowledgably and passionately about it. However, the amendment would go further by creating a legal obligation on the Government to set targets on our wider global footprint, including human rights aspects, and amendment 77 would require us not only to set a target but meet it by 31 December 2020.
Before accepting such obligations, a responsible Government, which I like to think we are, would need to be confident that we had or could develop reliable metrics and an established baseline for such targets, and a clear understanding of any potential perverse incentives that such targets could create. The proposal sounds very straightforward but, of course, there is a great deal involved in it. We are working to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of a global environment footprint indicator, which includes reviewing the existing methodologies of global impact indicators.
We cannot responsibly accept a commitment to set global footprint as a priority area, as that would entail us in setting at least one legally binding target in a timescale that does not reflect the need to build the solid foundations that are needed. However, the hon. Lady was right to draw our attention to the impact that our domestic consumption can have on our global footprint, and the shadow Minister also mentioned that. Indeed, I went berserk with my own children when I found a packet of Kenyan beans in the bottom of my fridge; that was in December, so they were not seasonal for us. Woe betide them if they ever do that again! I put said packet in the bottom of one of their Christmas stockings to make the point. Anyway, I digress.
This is such an important issue and many colleagues have touched on it. That is why it is really important that the UK establishes roundtables on palm oil and soya. Indeed, we have already done a great amount of work on some of these issues. For example, the UK achieved 77% certified sustainable palm oil in 2018, which is—staggeringly—up from just 16% in 2010. The UK has moved very fast on that issue. Eight of the UK’s largest supermarkets, representing a combined retail market share of 83%, have published new sourcing policies to deliver sustainable soya to the UK market. We will continue to work both with those businesses, through these roundtables on palm oil and soya, and with producer countries through our UK international climate finance projects to improve the sustainability of forest risk commodities.
The hon. Member for Leeds North West starkly highlighted the example of the Amazon and the impact that we have; we must take things very carefully. However, that is not to say that, in doing all this work, we should not then harness the power through the Bill to introduce a target on our global environmental footprint. That is something that we have the option to consider.
I will also touch on the Global Resource Initiative, which was set up last year to investigate what the UK can do overall to reduce its footprint. We are awaiting the GRI’s recommendations and we will consider them carefully before responding. Any recommendations for long-term, legally binding targets will need to identify the reliable metrics, baselines and targets that I have mentioned before. However, the Bill gives us the power to introduce a target on our global environmental footprint at any time, so such targets are definitely in the mix.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Our global environmental footprint abroad is very important and the hon. Member for Leeds North West made an interesting point in particular about our footprint in Indonesia. I happen to know about the BP investment at the Tangguh liquid natural gas project very well. It uses two offshore platforms, and there is an absolutely amazing social responsibility programme, which I have seen in detail. It is widely recognised as one of the best in the world, both by the people of West Papua and more widely in Indonesia.
It is worth noting that we have significant renewable energy projects there, including some interest in tidal stream—we brought a delegation from Indonesia to Scotland recently. Through the Department for International Development’s climate change unit, we have worked on making their timber production sustainable and are now looking at how we can help them make the palm oil industry sustainable. The Minister makes an important point about how we can build a strong environmental footprint abroad.
Alex Sobel
On a point of order, Sir Roger. Does the hon. Member for Gloucester have any interest to declare in relation to the statement he just made?
The Chair
That is not a point of order for the Chair. If the hon. Member for Gloucester had any interest to declare, I am sure he would do so.
Richard Graham
I am happy to say that my only interest to declare is as an unpaid, voluntary trade envoy in Indonesia for the last three Prime Ministers.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He speaks with a great deal of knowledge about worldwide issues, as he always does in the Chamber.
On the grounds of what I have said, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Kerry McCarthy
I will have to go back and read what the Minister said, because I am rather confused. She seems to be jumping around all over the place. On one hand, she says a global footprint target can be included in the Bill and cites some good things that have happened through volunteer initiatives and through companies—perhaps with a bit of Government pressure on them—to say that such things can be done. On the other hand, she says that we cannot possibly put it in the Bill.
I point out that amendment 77 is designed to ensure that there is an end-of-year target, which was previously a commitment. The Government have said in various different forums that they would achieve that, so it is a bit late now to say, “We need to worry about the metrics, and we need to be working on this, that and the other.”
I tried to intervene on the Minister because I wanted to ask her about the GRI recommendations, which will come forward on 30 March. If it recommends that the provision should be in the Environment Bill, will the Minister commit to table amendments that reflect the GRI recommendations? As she would not let me intervene to ask her about that, she is very welcome to intervene and tell me whether that is the case. It might affect whether I decide to push anything to a vote.
Rebecca Pow
I will intervene very briefly. I reiterate that we await the outcome of the recommendations and will consider them very carefully. Getting the metrics right is absolutely crucial, as is every target in the Bill. I said strongly that there is a power in the Bill to set targets on our global environmental footprint. I shall leave it there.
Kerry McCarthy
As I said, I want to revisit that, because I thought the Minister was making an argument against being able to pursue targets. She did not adequately make the case for not having the specific priority of a global footprint target, but we will return to that when we discuss new clause 5, which is a comprehensive clause about due diligence in the supply chain and how we enforce all this. We shall return to the debate then, rather than my pressing these issues to a vote now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 178, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
“(3A) Targets set within the priority area of air quality must include targets for—
(a) the ambient 24 hour mean concentration of PM2.5 and PM10;
(b) average human exposure to PM2.5 and PM10; and
(c) annual emissions of NOx, ammonia, PM2.5, PM10, SO2 and non-methane volatile organic compounds.
(3B) Targets set within the priority area of water must include, but are not limited to, matters relating to—
(a) abstraction rates; and
(b) the chemical and biological status and monitoring of inland freshwater and the marine environment.
(3C) Targets set within the priority area of biodiversity must include, but are not limited to, matters relating to—
(a) the abundance, diversity and extinction risk of species; and
(b) the quality, extent and connectivity of habitats.
(3D) Targets set within the priority area of waste and resources must include, but are not limited to, matters relating to the reduction of overall material use and waste generation and pollution, including but not limited to plastics.”
We are now moving on to a debate on one of the most important elements of the Bill. I suspect it will take us beyond the break for lunch, but I will start my remarks. The amendment is designed to address the priority areas for environmental targets, which are set out in clause 1(3). Hon. Members can see that the stated policy areas are air quality, water, biodiversity, and resource efficiency and waste reduction. Other targets, particularly on PM2.5 air quality, are mentioned later in the Bill, but those are the priority areas for the purpose of the Bill.
Environment Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 17th March 2020
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 March 2020 - (17 Mar 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Before we start proceedings, I have been advised that the ambition today is to get to the end of clause 6, which as far as I am concerned is both admirable and acceptable. The Chairman’s job is to be in the Chair, and I am prepared to do that, but if we sit rather later than we might have done, I will suspend the sitting, probably for 15 minutes at 4.30 pm—for natural causes.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
For the elucidation of the Committee, I confirm that the intention of the Opposition is to get to the end of clause 6 in reasonably good order, so it will not be necessary, I hope, for the Chair to suspend proceedings, because we will already have gone home by then. We will see whether I manage to keep my remarks suitably brief, so that we can achieve that goal.
I barely started my remarks about the amendment this morning. I will first emphasise how important the amendment is to ensuring that the priority area targets are seen as targets with content, rather than targets in theory. That is important because of the frankly rather odd way in which subsection (2) is set out:
“The Secretary of State must exercise the power in subsection (1) so as to set a long-term target in respect of at least one matter within each priority area.”
That might suggest that the Secretary of State will have a lottery choice, and will say, “Well, I’ve got to set at least one target in each area, so what’s it going to be? If I go above my limit of one target per area, I might not be able to get targets in other areas,” or perhaps, “I haven’t got enough targets in this section, so I have to beef them up.”
In reality, targets are not one per customer; they are based on what targets should be set in each area. What are the themes that one would prioritise within each area in which a target might be set? What are the priorities regarding air quality, water, biodiversity and waste and resources that would cause us to say, “Perhaps in this area there should be three or four targets, and in that area two, or more than three”?
The Bill allows the Secretary of State to set more than one target, but it at least strongly suggests that it should be one target, and implies that that should be it. I hope we can be clear today that that certainly is not it, and that the Secretary of State will be charged with looking at each area and deciding, on the basis of what is needed, what the targets for those areas should be. They might or might not be numerous.
There is a rumour that there was discussion with the Treasury about how many targets might be allowed in each area, and the Treasury said, “Maybe keep it to one each. That will be okay.” I am sure that is untrue, but nevertheless the drafting of this part of part 1 seems a little odd.
In amendment 178, we have tried to say, “What would be the general priority areas?” One might say that it was our best go at answering that. If we have time to spare this afternoon, having got through our business, we could have a little roundtable and decide whether we think those are the absolute priorities, or whether we should put in others or change them around. It is an attempt, which I think is good enough to go into the legislation, to look at what the main areas are within each priority area that we could reasonably set targets on.
Within air quality, it would be good to have targets on average human exposure to PM2.5 and PM10, and annual emissions of nitrogen oxides, ammonia, the different PMs and non-methane volatile organic compounds. For water, the targets could be on abstraction rates,
“the chemical and biological status and monitoring of inland freshwater”
and, importantly, the marine environment, which we touched on this morning.
In the priority area of biodiversity, there could be targets on
“the abundance, diversity and extinction risk of species”
and
“the quality, extent and connectivity of habitats”.
Later in the Bill, we will talk about recreating habitats if necessary, and ensuring, through local plans, that habitats join up with each other, so that we do not have a series of island habitants with no relation to each other. Perhaps we should have a biodiversity target on ensuring that those habitats are connected.
In the priority area of waste and resources, there could be targets on
“overall material use and waste generation and pollution, including but not limited to plastics.”
As we will see later in our discussions, there could certainly be targets relating to the extent to which things are properly moved up the waste hierarchy. One of the concerns we have regarding the waste and resources part of the Bill is the extent to which there is, rightly, a concern for recycling, but not for going any further up the waste hierarchy than that.
Amendment 178 is the explanation that we would like to see after the very thin gruel served up in clause 1(3). It is by no means the last word, and we state in the amendment that the targets are not limited to those set out in it. Indeed, it would be a perfectly good idea if the Secretary of State or Minister said, “I don’t quite agree with the targets that you have set out here. There are other priority areas in these sectors, and we’d like to set targets on those instead.” We are not precious about that in any way.
I hope the Committee can accept the principle that it is not sufficient to set out single-word priority areas, particularly in clause 1(2). In the Bill, there needs to be some unpacking of the process, so that we can assure ourselves that we will get to grips with the sort of targets that we believe are necessary. That is a friendly proposal. I hope it is met with interest from Government Members, and that we can discuss how we get that right, having accepted the principle. We do not necessarily need the amendment to be accepted in its totality, but if we do not see any movement at all in its direction, we strongly feel that we ought to set down a marker to show that it is important that such a process be undertaken, and would therefore reluctantly seek to divide the Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I thank the shadow Minister for seeking to specify the targets that the Government should set within each priority area. He asked if what he said was met with interest. Of course it was. He recognises that the Bill includes a requirement, which I reiterate, to set at least one long-term legally binding target in each of four important areas: air quality; water; biodiversity; and resource efficiency and waste reduction. Those were chosen because they are the priority areas that reflect where we believe targets will drive long-lasting significant improvement in the natural environment, which is the aim of the Bill.
The four priority areas were chosen to complement the chapters of the Bill, to build on the vision in the 25-year environment plan—the first environment improvement plan in the Bill—and to facilitate the delivery of comprehensive measures, with an “s” on the end, across the natural environment; we are talking about not just one thing, but a whole raft of measures. The Bill’s framework allows long-term targets to be set on any aspect of the natural environment, or people’s enjoyment of it, beyond the four priority areas in order to drive significant improvement in the natural environment. Of course, all those things will be monitored, checked and reported on to ensure that the significant improvement is achieved, and if more targets are seen to be required, then more targets are what will happen.
I would like to reassure the shadow Minister that the Government will be able to determine the specific areas in which targets will be set via the robust and transparent target-setting process that I referred to this morning. Advice from independent experts will be sought in every case during the process. Stakeholders and the public will also have an opportunity to give input on targets. Indeed, just now in the Tea Room, one of our colleagues asked about giving input on the deposit return scheme. I said, “Yes, there will be a lot of engagement and a lot of consultation, through the Bill.” Targets will be based on robust, scientifically credible evidence, as well as economic analysis.
We do not want to prejudge which specific targets will emerge from the process, and the Office for Environmental Protection has a role in setting targets. If the OEP believes that additional targets should be set, it can say what it thinks should be done in its annual report when it is assessing the Government’s progress. It will do that every year. The Government then have to publish and lay before Parliament a response to the OEP’s call. Any long-term targets will be set via statutory instruments, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That means that Parliament can scrutinise, debate, and ultimately vote on them, so everyone gets their say. I hope that will please the shadow Minister, because he will very much be part of that. This process ensures that Parliament, supported by the OEP, can hold the Government to account for the targets they set.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Service on a Bill Committee such as this might seem like doing porridge, but—[Laughter.] Before we proceed, the normal convention is that whoever moves the motion speaks first. There is then a pause, not because I have forgotten what to do, but so that I can see whether anybody else is excited by the debate. If I pause and nobody bothers to indicate that they wish to speak, I call the Minister. Two Members have now indicated that they wish to speak. That is perfectly in order, and I have no problem with it, but traditionally, the Minister speaks last to summarise the debate. There is then the possibility of prolonging the matter further, but that is how it is usually done.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise for not rising quickly enough before the Minister spoke. I will try to do so more quickly in future.
I reiterate that under our current regime, it took three court cases, brought by a voluntary organisation, for Government to bring forward the clean air measures that are now being introduced. Obviously, a lot of other targets are included in amendment 178, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test—my name is not on that amendment, but I will be supporting it—but the ones about air quality are particularly close to my heart.
The fact that we had to go through those court cases under the European regulations, and that those clean air targets are not in the Bill, is deeply worrying. I am sure that we have ceilings, but for a lot of people, those ceilings are too high, and people are still going to die of breathing-related and other lung-related conditions. The ceiling in this Committee Room, for example, is very high; knowing what we now know, we would not again build this room with this ceiling height; we would have a far lower ceiling. The same is true for levels of particulate matter.
When we took evidence from ClientEarth last week, Katie Neald said:
“The cases that ClientEarth has taken against the UK Government have been key both to driving action to meet the legal limits we already have and to highlighting this as a serious issue and highlighting Government failures so far. It is really important that the Bill allows people to continue to do that against these new binding targets.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 95, Q136.]
This amendment creates that framework. Without it, the Bill is insufficient.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I apologise, Sir Roger, for not indicating earlier that I wished to speak. I want to make a very quick point, which underpins quite a lot of my criticism of many of the amendments that have been tabled to this Bill.
This Bill is a framework measure. The Government have already set out their priority areas, which are listed in the Bill. To get into the level of specificity in the amendment presupposes that we could know, theoretically for 15, 20 or 25 years, all the measures we may wish to choose. There are some that might seem good now, but in future may not seem so good. Flexibility is very important and something any Government of any colour or description, or any Minister, would need in future because, as we are seeing, the science and advice can change quite quickly. Having priority areas around the broad themes set out in the Bill makes sense because air will not cease to exist—if it does, we will cease to exist. Within that, however, we need Parliament and the Government to have flexibility. On those grounds, I do not support the amendment.
The Chair
Does the Minister wish to comment on what has just been said before I go back to Dr Whitehead?
Rebecca Pow
Very briefly, thank you, Sir Roger.
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. He has hit the nail on the head in summing up the flexibility for the targets and the importance of getting and inputting the right expert advice and having the flexibility to move and change with the requirements. The environment is such a huge thing. There is no one thing; it is not a straightforward answer. There will be lots of different targets to consider. Specifically, however, we have a requirement to set at least one long-term target.
To pick on the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds North West on air quality, we have a clean air strategy already, which the World Health Organisation has held up as an example for the rest of the world to follow. We are already taking the lead on that and have committed £3.5 billion to delivering our clean air strategy and the measures within it. They are already operating and will work part and parcel with the Bill’s new measures to have an even more holistic and comprehensive approach to air quality.
Dr Whitehead
If the Bill were just a framework Bill, it would be about a quarter as long as it is. The fact that, in various parts, it has quite a lot of detail about the things that are required within the overall framework indicates that the Bill is more than that. It seeks to set out, guide and secure a whole series of advances in environmental standards and enhancements of the natural environment in a way that hopefully we can all be proud of.
That is why I call this particular section thin gruel. I was trying to see where we can go with the porridge analogy. Although its potential is not thin gruel, the way it is set out in the Bill appears to me to turn out something that is rather more thin gruel than good porridge. Some Government Members, meanwhile, are thinking “How can we make it flower out of its bowl with all sorts of things added to it?”
Our amendment does not stop Ministers coming up with new targets—wide targets, changeover time and so on—and go with the flow of circumstances as they unfold, but it prevents the porridge from being thinner than it might otherwise be. We want to see basic, good porridge with some fruit, raspberries—
Dr Whitehead
With some nuts on top, which together makes a pleasing dish that one can understand and be secure that one is going to get a good breakfast as a result. That is the purpose of our amendment. We feel strongly about that—we all like a good breakfast. On that basis, I am not happy with the Minister’s response. I do not see how the things that she wants to get done on the Bill will in any way be undermined or diluted by the structure that we have put forward. On the contrary, I think they would be underpinned and expanded. On that basis, I will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) A target under this section must be set on the basis of the best available evidence and any advice given under section (3)(1).
(4B) In setting targets under this section, the Secretary of State must take into account relevant international best practices and seek to improve on them.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that targets are evidence based and have considered international best practises.
The amendment deals with what the targets must specify. As the Bill stands at the moment, that is a little vague. Subsection (4) states:
“A target set under this section must specify—
(a) a standard to be achieved, which must be capable of being objectively
measured, and
(b) a date by which it is to be achieved.”
We think that that formulation does not take full account of the way in which those targets should be appraised, particularly the way they should be appraised on the basis of the best available evidence and international best practices and how the UK might be able to improve on them. We therefore suggest adding proposed new subsections (4A) and (4B) after subsection (4).
We have to look at the best available evidence. I am not saying for a moment that this would occur, but a target that was set under this procedure by the Minister, which appeared to have been conjured out of thin air on a whim and did not have much support, would be gravely undermining of those people who want those targets to be achieved and those achievements to be firmly attained.
The best available evidence and the relevant international best practices are extremely important. We should be able to say that we can learn from others and incorporate that into our practices so that we leap ahead in our achievements. That is a very good guideline to inform target setting, and it is what we offer in our amendment. Again, I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she thinks that what is in the Bill at the moment really does the job in terms of setting targets, or whether, perhaps by using different means from the clause, there are ways in which we can make sure that the Bill stands up rather better to the target-setting task that we have set it.
Rebecca Pow
Of course I recognise the shadow Minister’s desire to ensure that, when these targets are set, they are based on the highest possible standards of evidence, practice and advice. However, I believe that it is not necessary to make such explicit amendments as the one that we are considering, because we have already committed to setting targets under a robust, evidence-led process. We expect the best available evidence to inform this, including, of course, scientific data, models, historical datasets and assessment of what is feasible from a socioeconomic perspective. I can assure him that absolutely nothing will be conjured out of thin air, as he was suggesting; conducting ourselves in such a way would not be a correct way for Government to operate.
I am sure that the shadow Minister will be interested to be reminded that every two years, we will conduct a review of significant developments in international environmental legislation. I think that that was one of the new additions to the Bill that was inserted during the process that he was outlining earlier, about how the Bill came and went, and fell, and various other things. This is an extra addition that I believe will be useful and will address exactly what he is talking about, because it is right that we consider what is happening across the rest of the world, to make sure that we are aligned, whether we want to be or not, and consider what other people are doing, and make sure we keep abreast of developments in driving forward our environmental protection legislation.
Of course, we will publish that review and make sure that any relevant findings are factored into our environmental improvement plan, and considered with the environmental target-setting process. We will also seek and consider very carefully the advice of independent experts before setting the targets. Additionally, our target proposals will be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament; both Houses will have the opportunity to scrutinise, debate and ultimately vote on the details and the ambition of the targets. We also expect the Select Committees to take an interest in this process and they will have an opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s target proposals. They might choose to conduct their own inquiries or publish reports, which the Government would then respond to in the usual manner.
Having given that amount of detail, I hope that it provides some reassurance. The shadow Minister is obviously raising really important issues, but I hope that my response makes it clear that we are taking this matter very seriously. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister has said exactly what I had anticipated she might say in the best of outcomes, and that is now on the record; indeed, our purpose principally was to ensure that that kind of statement about these targets was there for all to see. I am grateful to her for setting that out and I am much happier than I would have been if she had not said that. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rebecca Pow
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 1, page 2, line 15, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
This amendment reflects the renaming of the National Assembly for Wales as “Senedd Cymru” by the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020. Similar changes are made by Amendments 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 72, and 73.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 29, 32 to 36, 67, 37 to 57, 72 and 73, and 58 to 64.
Rebecca Pow
Section 2 of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 renames the National Assembly for Wales as the Welsh Parliament or Senedd Cymru. The changes will take effect from 6 May 2020. As a consequence, amendment 28 would replace references in the Bill to “the National Assembly for Wales” with “Senedd Cymru”, and replace references to “the Assembly” with “the Senedd”—I hope I have made that quite clear. This is consistent with the approach that the Welsh Government are taking to their own legislation.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Could the Minister clarify whether we are replacing “the National Assembly for Wales” with “Senedd Cymru” in all legislation or whether we are inserting both, as was implied in part of her statement, by saying, “the National Assembly for Wales/Senedd Cymru”? Does the National Assembly for Wales cease to exist completely, and are we always to refer to it as Senedd Cymru in all future parliamentary debates?
Rebecca Pow
That is a very perceptive question, which does not surprise me at all—my hon. Friend is always on the ball. The answer is no, the Welsh Assembly will remain. I will just add that the Government consulted the Welsh Government on how the Welsh legislature should be referred to in legislation moving forward, and using the Welsh title ensures there is a consistent approach across the statute book.
Richard Graham
For clarification, can I just confirm that we will refer to “the National Assembly for Wales” and to “Senedd Cymru” in the Bill, and that that is the format that Parliament and the Government will adopt for all legislation, and that we are not replacing “the National Assembly for Wales” with “Senedd Cymru” on every occasion?
Rebecca Pow
The answer to the first part of his question is yes.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Amendment made: 29, in clause 1, page 2, line 16, leave out “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
The Chair
I am satisfied that clause 1 has been sufficiently debated, and I therefore do not propose to take a clause stand part debate.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Environmental targets: particulate matter
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—
(a) be less than or equal to 10µg/m3;
(b) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.”
This amendment is intended to set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target will be at least as strict as the 2005 WHO guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 185, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—
(a) follow World Health Organisation guidelines and;
(b) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.”
This amendment ensures that the international standard on small particulate matter set by the World Health Organisation is followed, and that this target is reached by the end of the decade.
Amendment 25, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, after “England” insert—
“and minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of air pollution on human health and the environment as quickly as possible”.
This amendment is intended to strengthen the test against which targets are assessed, to ensure that the human health impacts of air pollution are considered, with the aim of minimising, or where possible eliminating, them.
Amendment 26, in clause 6, page 4, line 29, after “2023” insert—
“or, in the case of the PM2.5 air quality target and any other long-term and interim target set within the air quality priority area, within 6 months of publication of updated guidelines on ambient air pollution by the World Health Organization, whichever is earlier”.
This amendment is intended to allow any new targets to reflect updated WHO guidelines.
Amendment 27, in clause 6, page 4, line 31, after “completed” insert—
“or, in the case of the PM2.5 air quality target and any other long-term and interim target set within the air quality priority area, within 6 months of publication of updated guidelines on ambient air pollution by the World Health Organization, whichever is earlier”.
This amendment is intended to trigger an early review of the PM2.5 target, and other air quality targets, within 6 months of the publication of the updated WHO guidelines.
Dr Whitehead
This amendment should be discussed with amendment 185. Amendment 23 is tabled in the name of the esteemed Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and a number of other Members, most of whom are not on this Committee—and some of our names have been added. Amendment 185 is in the names of Members who are mostly on the Committee.
These amendments highlight a real difference between what is in the Bill about the additional environmental target on particulate matter, in addition to what is in clause 1(3), and the World Health Organisation guidelines. Clause 2 indicates why this is not just a framework Bill, as it includes some real stuff on particulate matter. But that real stuff does not get us to where we need to be on targets for particulate matter in ambient air.
One way or another, these amendments seek to equate the target guidelines to the World Health Organisation guidelines on particulate matter. Indeed, amendment 23 states that the PM2.5 air quality target should be,
“less than or equal to 10µg/m3”.
I understand that that would be equivalent to the World Health Organisation guidelines. In that sense, although the amendments are slightly differently worded, they do not have any different intent or purpose.
The questions are: why the WHO guidelines; what have we done so far on PM2.5 emissions; and where might the targets suggested in the Bill get us? One problem with how we have addressed PM2.5 and other particulate matter is that although the emissions expressed as density per cubic metre of air have come down very substantially over the years, levels have pretty much plateaued between the early 2000s and the present. Indeed, as I see it we will not get too much further in achieving targets on the basis of that performance over recent years. The suggested targets set out in the Bill do not take us much further down the road as far as a fall in emissions is concerned. We need to align ourselves with the WHO guidelines, so that we can ensure that we are targeting a regular and continuing reduction in emissions.
As hon. Members will know, these emissions are serious for human health. The smaller the particulate emissions, the more likely those particulates are to penetrate human tissue and lungs, and to cause long-term injury and health problems for the recipients. These finer particulates are pretty much a product of a lot of modern living, coming from, for example, tyres, brakes, diesel emissions—all sorts of things like that. It is certainly more than possible to target those factors in such a way as to get emissions down to a much more seriously depleted level than at present.
Indeed, that was the subject of a report by the Department in 2019 entitled, “Air quality: Assessing progress towards WHO guideline levels of PM2.5 in the UK”. That report, which was obviously a Government report, suggested in its conclusion that the analysis of progress that had been made and of future progress demonstrated that,
“measures in the Clean Air Strategy, alongside action by EU Member States, are likely to take us a substantial way towards achieving the WHO guideline level for annual mean PM2.5”,
but that:
“It also helps us understand where further action is needed.”
That is probably a summary of where the Government are as far as these guidelines are concerned: we are some way towards the WHO guidelines, but we are not there yet, and we need to understand that further action is needed and where it is needed. That is why we think a target, which should run alongside the WHO guideline level, is essential in or around this Bill.
Richard Graham
The hon. Gentleman says we must have guidelines; I agree with him totally, but in fact the guidelines are there in the legislation. Clause 1 lays out specifically what the standard means and the date by which it is to be achieved, which cannot be more than 15 years after the date on which the target is initially set. The guidelines are there, and clause 2, in seven crisp bullets, gives more detail about what is expected of the Secretary of State.
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment looks, on appearance, to be a modest word or two, but what he is trying to achieve is a rewriting of clauses 1, 2 and 3 altogether, setting not the guideline, but a very specific target and deadline. I cannot help wondering whether the deadline, which is before January 2030, is not linked specifically to the Labour party conference motion that called for net zero carbon by 2030—something his own Front Bench has rejected, accepting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s target of net zero by 2050.
Dr Whitehead
That is a bit like thinking that, if there are two bodies in different parts of the country, they must be connected because they are two bodies. It does not follow, to be honest, because they are not connected.
Richard Graham
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman saying that they are not connected. The two dates happen to be the same, so there is a connection. It is not like two bodies in different parts of the country. The key thing is that the guidelines for which he calls are there; the deadline for which he calls is a separate thing.
Rebecca Pow
The Government shares the shadow Minister’s desire to take ambitious action to reduce public exposure to air pollution and ensure that the latest evidence is taken into consideration when targets are reviewed. The Government take fine particulate matter, and air pollution as a whole, extremely seriously, and completely understand public concerns about this very serious health issue. That is why the Government are already taking action to improve air quality, backed by significant investment.
We have put in place a £3.5 billion plan to reduce harmful emissions from road transport. Last year, we published our world-leading clean air strategy, which sets out the comprehensive action required at all levels of Government and society to clean up our air. I reiterate that that strategy has been praised by the WHO as an example for the rest of the world to follow, so we are already leading on this agenda. That is not to say that there is not a great deal to do; there is, but the Government are taking it extremely seriously.
The Bill builds on the ambitious actions that we have already taken and delivers key parts of our strategy, including by creating a duty to set a legally binding target for PM2.5, in addition to the long-term air quality target. That size of particulate is considered particularly dangerous because it lodges in the lungs, and can cause all sorts of extra conditions. I have met with many health bodies to discuss that. It is a very serious issue and a problem for many people. However, we are showing our commitment to tackling it by stating in the Bill that we will have a legally binding target.
It is important that we get this right. We must set targets that are ambitious but achievable. Last week, Mayor Glanville, the representative from the Local Government Association, highlighted the importance of ambitious targets, but was at pains to emphasise the need for a clear pathway to achieve them. It would not be appropriate to adopt a level and achievement date, as proposed in amendments 23 and 185, without first completing a thorough and science-based consideration of our options.
Bim Afolami
Bearing in mind that the Minister has already quoted from last week’s evidence sessions, does she agree that Professor Lewis made it very clear that, once we reached the target level mentioned in the amendment, the United Kingdom would not be fully in control of the target, and it would therefore be dangerous to put such a target in the Bill?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was going to mention Professor Alastair Lewis. Members will remember that he is the chairman of the UK’s air quality expert group. He gave stark evidence. He is obviously an expert in his field, and it was really interesting to hear what he said. He stressed the technical challenges involved in setting a target for a pollutant as complex as PM2.5, which he explained is formed from diverse sources—the shadow Minister is right about that—and chemical reactions in the atmosphere. He was at pains to explain that a lot of PM2.5 comes from the continent, and it depends on the direction of the wind, the weather and the atmospheric conditions. My hon. Friend is right that those things are not totally within our control.
Professor Lewis explained the need to decide how we would measure progress towards the target, and that the process would be challenging and would take time. It is crucial to get it right. When developing the detail of the target, we will seek evidence from a wide range of sources and ensure we give due consideration to the health benefits of reducing pollution, as well as the measures required to meet the targets and the costs to business and taxpayers. It is really important that we bring them on board.
I want to refer quickly to the report that the shadow Minister mentioned. I thought he might bring up the DEFRA report published in July 2019, which demonstrated that significant progress would be made towards the current WHO guideline level of 2.5 by 2030. He is right about that. However, the analysis did not outline a pathway to achieve the WHO guideline level across the country or take into account the full economic viability or practical deliverability.
In setting our ambitions for achievable targets, it is essential that we give consideration to these matters—achievability and the measures required to meet it. That is very much what our witnesses said last week. If we set unrealistic targets, it could lead to actions that are neither cost effective nor proportionate. That is why we are committed to an evidence-based process using the best available science—something I know the shadow Minister is really keen we do—and advice from experts to set an ambitious and achievable PM2.5 air quality target.
I reiterate that it is crucial for public, Parliament and stakeholders that they have the opportunity to comment on this and have an input in the process of developing these targets. By taking the time to carry out this important work in engagement, we will ensure that targets are ambitious, credible and, crucially, supported by society. We have the significant improvement test, which is a legal requirement, outlined in the Bill. It will consider all relevant targets collectively and assess whether meeting them will significantly improve the natural environment of England as a whole. It is intended to capture the breadth and the amount of improvement. It is very much a holistic approach and it encompasses the impacts of air pollution on the natural environment and the associated effects on human health. All these things will be taken into account in assessing the journey to the targets. I therefore surmise that the proposal in amendment 25 is not necessary.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister is quite right in pointing out that the report we mentioned did not take into account within a scientific model the full economic viability or practical deliverability of that change. If she were to commission this group to go away and do that, would she commit to the WHO guidelines after that point?
Rebecca Pow
The shadow Minister knows that I will make no such commitment here. This has to be evidence based. Get the right evidence, then the decisions can be made. That is how this Bill will operate. All the advice we took last week from the experts—the people we have to listen to—very much agreed that this was the direction that we need to take. Reviewing individual targets through the test, as proposed in amendments 26 and 27, would not be in line with the holistic approach of the Bill.
Furthermore, the fixed timetable for periodically conducting the significant improvement test provides much needed certainty and predictability to business and society. We have heard from many businesses that they want this surety. It would be inappropriate to determine the timescale for this test on the basis of one new piece of evidence. However, we recognise that the evidence will evolve as highlighted by amendments 26, 27 and 185. The Government will consider new evidence as it comes to light after targets have been set, as part of the five-yearly review of our environmental improvement plan and its annual progress report. The Office for Environmental Protection has a key role. If the OEP believes that additional targets should be set, as I have said before, or that an update to a target is necessary as a result of new evidence, it can recommend this in its annual report, assessing the Government’s progress.
Dr Whitehead
I do worry about the idea that a target should only be set if we know that the target can be achieved and exceeded immediately. If we did that all of the time, we would not have targets. We would set what we were going to do as a target and—well I never—we would always achieve it. A target has to be something that is grasping at the stars in order to be achieved. A target, among other things, should not just be based on the idea that you can do something now, easily. It should be, in part, a wake-up call and a gee-up to make sure the target is achieved once you have done the basic work that it is technically possible to do. Indeed, the Government report got us to a position of doing that. I do not accept the Minister’s arguments on this. There should be a target, at the very least to keep us on the straight and narrow as far as reduction in particulate emissions are concerned, which is based on WHO guidelines. I therefore seek a division on this.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) Before making regulations under sections 1 or 2, reviewing targets under section 6, setting interim targets under section 10, or considering actions required to achieve targets set under sections 1, 2, or 10, the Secretary of State must—
(a) obtain, and take into account, the advice of a relevant independent and expert advisory body set up for this purpose;
(b) carry out full public consultation;
(c) publish that advice as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(1A) If regulations laid under sections 1 or 2 or interim targets make provision different from that recommended by the advisory body, the Secretary of State must both publish the public interest reasons for those differences and make a statement to Parliament on them.
(1B) Any advisory body set up under subsection (1)(a) must comprise 50 per cent of members nominated by the OEP and 50 per cent of members nominated by the Committee on Climate Change.”
This amendment seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from breaking Articles 4 to 8 of the United Nations Aarhus Convention of which the UK is a party. It encourages the Secretary of State to set up and listen to an independent expert body, to consult with the public, and share information. Where discrepancies between what is advised and the regulations the secretary of state chooses to make arise, it requests explanation of that discrepancy. Finally it makes suggestions for how that advisory body should be set up.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 181, in clause 3, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
“(1A) The advice sought under section 3(1) must include advice on how the scope and level of targets should be set to significantly improve the natural environment and minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of pollution on human health and the environment.”
Dr Whitehead
I was slightly taken aback as I had received an indication from the Chair’s provisional grouping and selection of amendments that amendments 81 and 181 would be taken separately.
The Chair
They can be voted on separately but debated together. I hate to say it, but I am right.
Dr Whitehead
I think I probably have a provisional grouping in front of me here and things maybe have changed since then. In that case, I am very sorry that I raised that particular point.
The Chair
No problem at all. The grouping on the selection paper indicates amendment 81 with 181 and then, separately, amendment 24.
Dr Whitehead
My other problem here was that I had extensively marked up the provisional grouping with colour coding and so on, and was reluctant to set it aside. That is maybe why I brought it into the Committee. It is a nice piece of work in its own right.
We are talking about amendments 81 and 181 grouped together, which I am happy to talk to. I begin with amendment 81, which seeks to unpack the statement at the beginning of clause 3 that before “making regulations” the
“Secretary of State must seek advice from persons the Secretary of State considers to be independent and to have relevant expertise.”
That is a rather strange form of wording. Hon. Members may agree on that. It appears, at its face, that the Secretary of State could choose who—in his or her opinion— is “independent”, a subjective view from the Secretary of State, and who has “relevant expertise”. That is also a subjective view. The Secretary of State can decide on his or her advice without consultation, and can decide from whom he or she must seek that advice.
Amendment 81 seeks to make it much clearer that that is not how the process of seeking and obtaining advice would be carried out. Not only that, that it also seeks to put in place what is essentially good practice from previous legislation in this area, to guide us on how that process would be undertaken. Amendment 81 sets out that the Secretary of State would have to “obtain” and “take into account” the
“advice of a relevant independent and expert advisory body set up for this purpose”
when reviewing targets and making regulations under clauses 1 or 2. It would not just be someone who the Secretary of State thought had some relevance to the matter, or to whom they decided to go in the belief that they might be independent. They would be “independent”, they would be “expert”, and they would be separate. It would be clear who that advice was coming from.
On the basis of that advice, full public consultation should be undertaken, and that advice would be published as soon as was reasonably practical. It gives the Secretary of State a get-out, and it is proper that it should. Since the advice is to be given as advice, and if the Secretary of State decided that they did not want to take that advice, or wanted to make a provision other than the one recommended by the advisory body, then the Secretary of State should
“publish the public interest reasons for those differences and make a statement to Parliament on them.”
That is what is known as a comply or explain procedure. It would be expected, in the first instance, that the Secretary of State would comply with properly given, properly expert and properly independent advice, but if they did not feel that they could comply with that advice, it would be up to them to put up a good case as to why not, to publish that good case and to make a statement to Parliament on the good case as to why they could not comply.
We have suggested that the members of the advisory body for this purpose should be nominated by two bodies, one of which is independent and the other, we hope, will very shortly be independent. We suggest that 50% of members be nominated by the Office for Environmental Protection and 50% by the Committee on Climate Change.
That brings me to the procedures that were set up under the original climate change legislation, the Climate Change Act 2008, which, as I have already mentioned in these proceedings and will undoubtedly mention again, seems to me to be a yardstick by which we should measure what we are doing in the Bill. The Bill has often been described as a Climate Change Act for the environment, and it is right that we should make that comparison, because a Bill in its best form will, first, stand the comparison and, secondly, as the Climate Change Act has, stand the test of time between Administrations and through vicissitudes and changes in scientific consideration. It will have within it the mechanism to keep a firm eye on what we are doing, but at the same time change, if necessary, with changes in circumstances.
The Climate Change Act is clear about what the Secretary of State must do in terms of either setting targets or amending target percentages. That is a comparator with what is suggested in this Bill in clause 3. The Climate Change Act states the following:
“Before laying before Parliament a draft of a statutory instrument containing an order…amending the 2050 target or the baseline year…the Secretary of State must…obtain, and take into account, the advice of the Committee on Climate Change”—
the Committee on Climate Change was set up by the Climate Change Act for that purpose of providing independent advice. The Act also says that the Secretary of State must publish that advice and, if the order that the Secretary of State lays makes provision different from that recommended by the committee,
“the Secretary of State must also publish a statement setting out the reasons for that decision.”
The “comply or explain” mode of doing things is enshrined in the Climate Change Act. Indeed, it is shot through the Climate Change Act in terms of different orders that can be made to amend targets or baseline years or to amend target percentages. When the target percentage in the Act was, as hon. Members will recall, changed in July of last year—I was privileged to lead for Labour on the change that was put forward in, as it happened, a statutory instrument—that change went through well, in that the procedures in the Climate Change Act allowed the change to be made on the basis of proper advice and consultation and ministerial statements to that effect. All those procedures worked well in relation to the Climate Change Act and the changes made there.
There are no such procedures in this Bill. That is what we are particularly concerned about. We think that a procedure similar to that in the Climate Change Act but addressing the particular concerns of the Environment Bill—not everything can simply be squeezed in unamended and unchanged—would be the appropriate way to deal with this request for advice on setting targets and interim targets. Yes, the amendment is quite a bit more extensive than the brief mention of targets in clause 3, but it would add real lustre to the Bill, ensuring that targets would be properly set, properly consulted on and properly explained. Therefore, they would be properly and legitimately adopted.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for amendments 81 and 181. I hope he has already got the impression that we are absolutely committed to setting targets under a robust evidence-led process. Independent experts, the public, stakeholders and Parliament will all play a part in informing the scope and level of target development. The Government will carefully consider advice from independent experts before setting targets.
As the Bill progresses, we will continue to consider how the role of experts is best fulfilled. A number of witnesses last week referred to the need to use experts, and they will be used constantly and continuously. Such experts could include academics, scientists and practitioners within the four priority areas included in the Bill. The expert advice we receive to support the setting of both the target for PM2.5 and the further long-term air quality target will include that on how targets will reduce the harmful impacts of air pollution on human health. We will rely hugely on that expert advice.
Long-term targets will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise and analyse the target proposals. That will, of course, include the shadow Minister, because both Houses will debate the statutory instruments that will set the targets. The Office for Environmental Protection will publish annual reports on the Government’s progress towards the targets, which may include recommendations for improving progress. As I have reiterated a number of times, the Government will be required to publish a response to the recommendations.
I want to stress that the Office for Environmental Protection can advise on targets, either through its duties related to environmental law or through its annual progress report on the environmental improvement plan. For example, it has a statutory power to advise on changes to environmental law, which enables it to comment on proposed legislation on long-term targets. It also has a statutory duty to monitor progress towards meeting targets as part of its annual progress report on the environmental improvement plan, which can include recommending how progress could be improved. So there is already a very strong mechanism.
Environmental law extends to all target provisions of the Bill—for example, procedural requirements on target setting and amendments, and the requirement to achieve targets. In addition, the Government will conduct the first significant improvement test—that is a legal requirement—and report to Parliament on its outcome, three months after the deadline for bringing forward the initial priority area targets.
The significant improvement test provisions of the Bill will form part of environmental law, which is why they will come under the OEP. That means that the OEP will have oversight of the provisions, as it does over all aspects of environmental law, and will have a key role in making sure that the Government meet the targets.
The shadow Minister rightly drew analogies with the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Committee on Climate Change. I am pleased that he recognises the similarities. In designing this framework, we have learned from the successful example of the Climate Change Act—for example, the strong duty to achieve long-term targets, the requirement to report on progress and scrutiny of progress by an independent, statutory body, in this case, the Office for Environmental Protection. That mirrors the CCA. We are confident that the framework is every bit as strong as the CCA framework and that it provides certainty to society that the Government will achieve the targets, delivering significant environmental improvements.
Ongoing stakeholder engagement, expert advice and public consultation will help to inform future target areas, as part of the robust, evidence-led, target-setting process. The Government will, as a matter of course, conduct a wide range of consultations for the first set of long-term targets. I hope that that is clear. We do not need the amendments suggested by the shadow Minister, and I ask him to withdraw them.
Dr Whitehead
That is all quite terrific, but it is not quite what it says in the Bill. That is the problem. The Minister has set out a robust and wide-ranging procedure for setting targets and I hope that all the steps she mentioned are going to be followed. If they are, we have a good arrangement. However, if we look at the Bill, there is fairly scattered evidence that that is the way we are going to conduct ourselves. On the contrary, it actually appears to give a great deal of leeway for somebody or some people not to do most of those things in setting the targets, if that is what they wanted to do.
We are perhaps back to some of the discussions we had this morning about the extent to which the Bill has to stand not just the test of time, but the potential test of malevolence. If a well-minded and dedicated Minister, such as the one we have before us this afternoon, were to conduct the procedure, that is exactly how she would conduct it, and I would expect nothing less of her, because that is the frame of mind in which she approaches the issue—but, in legislating, we have to consider that not everyone would have that positive frame of mind. I do not want to divide the Committee, but I am concerned that the procedure in the Bill is too sketchily set out for comfort. Maybe, when we draw up the regulations, we could flesh out some of the things that the Minister said this afternoon, to assure ourselves that that is what we will do, and do properly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Sobel
I was not expecting to be called quite so soon, so I will move amendment 24 formally.
Amendment proposed: 24, in clause 3, page 3, line 20, leave out “31 October 2022” and insert “31 December 2020”.—(Alex Sobel.)
This amendment is intended to bring forward the deadline for laying regulations setting the PM2.5 target to December 2020.
Rebecca Pow
I could cut my speech short and just say that I am very pleased the hon. Member has withdrawn his amendment.
Rebecca Pow
I will give my speech then, Sir Roger.
The amendment would undermine the intention to ensure that we set targets via an open consultation process that allows sufficient time for relevant evidence to be gathered, scrutinised and tested. As part of that process, we intend to seek evidence from a wide range of stakeholder interests, carry out good quality scientific socioeconomic analysis, take advice from independent experts and conduct a public consultation, alongside the parliamentary scrutiny of the target SIs that I have mentioned many times before.
It is important that we get that right rather than rushing to set targets, so we do not want to bring the deadline forward from 31 October 2022. We have heard strong support for that approach from stakeholders, who are all keen to have time and space to contribute meaningfully to target development. It is critical that there is certainty about what our targets are by the time we review our environmental improvement plan. That is essential for us to set out appropriate interim targets—the ones that will get us to the long-term target—and consider what measures may be required to achieve both the interim and long-term targets. The review of the plan must happen by 31 January 2023, so to that end, the target deadline of 31 October 2022 works well.
The Committee should also note that 31 October 2022 is a deadline. It does not prevent us from setting a target earlier where we have robust evidence and have received the necessary input from experts, stakeholders and the public.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Can the Minister reassure us that the 2022 deadline does not mean that progress on those issues will not be made or that we cannot have interim targets before we reach the deadline? The whole thing is not being kicked off until 2022; we should still be doing our best to tackle the problem of clean air between now and then.
Rebecca Pow
The target deadline of 31 October 2022 works well for us to report back on our first environmental improvement plan three months later. We hope that some consultations will start during the process, so work will be under way to improve the environment, take advice, set targets and so on. Work will be under way to start the ball rolling.
Alex Sobel
I thank the Minister for giving some reassurance that the date is not absolutely set in stone and that measures could be introduced earlier, although obviously the date given in the amendment is ideal from my point of view and that of the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Environmental targets: effect
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert
“and,
(c) interim targets are met.”
This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to meet the interim targets they set.
For the Committee’s further enlightenment, I can say that amendment 24 was in a different place in the provisional grouping. I landed my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West in it slightly by assuming that it would be debated under clause 2; it is actually a separate discussion. I am sorry to my hon. Friend for that, but he did a brilliant job under the circumstances.
Amendment 82 is deceptively small but makes an important point about interim targets in this piece of legislation. The Bill requires interim targets to be set on a five-yearly basis. In the environmental improvement plans, the Government are required to set out the steps they will take over a 15-year period to improve the natural environment. However, environmental improvement plans are not legally binding; they are simply policy documents.
Although the plans need to be reviewed, potentially updated every five years and reported on every year, that is not the same as legal accountability. Indeed, voluntary environmental targets have been badly missed on a number of occasions. The target set in 2010 to end the inclusion of peat in amateur gardening products by 2020 will be badly missed. The target set in 2011 for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to conserve 50%—by area—of England’s sites of special scientific interest by 2020 has been abandoned and replaced with a new target to ensure that 38.7% of SSSIs are in favourable condition, which is only just higher than the current level. A number of voluntary, interim and other targets have clearly been missed because they are just reporting objects; they do not have legal accountability.
Interim targets should be legally binding to guarantee that they will be delivered, and it is vital to have a robust legal framework in place to hold the Government and public authorities to account—not just in the long term, but in the short term. As things stand, the Government could in theory set a long-term, legally binding target for 2037, as suggested in the legislation, but then avoid having to do anything whatever about meeting it until 2036.
Amendment 82 would insert the phrase, “interim targets are met.” That would effectively place a duty on the Secretary of State to meet the interim targets that they set. In that context, it is no different from the provisions of the Climate Change Act, which I keep repeating as an example for us all to follow. Indeed, how the five-year carbon budgets work is an example for all of us to follow. They were set up by the Climate Change Act effectively as interim targets before the overall target set for 2050, which is now a 100% reduction; it was an 80% reduction in the original Act.
Those five-year targets are set by the independent body—the Committee on Climate Change—and the Government are required to meet them. If the Government cannot meet them, they are required to take measures to rectify the situation shortly afterwards. Therefore, there are far better mechanisms than those in the Bill to give interim targets real life and ensure they are not just exercises on a piece of paper.
It is important that the Secretary of State is given a duty to meet the targets, because that means that they will have to introduce mechanisms to ensure that they meet those targets. That is what we anticipate would happen as a subset of these measures.
We need to take interim targets seriously, as I am sure the Minister would agree. Indeed, it is not a question of whether we take them seriously; it is a question of how we take them seriously, in a way that ensures that they are credible, achievable, workable and play a full part in the process of getting to the eventual targets that we set at the start of the Bill.
Kerry McCarthy
I will be very brief. I entirely support what my hon. Friend says about the need for interim targets. We have seen how the carbon budgets work under the Climate Change Act. There is real concern that the timetable might be slipping and that we might not manage to meet the commitments in the next couple of carbon budgets, but at least there is a mechanism.
I know that we have the environmental improvement plans, and that there is a requirement to review them and potentially update them every five years. However, there are so many strategy documents and plans. If we look at peat, for example, my hon. Friend mentioned the fact that the target set in 2010 for ending the inclusion of peat in amateur garden products by the end of this year will be missed. I know that the Government have a peat strategy, and there are various other things kicking around that are mentioned every time we talk about peat. But there is a lack of focus, a lack of drive and a lack of certainty as to where the Government are heading on that issue. I feel that if we had legally binding interim targets in the Bill, that would give a sense of direction and it would be something against which we could hold the Government to account—more so than with what is currently proposed.
Regarding my last intervention on the Minister, I was trying to be helpful. I was just asking her to give a reassurance that all the efforts to clear up our air and to tackle air pollution are going on regardless; it is not just about setting this target and whether we set it for 2022 or 2020. That is one particular measure. All I am trying to say is that I am looking for reassurances that the Government will still be focused on cleaning up our air. All she has to do is say yes.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling this amendment. Very quickly, I can give assurances that of course work is ongoing to clean up our air, because we have our clean air strategy. A great many processes are being put in place through that strategy to tackle all the key pollutants that affect air quality. The measures in the Bill come on top of that. I hope that gives the reassurance that was sought.
It is of course critical that we achieve our long-term targets to deliver significant environmental improvement, and this framework provides strong assurances that we will do so. The Bill has this whole framework of robust statutory requirements for monitoring, reporting and reviewing, combined with the Office for Environmental Protection and parliamentary scrutiny, to ensure that meeting the interim targets is taken seriously, without the need for them to be legally binding.
Interim targets are there to help the trajectory towards meeting the long-term targets, to ensure that the Government are staying on track. We cannot simply set a long-term target for 2037 and forget about it. Through this cycle—the reporting requirement and the requirement to set out the interim target of up to five years—the Bill will ensure that the Government take early, regular steps to achieve the long-term targets and can be held to account. The OEP and Parliament will, of course, play their role too.
To be clear, we have a little mechanism called the triple lock, which is the key to driving short-term progress. The Government must have an environmental improvement plan, which sets out the steps they intend to take to improve the environment, and review it at least every five years. In step 2, the Government must report on progress towards achieving the targets every year. In step 3, the OEP will hold us to account on progress towards achieving the targets, and every year it can recommend how we could make better progress, if it thinks better progress needs to be made. The Government then have to respond.
If progress seems too slow, or is deemed to be too slow, the Government may need to develop new policies to make up for that when reviewing their EIPs. They will not wait until 2037 to do that; these things can be done as a continuous process, and that is important.
The shadow Minister rightly referred back to the Climate Change Act and the five-yearly carbon budgets, as did the hon. Member for Bristol East. He asked why, if the carbon budgets were legally binding, the interim targets are not. That is a good question, but of course the targets in the Environment Bill are quite different from carbon budgets. Carbon budgets relate to a single metric: the UK’s net greenhouse gas emissions. These targets will be set on several different aspects of the natural environment.
As I am sure hon. Members will understand, that is very complicated; it is an interconnected system that is subject to natural factors as well as to human activity. Additionally, aspects of the natural environment such as water quality or soil health might respond more quickly to some things and more slowly to others, even with ambitious interventions. It is possible that the Government could adopt extremely ambitious measures and still miss their interim targets due to external factors.
What is important, in this case, is that a missed interim target is recognised and that the Government consider what is needed to get back on track. I am convinced that the system that is there to recognising that—the reporting, analysis and so on—will highlight it. There will be reporting through the EIPs, the targets and the OEP scrutiny, and the incorporation of any new interim targets or measures; it can all be looked at in the five-yearly review of the EIP. I believe there is a strong framework there already.
Finally, of course, the OEP will have the power to bring legal proceedings if the Government breach their environmental law duties, including their duty to achieve long-term targets. Of course, we cannot reach the long-term targets unless we have achieved the interim targets first. I hope I have been clear on that; I feel strongly that we have the right process here, and I hope the shadow Minister will kindly withdraw his amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I hope the Minister will not think I am being too unkind if I say that she is describing a triple lock process rather more like a triple bunch of flowers process. Yes, what she says about the process operating under positive circumstances is good. Indeed, if it happens as she has outlined, we will have a good process in place. It may well be that as time goes by and people have more confidence in how the process works, and if the Government of the day play ball with that process in its own right, the outcome will be good.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert
“and,
(c) steps identified under section 5(5)(b) are taken.”
This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to do what they have said needs to be done in their report.
The amendment attempts to tidy up the procedures in clauses 4 and 5. Clause 5 talks about reporting duties, and it identifies the steps that are taken to make sure the Secretary of State does what they need to do according to their report. At present, the steps identified in clause 5 stand separate from the Secretary of State’s report, and the Secretary of State appears to report in isolation. Various things have to be done, but they are not tied in with the report.
The amendment would ensure that the
“steps identified under section 5(5)(b) are taken”,
which would mean that the Secretary of State’s report is not only a piece of paper. The amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to do what their report says needs to be done, so the report would have real substance for future activity in this area.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling the amendment. I am sure he agrees that the most critical thing is the meeting of long-term targets in order to deliver significant environmental improvement, rather than the specific process of getting there. Our target framework provides strong assurance that the Government will achieve them, so the amendment is not necessary.
If a long-term target is missed, the Government’s remedial plan must set out the steps they intend to take towards meeting the missed target as soon as reasonably practicable. The Government will remain under an explicit duty to meet the target. The OEP will have a key role in holding the Government to account on the delivery of targets, both through the annual scrutiny of progress and through its enforcement functions. If a long-term target is missed, the OEP may decide to commence an investigation, which could ultimately lead to enforcement action. We expect the case for enforcement action to increase with time if the target keeps being missed, including if the Government fail to take the steps outlined in the remedial plan. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I am a little happier with the Minister’s consideration of that amendment. I think it might be a good idea to pull these things together, but I accept what the Minister says, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Environmental targets: effect
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 5, page 4, line 1, at end insert—
“(c) include a timetable for adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, and the authorities responsible for their delivery, and
(d) an analysis of the options considered and their estimated impact on delivering progress against the relevant targets.”.
The amendment strengthens the Secretary of State’s reporting by including a timetable and analysis.
We now turn to clause 5, which sets out that the Secretary of State must
“set out the steps the Secretary of State has taken, or intends to take, to ensure the specified standard is achieved as soon as reasonably practicable.”
To give the clause a little more robustness, the amendment would add at the end that the Secretary of State’s report should
“(c) include a timetable for adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, and the authorities responsible for their delivery, and
(d) an analysis of the options considered and their estimated impact on delivering progress against the relevant targets.”
That sounds a little routine, but we think that without such shaping, the report could be pretty much anything. We could give the report considerable shape by requiring it to contain a timetable for the adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, to shape and specify them; to set out who will be responsible for doing those things; and to contain an analysis of the options that have been considered and their estimated impact. That might not necessarily be an impact assessment as we traditionally know them in legislation, but a background analysis of those options and how they would affect the delivery of progress against relevant targets would be a good net addition to the Bill. I anticipate that the Minister may think otherwise, but I am interested to hear what she has to say. I am interested to know whether she thinks that such a process, which would give reports a lot more shape, might be considered for future reports. That might be done by further secondary legislation, or by other means—not necessarily those that are laid out in the amendment.
Rebecca Pow
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees that missing a legally binding target should lead to clear consequences and next steps. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, however, because it does not strengthen the requirements that we are creating. The Bill requires the Government to publish a remedial plan to achieve the missed standard
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
To draw up their remedial plan, the Government would therefore have to assess both what is practicable—feasible —and what is reasonable. That would include how long the chosen measures are expected to take to achieve the missed standard, how and by whom they would be implemented, and what alternatives had been considered. To show that they had met that standard, the Government would need to set out how they had selected the measures included in the remedial plan—I think that is what the shadow Minister was getting at—as part of sound policy making and to ensure transparency.
The OEP would have a key role to play. If, for example, the Government failed to publish a remedial plan that met the relevant statutory requirements, the OEP might decide to open an investigation, which ultimately could lead to enforcement action. There are already very strong measures to back up the remedial plan, and in case standards or targets are missed. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
As I anticipated, I did not have an eager taker for my suggestion. Nevertheless, the Minister put on the record some of the anticipated structure following those reports. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Environmental targets: review
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 183, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) In considering whether the natural environment would be significantly improved, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that—
(a) the terrestrial and marine natural environment in England has improved as a system; and
(b) that the achievement of any targets which meet the conditions specified in subsection (8) would constitute significant improvement in that matter.”
This amendment would require a review to consider whether significant improvement is achieved for the environment as a whole, as well as for certain individual aspects of the environment.
We now move to the fabled land of clause 6. We have been looking at it from afar and thinking that it might be a mirage, but it turns out that, like the targets we are talking about, it may be within our grasp. The amendment is important when it comes to looking at the system of the terrestrial and marine environment as a whole in the consideration of significant improvement to the natural environment.
We have talked about what we mean by significant improvement. We have discussed whether in certain circumstances, the improvement of the habitat for a particular species near Birmingham might constitute significant improvement, or whether we need a more holistic consideration of significant improvement. I think we need something more holistic, because it is important that our individual efforts—we will discuss them later in relation to local nature action plans—join up, and that they are seen as a whole and as parts of a wider process that provides systematic improvement for the whole terrestrial and marine environment. Individual improvements should therefore be judged against that wider yardstick.
Rebecca Pow
I welcome the shadow Minister’s intention of ensuring that the Secretary of State looks at whether targets will achieve significant improvement in the natural environment as a whole, as well as in individual areas of it. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The shadow Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that, but even in our evidence session of last week, Dr Richard Benwell, chief executive officer of Wildlife and Countryside Link, stated that
“the environment has to operate as a system. If you choose one thing to focus on, you end up causing more problems to solve.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 116, Q157.]
In line with that, the significant improvement test—a legal requirement in the Bill—is intended to consider both the breadth and the amount of improvement, with the aim of assessing whether England’s natural environment as a whole would significantly improve. It is a holistic approach, and the Bill’s definition of the natural environment is drafted to be broad enough to encompass all its elements, including the marine environment, which we discussed earlier. I believe the shadow Minister and I are thinking along the same lines, as I think he was intimating that he wants this all-encompassing approach, which is explicitly highlighted in the Bill’s explanatory notes.
The Secretary of State will consider expected environmental improvement across all aspects of England’s natural environment, both terrestrial and marine, when conducting the significant improvement test. The test involves assessing whether England’s natural environment would significantly improve as a result of collectively meeting the long-term targets, which are legally binding, under the Bill, alongside any other relevant legislative environmental targets to which we are also adhering. I hope that reassures the shadow Minister, and I ask him to withdraw amendment 183.
Dr Whitehead
I am interested to know what status the Minister thinks the explanatory notes have in these proceedings. I imagine they are rather more than insignificant, and rather less than completely significant. I read the explanatory notes to any piece of legislation. Sometimes, it occurs to me that they run very close to what is in the legislation, and sometimes they depart a little, yet they come before us in the same form on all occasions. They are a sort of concordance that goes along with the legislation so that we can understand the clauses more easily.
I am not sure whether there is a consistent production line technique for explanatory notes, and whether they have at least some legal significance in terms of seeking the Minister’s intention in presenting a piece of legislation or, indeed, a Committee’s intention in seeking to legislate.
Rebecca Pow
The shadow Minister makes a very good point about the explanatory notes, although I always love having a look at them. Explanatory notes can obviously be used in the interpretation of the Bill and in legal proceedings, if necessary, as part of wider evidence.
Dr Whitehead
That is a very helpful intervention, and it is what I thought. It means that even if explanatory notes appear to stray a little from what one might read in the legislation, if one took it absolutely at face value, we can rely on them for clarification, for future reference. That is an important point, because this afternoon, in the Minister’s response to my inquiry, she relied on what the explanatory notes said about the Bill, rather than what the Bill said. I take her point. If we are to take on board what the explanatory notes say, then that is not a bad response to my point. I wonder whether it would have been a better idea to put that stuff in the legislation, but hey, no one is perfect. We probably have a reasonably good framework to proceed with, in the light of the Minister’s explanation. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 6, page 4, line 41, at end insert—
“(9) In carrying out a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consider whether any targets relating to the priority areas in section 1 that are contained in legislation which forms part of the law of England and Wales—
(a) have expired, or
(b) are required to be achieved by a date which has passed.
(10) If paragraph (a) or (b) applies, then the significant environmental improvement test is only met if a new target or targets are set relating to the same matters which specify a new standard and a future date by which such standards must be reached.”
This amendment prevents the targets from meeting the significant improvement test through virtue of being out of date and so more easily achieved.
The amendment seeks to ensure that—
Richard Graham
On a point of order, Sir Roger, am I right in thinking that we have got roughly halfway down page 1 of the selection list, and still have more than three full pages to go? By your calculation, are we on time to complete this business by 6 pm? If we are not, would it be possible for the Opposition to consider which of the amendments they most want to discuss, debate in detail and to push to a vote?
The Chair
Mr Graham, there is a wonderful organisation known as the usual channels, and I think you and I should allow them to do their job.
Dr Whitehead
I think we were aiming to get to the end of clause 6, so this is the last amendment that we want to raise this afternoon.
This amendment seeks to ensure that measures that are considered in carrying out a review are timely and in date. For example, the Secretary of State cannot carry out a review when things are out of date, and so more easily achieved than they would have been if the tests were in date. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to consider whether the targets that relate to the priority areas in clause 1 have expired or are required to be achieved by a date that has passed. That sounds a little like sell-by dates on cartons of milk, but it is more important than that, because a review could address targets that have expired, have been changed or have been achieved, and then the effect of that review could be pretty null.
This amendment puts at the end of the clause the requirement that
“the Secretary of State must consider whether any targets…have expired.”
If either of the considerations in proposed new subsection (9) apply, then under proposed new subsection (10),
“the significant environmental improvement test is only met if a new target or targets are set relating to the same matters which specify a new standard and a future date by which such standards must be reached.”
That is to say, if, in carrying out a review, the Secretary of State considers a target to have expired, or to have been required to be achieved by a date which has passed, then the significant environmental improvement test is met only if that is rectified.
As hon. Members said this morning, this is a moving and creaking ship. Things can change over time. New targets can be put in place, and existing targets can be changed, amended and improved. This amendment reflects the fact that over time, that may well happen. Indeed, some targets might be achieved and exceeded. If a Secretary of State is reporting on a target that has been exceeded, but is saying how a target should be reached, then clearly that report does not make a great deal of sense. The amendment rectifies that possibility, and puts in place a requirement that new targets be sought through the target-setting process discussed this morning. It allies these targets with the significant improvement test, and allows them to be met in a coherent way.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member. If I may say so, he tables slightly tortuous amendments and it is often a case of trying to get one’s head around them. I reassure him that this is not a creaking ship. This is a buoyant ship sailing towards a bright new blue environmentally enhanced horizon. As this is the last amendment today, I feel I can slip that in.
Dr Whitehead
Perhaps I can clarify the issue. My understanding of the term “creaking ship” is that it is a ship that is under sail, flourishing and driving through the water, and whose timbers are creaking as it is propelled to new horizons.
Rebecca Pow
I feel a bit of backtracking going on here.
Amendment 86 would mean that the significant improvement test could be met only if any targets within the four priority areas that have expired have been replaced by new targets. I reassure the hon. Member that the Government would consider current targets—not expired targets—only when conducting the significant improvement test. That test involves assessing whether England’s natural environment would improve significantly as a result of meeting the longer-term legally binding targets. That has taken up a large part of today’s discussion and is set under the Bill, as well as any other relevant legislation relating to environmental targets.
If the test is not passed, the Government must set out how they plan to use their new target-setting powers to close that gap. In practice, that will most likely involve plans to modify existing targets, make them more ambitious, or set new targets. That helps the Government to focus on the most pressing environmental issues of our time, rather than simply replacing targets that have expired. Some expired targets might, for example, no longer be the key issues on which we should focus in our long-term goals.
The Office for Environmental Protection has a key role through the exercising of its scrutiny functions, and it could publish a report if it disagreed with the Government’s conclusions that the existing targets were sufficient to pass the significant improvement test. The Government would then have to respond to that OEP report, and that response must be published and laid before Parliament. That is a clear pathway. The process ensures that Parliament, supported by the OEP, can hold the Government to account on the sufficiency of their measures to significantly improve the natural environment. I hope that clarifies the situation, and I ask the hon. Member kindly to withdraw amendment 86.
Dr Whitehead
I think that does provide clarification, to a reasonable extent. The amendment sought to copper-bottom guarantees, but the ship can sail quite well under the circumstances set out by the Minister, while perhaps not being fully caulked. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Before everybody leaves, the expectation is that the Committee will sit at 11.30 on Thursday 19 March. I say “expectation” because, as we all know, we live in rather strange times, and I feel I owe it to Mr Graham, having slapped him down a bit, to answer the question properly.
The timetable for the Bill is agreed by the usual channels, in consultation with the Minister and shadow Minister. There should be more than adequate time to thoroughly debate the Bill, given the programme we have. I have no problems with that whatsoever. However, I understand that discussions are taking place that may affect the progress not only of this Bill, but of other legislation. That remains to be seen. We may find this extremely important piece of legislation going on ice for a week, a month or six months.
Before we part—in case we do not meet even on Thursday —I want to say two things. The proceedings today have been slightly ramshackle around the edges, but I can live with that. You have been immensely courteous, thorough and good-humoured about the proceedings, and I am grateful to you for that.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)
Environment Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 19th March 2020
(5 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 March 2020 - (19 Mar 2020)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move,
That, notwithstanding the Committee’s order of 10 March, the Committee, at the conclusion of proceedings at the sitting starting at 11.30 am on 19 March, do adjourn to a time and date to be fixed by the Chair.
Following cross-party discussions and in the light of recent events, it is appropriate that proceedings in Committee be postponed.
I thank all Members on both sides of the Committee—those here, and those not here today—for the wonderfully positive way in which they have approached their scrutiny of the Bill. The Committee knows that the Bill is landmark legislation, so we take it very seriously. I very much look forward to our resumption at an appropriate point. The motion provides for the Committee to adjourn until a later date, and it is right that we take such action in the light of what is happening nationally.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
On behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, let me say that we appreciate the constructive way in which this has been handled. I thank the Clerks and staff. We look forward to resuming, because we have a lot of amendments to discuss, but I thank everyone for managing to smooth this out so swiftly. Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Evans.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I echo the hon. Member’s comments. I am not aware of any discussion held between our Whips, but I am sure that one did happen. While I am extremely disappointed, as we all must be, that the Committee cannot continue at this point, I look forward to its resumption in the near future, once we have got through this terrible time.
The Chair
I know.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Leo Docherty.)
Business without Debate
Monday 28th September 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 22 September 2020 - (23 Sep 2020)
Environment Bill (Eighth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2020 - (3 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
May I start by welcoming the Committee back to the interrupted consideration of the Environment Bill and give you a few little parish notices? First, I start from the position of being a very traditional chairman. Chairmen come in different shapes and sizes, and I am at the traditional end of things and, therefore, try to use the procedures and practices we have in the main Chamber, although there may be some variations.
Secondly, we should be extremely careful about social distancing. The idea is to sit at the chairs with a blue tick, so the central row is not used, by and large. I think that is a matter for Members’ discretion, but perhaps people can make a point of keeping their distance throughout the process of the Bill. On social distancing, instead of passing notes to Hansard, which we would normally do, would Members kindly send by email any speeches they might make. I know that the Hansard Reporters would appreciate that.
Most members of the Committee are very experienced, but for those who might not be that experienced, the principle of what we are doing is that, having agreed the principle behind the Bill on Second Reading, we now consider the detail of the wording of the Bill, to make it a good Bill, no matter what we thought of the principle behind it. We can do that by considering the Bill line by line. The means by which that happens is that members of the Committee, whether Opposition or Government—or indeed people who are not members of the Committee, by means that I will describe in a moment—put down amendments to the Bill. Those amendments are then grouped for debate in a convenient way, bringing together topics that are similar.
Only members of the Committee may argue for amendments. However, hon. Members who are not members of the Committee may lay amendments if they can persuade a member of the Committee to move them, and I think one or two examples of that may occur during the Bill. Amendments must be laid by the rise of the House on Thursday for discussion on Tuesday and by the rise of the House on Monday for discussion on the Thursday. That is all I have to say by way of introductory remarks.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Gray. I welcome you back to the Committee after our long break. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I also welcome Committee members back to our proceedings.
Because of the particularly long break we have had, a number of events have occurred since the last sitting in the earlier part of the year, which those with a long memory will dimly recall. Those events are twofold. First, the Government decided during the period in which the Committee was in abeyance to table a large number of new amendments, particularly concerning the operation of the Office for Environmental Protection, which, certainly in the Opposition’s view, considerably alter how that office works.
Secondly, in the period between our original deliberations and now, the Government also brought forward a planning White Paper, which looks as though it will cut across many of the provisions of the Bill relating to environmental improvement and action areas, which depend on planning zones for their operation.
Both those developments fundamentally alter some structures of the Bill. Through the usual channels, we made representations that we should have new evidence sessions at the beginning of this Committee period so that the Committee is informed of those new developments, which would help to ensure that our deliberations are carried out in the best way possible. Unfortunately, that has not found favour, and we begin our proceedings this morning without the benefit of any new information that might allow the Committee to consider those developments.
Would it be possible, Mr Gray, to accommodate a statement from the Minister on those two issues, on which she could be questioned, so that the Committee can have some elucidation before it continues its proceedings? Whether that statement should be made immediately upon the resumption of the Committee this morning, or could be accommodated as early as possible in the Committee’s proceedings, is clearly a matter for discussion, but we strongly hope that such a statement could be agreed.
The Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, which is more of a point of information than anything else. The changes that have occurred since the Committee last sat will be considered via amendments submitted by Opposition and other Members during our proceedings. There is no facility for making a ministerial statement to the Committee, but the Minister will have ample opportunity to answer the points that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise during the debates that we will have between now and 1 December, which is the agreed out date. If there were extra evidence sessions, that would delay the out date. Although it cannot be done, the hon. Gentleman has made a valid point and the Committee has heard it. I know that the Minister will seek to answer those points during the debates that lie ahead of us.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Gray. As it is fairly warm in the room, would you mind if Members removed their jackets?
The Chair
It goes completely against my natural instincts and my absolute principles, but of course, gentlemen may remove their jackets if they wish during our proceedings. There is no need for a new point of order on every occasion. I assure the Committee that I will not be taking my jacket off.
Ordered,
That the order of the Committee of 10 March be varied as follows—
(1) In paragraph (1)(d), leave out “and 2.00pm”.
(2) In paragraph (1), leave out sub-paragraphs (e) to (l).
(3) After paragraph (1), insert—
“(1A) the Committee shall (in addition to its meeting at 9.25am on Tuesday 3 November) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 November;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 5 November;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 November;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 12 November;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 November;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 19 November;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 November;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 26 November;
(i) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 1 December;”.
(4) In paragraph (4), leave out “5 May” and insert “1 December”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
The Chair
We now move to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list of amendments arrived in the Committee Room a few moments ago. I hope that everyone has a copy. It shows how the amendments have been grouped, starting with clause 7.
One point that I omitted to make during my earlier remarks is that amendments are grouped for convenience of debate. However, if a decision has to be made on them, that decision comes at the point in the Bill to which the amendment refers. In other words, we may have an amendment to clause 7 and an amendment to clause 25 considered together, but the amendment to clause 25 will be moved formally at the time when we discuss clause 25.
Clause 7
Environmental improvement plans
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 7, page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) The environmental improvement plan must include, as a minimum—
(a) measures which, taken together, are likely to achieve any targets set under sections 1 or 2 and will ensure that the next interim targets included in the plan are met;
(b) measures that each relevant central government department must carry out;
(c) measures to protect sensitive and vulnerable population groups (including children, older people, people with chronic illnesses and outdoor and transport workers) from the health impacts of pollution;
(d) a timetable for adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, and the authorities responsible for their delivery;
(e) an analysis of the options considered and their estimated impact on delivering progress against the relevant targets; and
(f) measures to minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of pollution on human health and the environment.”
This amendment looks to strengthen Environmental Improvement Plans by connecting them to; measures which are proportionate to targets set out in the bill, departmental action, vulnerable people, a timetable and analysis.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 112, in clause 7, page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) An environmental improvement plan must set out the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take in the period to which the plan relates, which the Secretary of State considers will—
(a) enable targets set under section 1(1) and that meet the conditions at section 6(8) to be met, and
(b) make a significant contribution to meeting the environmental objectives irrespective of whether targets are in place to cover all matters relating to the environmental objectives.”
Dr Whitehead
This is potentially an important amendment. What we would expect to happen in a Bill is that as the legislation moves through its narrative, one part of the narrative connects to the next one in a coherent way. One of our criticisms of this Bill, although we have said that it is a good Bill in its own right in what it seeks to achieve, is that it fails to add to its coherence as the narrative of the Bill proceeds. What I mean by that is that the Bill tends to set itself out in a number of chunks, a little like an early picaresque novel, rather than a more recent novel that includes the present, the past and the future. I am not suggesting that the Bill itself is a novel, but others may have views on that.
The amendment seeks to bridge the narrative gap in the Bill by ensuring that the measures in this clause relate back to the targets at the beginning of the Bill, which we discussed, as hon. Members with long memories will recall, when our proceedings started earlier this year. Those targets, which we agreed—indeed, we agreed not only the targets, but the mechanism by which they would be decided on—are very important in relation to the environmental improvement plan that will arise from the Bill. If we have an environmental improvement plan that does not relate to those targets and, indeed, has a narrative on environmental improvement that is actually a descriptive arrangement rather than an action arrangement, it is vital that the connection is properly made in the Bill itself and that the environmental improvement plan, essentially, is instructed to organise itself along lines that do relate to those targets in the first place.
As we discover when we go through this clause, an environmental improvement plan is, in effect, already in existence—or rather, this Bill will bring that environmental improvement plan into existence. The Bill describes the process by which an environmental improvement plan can be developed and put in place, and then the Bill says, “Oh and by the way, it so happens that there is an environmental improvement plan already in existence that we can adopt for the purpose of the Bill”—and that is “A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment”. People will see that, in the legislation, it is specifically referred to as being the present environmental improvement plan, the one in front of us.
However, that improvement plan—as, again, I am sure hon. Members will know—was actually adopted in 2018. To show people how far back that goes, I point out that it has a “Foreword from the Prime Minister”, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and a “Foreword from the Secretary of State”, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). Neither of them is in the same role at the moment, so it is quite an old document. Among other things, it does not address itself to the structure of the Environment Bill; it says a lot of very interesting things, but it certainly does not address itself to how those things should take place. I want to talk later in the debate about some of the issues in the environment plan, “A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment”.
For the time being, suffice it to say that there appears to be a problem of connection, as far as the Bill is concerned. The amendment seeks to rectify that by clearly stating on the face of the Bill:
“The environmental improvement plan must include... measures which, taken together, are likely to achieve any targets set under sections 1 or 2 and will ensure that the next interim targets included in the plan are met”.
It therefore makes a direct connection between this part of the Bill and the first part. It states that the environmental improvement plan must include
“measures that each relevant central government department must carry out… measures to protect sensitive and vulnerable population groups… a timetable for adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures… analysis of the options considered and their estimated impact on delivering progress… and measures to minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of pollution on human health and the environment”.
The amendment therefore comprehensively makes those connections.
I am sure the Minister will say that none of that is necessary, because everything is okay—it all works all right. However, I hope, at the very least, that, in explaining why that is the case, she will also explain why it is not necessary to make that link between this part of the Bill, the environmental improvement plan and the targets that we set out and agreed in previous sittings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening words. It is an absolute privilege to be back with the Committee. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is more than seven months since we had to adjourn, very unusually, and we all know why that occurred. Sadly, we are still in a tricky situation with the coronavirus pandemic, but I am pleased that we are able to carry on with this hugely important piece of legislation, which will change the way we think about our environment forever. We are all involved in a very significant piece of work, and it is a delight to have you in the chair, Mr Gray.
Despite the fact that we are in these very tricky times with the pandemic, we need to look ahead as a Government and as a country. As we build back, as the Prime Minister has said, we want to base the recovery on solid foundations, including a fairer, greener and more resilient global economy. I want to touch on a few of these issues before we carry on, because it has been such a long time since we reconvened.
On the points made by the shadow Minister, we took expert evidence before. Everyone is entitled to take their own evidence as we go along to inform anything that we do. Written evidence is also submitted to back up the Bill, and that is always welcomed. The hon. Gentleman mentioned planning issues, and I absolutely assure him that we will address those when we get to the right part of the Bill and particularly the nature chapter. I think the Chair covered the issue of a statement comprehensively, and I fully support your words, Chair.
The Chair
Order. I think “Mr Gray” is the right thing; otherwise, we will get mixed up between Chair and Chairman. Also, in passing, I know you are all pleased to serve under my chairmanship, but you do not need to say so—[Laughter.]
Rebecca Pow
But we love saying that, Mr Gray. Okay, I will try not to say it again.
The Chair
Order. Sorry to interrupt the Minister, who is speaking extremely well, but I intend to be very tough with the Committee to make sure that we address the amendments in this group. I think it is right to offer a reasonable reply to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test and the point of order he made regarding things that have occurred since we last met. However, I think the Minister is tending towards a Second Reading speech, and perhaps she could address more particularly the amendment in front of us.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you Chair, I get your point and I beg your forgiveness. I will not include everything, but I wanted to update the Committee because so much has happened since we stopped our consideration of the Bill. People think we have gone on hold, but absolutely we have not.
We will be doing much more work, and we will discuss our statutory EIPs, which will drive up environmental improvement, in the next few days alone, as well as how we will continue to protect the environment from damage by embedding environmental principles at the heart of Government policy.
Turning to the amendments, which is what you really want me to do, Mr Gray, I appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to strengthen the EIPs—that is what clause 7 is all about. I am delighted that he has raised the 25-year environment plan because I was at the launch of that plan. Although colleagues who filled those important posts are in different roles now, I was there as Parliamentary Private Secretary in this Department.
I am utterly delighted to introduce this—perhaps the shadow Minister failed to address this—as the 25-year environment plan is actually the first EIP. That is what this is all about. What we are doing with the EIPs is triggering what is set out in the excellent plan. The Bill’s statutory cycle of monitoring, reporting and planning is designed to ensure that the Government take early, regular steps to achieve long-term targets and are held to account through regular scrutiny by the Office for Environmental Protection and by Parliament.
The Bill creates a statutory triple lock, which we will hear about a great deal as the Bill progresses, to drive short-term progress. First, the Government must have an environmental improvement plan setting out the steps they intend to take to improve the environment and to review it every five years. When reviewing it, they must consider whether further or different measures should be adopted to achieve interim—five yearly—targets and long-term targets. When we review the EIP in 2023 we will update it as necessary to include the steps that we intend to take to achieve the targets that we set. That will be five years after the launch of the first plan in 2018.
Secondly, the Government must report on progress towards achieving targets every year. Thirdly, the Office for Environmental Protection will hold us to account on progress towards achieving targets. Each year it will comment on the progress towards targets reported in the Government’s EIP annual report and can flag early on whether it believes there is a risk of the Government not meeting their long-term targets. It may make recommendations on how progress could be improved, and the Government have to respond. Ultimately, the OEP has the power to bring legal proceedings if the Government breach their environmental law duties, including the duty to achieve long-term targets.
In requiring that EIPs set measures to deal with pollution, amendment 88 would single out aspects of the environment ahead of others. EIPs are defined as plans significantly to increase the natural environment. Measures on air quality, with corresponding benefits to human health, are already within the scope of EIP, so it is not necessary to place duties on particular matters in the EIP, which could undermine consideration of other important environmental goals.
The Bill includes a duty to set a legally binding target for PM2.5, the air pollutant with the greatest impact on human health, in addition to a further long-term air quality target. The introduction of measures to meet the air quality target will reduce exposure to harmful pollutants and deliver significant improvements to human health. Other targets that meet the criteria set out in clause 6(8) already have their own statutory regimes, including any appropriate requirements to set out plans and measures to achieve them. It is therefore unnecessary to require that EIPs include measures to achieve them.
Amendment 112 would explicitly link the measures in the EIP to “meeting the environmental objectives”, and I address this with the assumption that the environmental objectives are to achieve and maintain a healthy and natural environment, as set out in new clause 1. The Bill’s provisions already ensure the delivery of the significant environmental improvements that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test seeks through the amendment and ensure that the Government can be held to account. Targets and EIPs have the objective under clauses 6 and 7 of delivering significant improvements to the natural environment, so I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
As you suggest, Mr Gray, I will not go through all the formalities. It is a pleasure to be on this Committee, although it is a little like the philosopher’s axe: which part of this Committee is still part of the preceding Committee? Many of us are new to this, and it has been a long-running process.
The Minister is notorious for her optimism—[Interruption]—or has a reputation for optimism. When she talks about the 25-year improvement plan, I wonder whether that is 25 years forward or whether it is taking us 25 years back, because it is about filling the gaps left by our leaving the European Union and the protections that came from that membership. I fear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test explained earlier, that the heart has been ripped out of the Bill.
To turn to the amendment, as you directed Mr Gray, I listened closely to the Minister’s observations and I do not quite understand why she is not sympathetic to some of the amendment’s proposals. I particularly query her attitude to the natural environment. She will have seen the representations from the National Trust about including heritage within the ambit of natural environment, and that prompts a big question. There is no natural environment; we have been part of the environment as human beings for many, many years and we have had huge impact on it. I suspect we will pursue this matter in further discussions, but I would welcome her observations on why heritage is not included among the proposed protections.
In particular, I do not understand why the Minister does not favour the inclusion in the environmental improvement plans of proposed paragraph (b) in amendment 88, which calls for the reporting of
“measures that each relevant central government department must carry out”.
All of us involved in rural policy know that it is an endless issue, and that virtually every part of government touches on the environment of rural areas. Those policies must be included as an essential safeguard to ensure that the environmental improvement plans work properly.
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head: the natural environment is very complicated and complex. We have set out the Bill as it appears so that it takes an holistic approach to the environment, as I believe he will see as we proceed in our deliberations.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman was referring to rurality in particular, but the Bill covers everything about the environment, and not just one thing or another. It takes an holistic approach, and is a great deal more holistic than anything that the European Union has done. The environmental improvement plans are significant because there are no equivalents to them under EU law: member states were not required to maintain a comprehensive long-term plan to improve the environment significantly, but that is a key issue of the Bill. Nor was there any requirement on member states to report annually on progress towards any kind of significant improvement. EU law tends to require member states to prepare or publish plans to achieve particular targets, for example on air quality or water quality, but it does not offer the holistic approach of the Bill. By leaving the EU, we have an enormous opportunity to look at the environment in the round. I hope that helps Members.
Dr Whitehead
I am sorry, but I am just not convinced. I will consider clause 7 in further detail later, but the gap that we have identified in terms of the connection between this part of the Bill and the first six clauses is egregious, and does not appear to relate at all to what is in the 25-year environment plan, interesting though that plan may be in its own right.
The amendment is important because it addresses those shortcomings and it should not be set aside on the grounds that everything will be all right, and that the Bill is quite an holistic Bill after all. For that reason, I am afraid that we will seek to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 201, in clause 7, page 5, line 10, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Government to include steps to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in its Environmental Plan.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 202, in schedule 2, page 127, line 11, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Government to include steps to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in its Environmental Plan and is consequential on Amendment 201.
Richard Graham
This is likely to be the shortest amendment proposed to the Bill. It simply substitutes the word “must” for “may” in clause 7, which would in turn require the Government to include steps to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in their environmental plan. Why does this one-word change, which amounts to a net increase of one letter to the Bill, matter so much? The clue is in clause 7(5) and its clear intent to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. The Government explicitly recognise the importance of that in the environmental improvement plan, which will set interim targets for each five-year period, and the amendment would ensure that the Bill includes people’s enjoyment in the five-year targets.
Many of us would argue that people’s enjoyment of the natural environment is always important, but it is especially so now, during the period of this pandemic. Many more of us have been enjoying green spaces during lockdown, and park visits in the UK were up 195% in the six weeks to 25 May compared with February. The amendment would put a greater legal burden on the Government to enhance access to such spaces as they set out new environmental policies in their environmental improvement plan.
The amendment acknowledges the value of parks and green spaces to all of us and all our constituents. This is a chance to appropriately fund our parks and green spaces, including the organisations that maintain them. Some of us will be aware of the Government scheme for pocket parks, which was announced by the Communities Secretary in March 2020. It was a £1.35 million fund—a very small fund by comparison with many of those that have had to be launched to support businesses, culture and many other organisations—and it created 68 new pocket parks around the country in order to transform urban spaces into green havens. They were hugely helpful, and I believe that further rounds would be both welcome and possible. They would help fund the priorities identified in the five-year targets for people’s enjoyment that should be created.
At this stage, I would like to bring as a remote witness the Ramblers organisation, which has made the point that access to, and enjoyment of, the natural environment has multiple benefits that are relevant to the aims of the Bill and to wider Government objectives. They include encouraging pro-environmental behaviours. There is evidence to suggest that people who spend more recreational time in natural settings are more likely to report engaging in a range of pro-environmental behaviours. In simple speech, that can often amount to volunteers joining litter-picking groups to ensure that our parks and green space are kept clean and are attractive to more visitors.
A survey shows that 85% of adults in England and Wales believe that being able to experience the countryside is important for children’s understanding of the environment. I think that is true in all our constituencies. In my constituency of Gloucester, we have the joy of the Robinswood Hill country park right in the middle of our small city. I believe that every child should have the experience of sitting on their mother’s or father’s shoulders for their first visit up the hill to watch the sunset over the River Severn in the summer. It is one of the most beautiful things that anyone can do, and it stimulates enjoyment and healthy behaviours.
There is also the issue of physical and mental health. More than eight out of 10 adults believe that visiting the countryside is good for their physical fitness and mental wellbeing. In a sense, we do not really need surveys to confirm that; we know it is true. People who live within 500 metres of accessible green space are 24% more likely to achieve the 30 minutes of daily physical activity that doctors constantly recommend. Access to green space is associated with reductions in long-term conditions such as heart disease and cancer, and close connections to green space are also associated with significantly less income-related health inequality, weakening the effects of deprivation on health. During the pandemic, there has been a huge increase in mental health problems, and during a lockdown period green spaces are in many ways people’s one chance of restoring some balance to their mental health.
In the current 25-year environment plan, which will be given statutory footing on Royal Assent, there are broad aspirations on engagement with the natural environment, but there are opportunities to improve them. I will turn briefly to some of the aspects that could be addressed. Evidence shows that access to nature and the outdoors is not entirely equal: for example, children in lower income areas and people from black, Asian and other minority ethnic backgrounds have the poorest access to green spaces and the natural environment. That is not always the case—in my constituency of Gloucester, the ward that is closest to Gloucester park, Barton and Tredworth, is also the area with the highest concentration of ethnic background diversity—but in general, access to the outdoors is unequal in our larger cities compared with towns or countryside.
The amendment would make a substantial difference by requiring the Government to take a strategic and coherent approach to issues of access to and enjoyment of the natural environment. Some non-governmental organisations have suggested that the amendment might put people’s enjoyment over the value of the natural environment to wildlife—that, for example, people and the environment are in competition and their goals are necessarily incompatible—but I reject that suggestion, because I believe that there are very clear examples of how people and the environment go well together.
The easiest way to shine a light on that is by talking about sensory gardens, which, as many of us know, are a frequent feature in schools that handle people with the greatest physical disabilities. Years ago, my family helped to raise funds for a sensory garden that was full of biodiversity. Not only was it a wonderful environmental joy, but it brought great joy to those with disabilities who attended the school. It is important therefore that the amendment be seen not as pro-people and anti-environment, but as pro-people and pro-environment.
Nor is the amendment intended purely to benefit urban dwellers—far from it. Aspects of it will hugely benefit the countryside as well. Research commissioned by the National Trust estimates that people across Great Britain are missing out on 500 million park visits a year because of poorly equipped facilities. Basic facility upgrades, from toilets and income-generating cafés to play areas, can help accessibility; litter collection, which I have already mentioned, is also incredibly important. Natural England has reported that insufficient footpaths in the presence of busy or dangerous roads can prevent easy access and deter their use. One in eight households has no access to a private or shared garden, a figure that rises to 21% of households in London, which highlights the importance of enjoyment of our green spaces.
Overall, parks in England deliver an estimated £6.5 billion of health, climate change and environmental benefits every year, including £2.2 billion in avoided health costs alone. It is not for me to challenge those figures; I think we can all intuitively relate to them, and I hope that as guesstimates, which are inevitably imprecise, those are as accurate as they can be. For every £1 spent on parks in England, an estimated £7 in additional wealth is generated for health and wellbeing and the environment.
These anecdotal examples of evidence, surveys and research make a strong case for making sure that the people’s enjoyment of our public spaces is included in the Bill as a “must”, rather than a “may”. In a sense, the Environment Secretary showed his support for such concepts in July 2020 in a speech announcing £4 million for a two-year pilot project to bring green prescribing to four areas hit hardest by coronavirus, saying:
“Studies across the spectrum, from health to financial risk, remind us that it is in our best interests to look after nature. We know that a connection with nature contributes to wellbeing and improved mental health.”
I could not agree more. I know that the Minister who is taking the Bill through the House, and whose whole career in the House of Commons has been dedicated to working on the environment, shares those feelings.
I draw attention to two other aspects. First, in September 2019, Julian Glover published his independent “Landscapes Review”, sometimes known as the Glover review, into whether protections for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty are fit for purpose. The Government have not yet formally responded to that review, but I believe they are broadly supportive. Its proposals include:
“A stronger mission to connect all people with our national landscapes, supported and held to account by the new National Landscapes Service”,
and,
“A night under the stars in a national landscape for every child”.
What a wonderful idea. Millions of children in this country have never had the chance to do that, and if this could stimulate that experience, what could be better? Also proposed is:
“New long-term programmes to increase the ethnic diversity of visitors”.
That has to be the right way forward. Different ethnic communities in my city have not had the same experiences in enjoying our national parks. We need to encourage them, and to make sure that national parks are seen as open, accessible and to be enjoyed by everyone. The proposals continue:
“Expanding volunteering in our national landscapes”,
and,
“A ranger service in all our national landscapes, part of a national family”.
All those recommendations, alongside the nature recovery network that is part of the Bill and that aims to join up green spaces and landscapes, only emphasise the value of replacing “may” with “must” in the Bill, which will help to achieve some of the recommendations.
My one-word amendment has the backing of the Conservative Environment Network, which my hon. Friend the Minister and I were founder members of. It has the support of the Ramblers, as well as the support of all the heritage organisations that come together in a group chaired by a former colleague of ours. Some of those aspects are reflected in amendment 202, which no doubt somebody else will talk to. It highlights the importance of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural and historical interest in our parks.
I particularly draw the attention of those listening from my constituency to the great Jurassic landscape in Robinswood Hill country park; stones that are millions of years old are sitting there on our doorstep. Having been a civil servant in another life, I recognise that no Department welcomes changes to its Bills, and that “must” implies additional responsibilities and work that is unlikely to be welcomed; however, I believe that this one-word change is a worthwhile measure. My hon. Friend the Minister is likely to have only one chance to lead a major new environmental Bill through the House. She will want it to be as strong and successful as possible. All Members on the Government Benches and, I suspect, on both sides of the House, share her ambition. I move this probing amendment in the hope that she will see this one written word as an entirely positive contribution to the spirit and intent of the environmental plan and the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
I commend the hon. Member for Gloucester on bringing the amendment forward. It is an important amendment in its own right. It is also important in terms of something we did at the beginning of the Bill and which was briefly discussed during the earlier stages in the spring. The Bill is littered with “mays” where there ought to be “musts” and we drew attention to about 25 instances where there are “mays” in place and they should be “musts”.
Dr Whitehead
I am putting that to the Committee for its comfort and security. However, there is a continuing real issue in the Bill with the way in which it has been drafted with those “mays” and “musts”. While we have done part of our job by drawing attention to that and putting those amendments down, even though we are not going to pursue them in detail, it is within the powers of other members of the Committee—as happened this morning—to draw attention to the effect that a “may” instead of a “must” has on a passage as we go through the Bill. I fear that that will be, even without my intervention, a recurring leitmotif as we go through the Bill, and that hon. Members will be particularly concerned about that formation as it relates to a thing they are concerned with as the Bill goes through. They may raise that concern independent of our portmanteau amendments on “mays” and “musts”.
I hope the Minister will reflect on that. I observe that she has been assiduous in tabling amendments. It is unfortunate, that those amendments do not include any recognition that this is a particular problem with the Bill. There are amendments that could be put forward that would rectify that.
I hope the Minister will take from this exchange that there is a real concern about how that particular formulation works through the Bill, and especially in this instance. I hope she will consider, at least in some of the instances where those “mays” and “musts” collide, tabling some amendments later in the Bill’s passage to rectify or ameliorate those parts of the Bill. That piece of sunny optimism on my part perhaps goes with the Minister’s sunny optimism on many things. Let us see whose optimism gets the upper hand in this instance.
Finally, it might have been a little mischievous of us to seek to draw the hon. Member for Gloucester into supporting a vote on this clause. Out of sensitivity to his general circumstances in life, we will not seek to do that, because I think the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment. I think it illustrates, however, that this concern is held not only on this side, but across the Committee, so there is an additional onus on the Minister to think about whether there are instances where those “mays” and “musts” can cease colliding and can be amended for the better purposes of the Bill as a whole.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for his excellent speech. He knows that I hold him in great respect and I always listen to what he says. He collars me many a time. I have given this a huge amount of thought and talked to a great many people about it, because it has been preying on my mind—he can be absolutely sure of that. He has explained a bit about my background, so he will know that I am not making that up.
My hon. Friend painted a lovely picture of life in the countryside, especially in his lovely constituency, including in the Robinswood Hill park, which I know because I briefly worked on rural and countryside issues in Gloucester many years ago. That was one of the places people revered even then.
I am dealing with the “may” as it relates to this amendment, which I think is the right thing to do.
Rebecca Pow
It is cheeky of the shadow Minister to try to widen out the “mays” and “musts” at this juncture.
Connecting people with the environment is really important to our health and wellbeing. It is a core objective of the Government’s 25-year plan, which we can all have a look at later to remind ourselves. It is written in there, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, that connecting more people from all backgrounds with the natural environment for their health and wellbeing is a key part of the 25-year environment plan, which is our first environmental improvement plan. When reviewing the environmental improvement plan, the Government must consider whether further measures are needed to achieve the targets. Under the Bill, long-term targets can be set out for any aspects of the natural environment or people’s enjoyment of it. As he will know, the Bill requires the Government to set out at least one target in four priority areas—air quality, biodiversity, water waste and resource efficiency—as well as the fine particulate matter target. Other targets can be set later, as we go along. There is huge scope for that.
We are already implementing many projects and schemes to connect people with nature. My hon. Friend has named a number of them already. For example, there is the children in nature programme, on which I, as the Environment Minister, link up with the Department for Education. There is the green social prescribing shared outcomes fund; he touched on the funding that has just been given. I was at the launch of the National Academy for Social Prescribing last year, when I was briefly a Minister in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I went with that hat on, although I had done a lot of work as a Back Bencher on green social prescribing; my hon. Friend is absolutely right about how important it is and what a difference it makes to people’s lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester touched on pocket parks. That fund was launched last year by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to the tune of £1.35 million, and community groups can still bid for that now. If my hon. Friend or other hon. Members know any groups that would like to bid for that money, please encourage them to do so, as that would be worthwhile. We have also launched a £40 million green recovery challenge fund, supporting projects across the country to connect people with nature and generate jobs at the same time. So, there are a lot of ongoing projects, which will not stop. We expect public authorities to consider how to help to tackle the issue of health and wellbeing, through actions to comply with the strengthened biodiversity duty introduced later in the Bill, in clause 93.
I know my hon. Friend knows that the environmental improvement plan can set out the steps that the Government intend to take to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. I have touched on that already, but that is engrained in the Bill. As my hon. Friend said, people’s enjoyment of the natural environment can, in some instances, have a negative impact on the natural environment. For example, if too many visitors go to a beach, it can negatively impact the wildlife and habitats, including through litter left behind. I am really conscious of that, because we have had some significant incidences of it over the summer. I had to engage with local authorities about it, including those in Cornwall, where it was raised as being a terribly difficult issue to deal with.
Our enjoyment of nature cannot take precedence over our stewardship of that environment for the future. That is why we do not necessarily want to give equal prominence to environmental improvement and people’s enjoyment in EIPs, as would result from these amendments. I understand that Greener UK agrees that the focus should be on improving the whole, holistic natural environment, not diverting it from its primary status. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester touched on that.
I highlight the link between the Environment Bill and the new environmental land management scheme, which is being brought through under the Agriculture Bill. ELMS will be one of the tools for delivery in the 25-year environment plan and one of the measures in the Environment Bill. It will pay for delivery of public goods. Listed among those public goods are beauty and heritage, as touched on earlier by the hon. Member for Cambridge, as well as engagement with the environment. That is actually listed as something that can be delivered as a public good through the Ag Bill and the new ELM system. There is a direct link with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester touched on, and I hope that gives him some assurance.
Richard Graham
I am very grateful to the Minister for doing detailed research to anticipate most of the points that I was likely to raise. I am also grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test.
The Minister is quite right that it is appropriate at this stage to tackle the one-word change to the clause only, rather than the wider principle, which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test tempted her to pursue. I am absolutely sure that she not only understands exactly where I am coming from but is entirely with me. The question is whether she can bring me with her in the direction that we want this Bill to go, rather than come from. Everything she said only emphasised the value of bringing something more concrete to the clause. We are in wide agreement on almost every single issue, except the important net increase of one letter that I am hoping for.
I hope the Minister will reflect on some of the thoughts that I offered, particularly on the vital notion that nature and humans do not need to be in conflict. I was brought up partly in east Africa, and I have seen over my lifetime how the occasional obsession with trying to separate the role and the perfection of the environment from the role and desires of the humans living in and beside it can cause conflict unless people work hard to realise that the two can go together very well. We have seen in the most successful environmental schemes around the world how effective that can be; whether in the marshlands to the north of Hong Kong, or in the wildlife protected in India and Africa. The same can be done here, in our own country. There are opportunities to pursue, and in that spirit I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will look at this closely for the Report stage of the Bill—she is nodding. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Order. Before we move on to the next group, I would like to say that I have been very relaxed so far. We have had some very discursive contributions to the two groups we have had in the past hour and 10 minutes. We should all collectively seek to address our remarks particularly to the absolute detail of the amendments in front of us and not stray into other areas, however interesting.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 7, page 5, line 13, at end insert—
“(5A) It may also set out the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to improve the conservation of land environments of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest, including improving people’s enjoyment of them (and if it does so references in this Part to improving the natural environment, in relation to that plan, include conservation of land environments of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest, including improving people’s enjoyment of them).”
This amendment invites the government to consider the historic environment in environmental improvement plans.
We are enjoined to concentrate on the amendment in front of us and how it affects the Bill as a whole. It would be useful to put to the Committee where we stand on clause 7. The clause states that the Secretary of State must prepare an environmental improvement plan. The beginning of the clause appears to suggest that the Secretary of State must sit down—presumably with a towel round his head—and work out an environmental improvement plan and present it to the House.
The clause then sets out what an environmental improvement plan is—significantly improving the natural environment in the period to which the plan relates—and that that period must not be shorter than 15 years. As the hon. Member for Gloucester mentioned, an earlier clause provides that the EIP should include
“steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in that period.”
Clause 7 then takes an abrupt handbrake turn. It says that is all very well, and all those things must be done by the Secretary of State. However, in the great tradition of “Blue Peter”, here is one I prepared earlier. It states in subsection (7):
“The document entitled ‘A green future: our 25 year plan to improve the environment’…is to be treated as an environmental improvement plan”.
That is, it has already been done before the Secretary of State has to put pen to paper as provided earlier in the clause, to produce an environmental improvement plan. It then specifically states in subsection (8) of this clause:
“References in this Part…(a) to the first environmental improvement plan, are to that document; (b) to the current environmental improvement plan, are to the environmental improvement plan for the time being in effect.”
That is the 25-year environment plan—
The Chair
Order. We have a very long Bill to consider, with a great deal of amendments. I therefore intend to be tough on both sides of the Committee. I know that that may upset every member of the Committee equally, but we need to make some progress. I therefore suggest that the hon. Gentleman should speak not to the whole of clause 7—he will have an opportunity to do that, if he chooses, in a stand part debate shortly—but specifically to his amendment, which refers to the conservation of land environments. Broader discussion of the clause may wait for later.
Dr Whitehead
Thank you, Mr Gray. I will, of course, follow your guidance closely, but I feel it is necessary to set out what part of the clause we seek to amend, and why, in order to explain the status quo ante. By tabling the amendment, we seek to set out steps for Her Majesty’s Government to take to improve the conservation of land environments of, among other things, archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historical interest, including improving people’s enjoyment of them. The clause as it stands mentions people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. The amendment would place one of the definitions of the natural environment into the context of what has happened to it over a very long period of history.
One little example of that, close to my constituency in Southampton, is the New Forest. The New Forest is not new and it is not, by and large, a forest. It is a very large and precious part of our natural environment, but it is not the natural environment it was originally. Actually, it is a spectacularly complex and superbly varied environment that has been worked on substantially by humans over 10 centuries. Substantial sections of the New Forest that were originally forest are heathland, for example, with their own habitats and precious areas of rare species within them. Those habitats have come about only as a result of human activity in the original area of the New Forest, clearing what was forest and working on, draining, changing, enriching and variegating the land. As a result, those species have colonised those areas and are now, to the human eye, indistinguishable from the natural environment as part of that forest.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. In the east of England, the Broads landscape is a similarly excellent example. It was long thought to be an example of the natural environment, but it now turns out to be a consequence of human intervention. The definition of what is natural is extremely important.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is right. The Broads came about as a result of peat extraction by Saxon and early medieval inhabitants of the area, and an amazing interlinked lakeland and wetland environment has developed as a result. Landscapes of archaeological, environmental, artistic, cultural or historic interest are an important part of the natural environment. They should be conserved and preserved, and loved and looked after for that reason, and not because they are a variation from the original landscape that was in place once upon a time.
Rebecca Pow
I want to assure the shadow Minister that the Government were elected on a manifesto that promised to protect and restore our natural environment after leaving the EU, and that is why the environment improvement plans and targets share an objective of significantly improving the natural environment.
I will whizz through my response as briefly as I can. The hon. Member touched on the fact that the natural world does not exist in a vacuum. We are in complete agreement. It is a very complicated scene. We interact with it; we use it and rely on it; and we change it, as the hon. Member referred to in many examples. It becomes part of our life, our history, our values and it is a natural heritage and inheritance that we should all be proud of. That is why the 25-year environment plan has at its heart that we will improve the natural environment and recognises that we cannot manage it in isolation.
The plan committed us to
“Safeguarding and enhancing the beauty of our natural scenery and improving its environmental value while being sensitive to considerations of its heritage.”
That is what the plan mentions, so I want to give absolute assurances. I believe the shadow Minister is not aware that this point is all part and parcel of the Environment Bill already.
I understand that those outside this House who have been calling for the amendment feel that greater confidence would be given by an explicit reference in the Bill to these particular heritage features of land. I know that lots of people have been concerned about this, so I want to reassure them that the Bill ensures that our 25-year environment plan, including its stated recognition of the connection between the natural environment and heritage, will be adopted as the first environmental improvement plan. It will set the benchmark for future plans, including how to balance environmental and heritage considerations.
The approach we took in our 25-year environment plan on heritage was welcomed by stakeholders and is expected to be mirrored in future environmental plans by the future Government. I hope that give assurances. The shadow Minister raises some serious points about heritage, but I think we are actually in agreement, so I would ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I am not sure that the Minister can point to the exact part of the Bill where those things take place in the way that she has suggested they do, although I am a little reassured by the fact that she clearly has a good understanding of the problem that we have set out today and is alive to the issue. I hope the Minister will follow up this debate with some equally assiduous work as previously, to ensure that it is a substantial feature of the next, or revised, environmental improvement plan. I hope it will give great reassurance not just to people in this House, but to those concerned with our natural heritage and the way that our heritage as a whole impacts on the natural environment and the changes that have been made within it over time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Annual reports on environmental improvement plans
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 89, in clause 8, page 5, line 32, at end insert—
“and,
(c) consider biodiversity reports published by authorities under section 40A of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (as amended by section 94 of this Act).”
Clause 8 is concerned with the preparation of annual reports on the implementation of the current environmental improvement plan. The amendment would additionally require the consideration of annual reports on the plan’s implementation and operation. The clause sets out a number of ways in which that should be done. By the way, I cannot resist stating that, as hon. Members will observe, subsection (1) says:
“The Secretary of State must prepare annual reports”.
The Secretary of State has no option but to do this. It is not a question of the Secretary of State “may”; rather, he “must prepare annual reports”. There is obviously some careful writing going on here.
Subsection (1) says:
“An annual report must...describe what has been done, in the period to which the report relates”
and
“consider...whether the natural environment has, or particular aspects of it have, improved during that period.”
Later in the Bill, clause 94 amends the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to require the Secretary of State to look at biodiversity reports, which
“must contain...a summary of the action which the authority has taken over the period covered by the report...a summary of the authority’s plans for complying with those duties... any quantitative data required to be included in the report”,
and
“any other information that the authority considers it appropriate to include in the report.”
I will not read out the entire clause—as you will be delighted to hear, Mr Gray—but it sets out a number of other things that the biodiversity report should include. Nevertheless, in terms of biodiversity reports, that appears to be fairly central to the idea of reporting, on an annual basis, what has happened to that environmental improvement plan. That is, those biodiversity reports, which are coming out on a regular basis, should inevitably be included in the annual changes that have happened, which are required to be reported on by the Secretary of State as far as the improvement plan is concerned.
However, as hon. Members can observe, there is no linkage in clause 8 with clause 94 as far as biodiversity plans are concerned. We are concerned that, without something on the face of the Bill to link those biodiversity reports and the progress of the environmental improvement plan, those reports will be set aside, not taken into account and not included in the Secretary of State’s progress reports, and will have much less effect as a result. The amendment would therefore require the Secretary of State to
“consider biodiversity reports published by authorities under section 40A of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (as amended by section 94 of this Act).”
That is the important part. We are considering an amendment to the 2006 Act later in the Bill specifically to do with biodiversity reports, yet we leave them hanging elsewhere in the legislation. The amendment introduce create an important linking passage between those two issues. The Committee ought to think carefully about whether it wishes that link to be explicit on the face of the Bill, or whether the inclusion of those biodiversity reports in the Secretary of State’s update on the environmental improvement plan should be left to chance.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for his consideration of the Bill and the amendment. However, I assure him that the amendment is not needed. Clause 8 places a duty on the Secretary of State to produce annual reports on progress in implementing the environmental improvement plan. As the current 25-year environment plan shows, EIPs have a very broad scope. We have already touched on that. The reporting requirements that the Government have proposed are equally broad in scope, describing what action has been taken to implement the plan, and considering whether aspects of the natural environment are improving. This consideration should draw upon relevant existing data. Specifying that particular reports must be considered is not necessary.
The Bill will introduce a requirement to produce biodiversity reports as part of a strengthened biodiversity duty on public authorities. These reports will provide valuable data, but are already in the scope of the existing reporting duty of the annual EIP reports. To ensure that the annual EIP reports are as robust and comprehensive as possible, we want them to be based on the best evidence. We also want to retain the flexibility to consider the most relevant evidence for a particular context.
Daniel Zeichner
I suspect that we will be discussing the same points on a number of different amendments, but this amendment raises the whole issue of those biodiversity plans. It also raises the issue referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test at the beginning of today’s sitting, which is that we have seen significant changes over the summer in terms of the Government’s stated intent for the planning White Paper.
When we look at the information that goes into the environmental improvement plans, my concern is that, as my hon. Friend has suggested, the data needs to be there to make any kind of sensible judgment. It is suggested, through the links to clause 94, that local planning authorities will be providing much of that information, yet the Government now propose to create a planning system that makes that nearly impossible. We will return to that, but it points to the great difficulty for the Opposition, in that, without an evidence session to explore these points, it is difficult to have a rational discussion at this point in our proceedings. My hon. Friend’s suggested amendment very much strengthens the Government’s ability to draw up a coherent plan. If we do not have that, we will end up with a nice-looking document that is not based on any real information.
This debates also touches on a more fundamental issue: the relationship between this Bill and the Agriculture Bill. I had the pleasure of leading on the Agriculture Bill in this very room some months ago, and we raised the point then. The interaction between the two is complicated and sophisticated, particularly in relation to environmental land management schemes. The Minister mentioned that earlier. Without the relevant information, we will not be able to have the planning strength we would all like to see.
Dr Whitehead
The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge are important in the wider context of the Bill. They explain why we are finding it difficult to easily track what the various parts of the Bill are against each other. As my hon. Friend says, we will return to that in the next amendment. It is beholden on the Minister to explain a bit better how these things fit together—or indeed do not—than she has this morning. We legislate today not just for those who might be well-disposed towards the Bill and have its architecture well-embedded in their heads, and would therefore hopefully be able to move about within the Bill to put its bits together in terms of future directions. I refer to Ministers and those who are well-disposed towards its ideas—in this instance biodiversity reports. We are legislating for future circumstances where those required to carry out the terms of the Bill might not have the same enthusiasm, dedication and support for the issues as the Minister does. I am sure she will have a long reign as Minister, but she is nevertheless the present Minister.
It is important that we ensure as best we can that the legislation is malevolence-proof and that what we decide in respect of future Governments’ duties, both in this Committee and when the Bill goes through the House, really happens. The amendment is an example of something that could be included in the Bill. I accept what the Minister said about there being some measures that, with some good will, can ensure that those things happen, but they are far from the sort of long-term assurances we want. Although I will not press the amendment to a vote, I am afraid that what the Minister has said laid out this morning is very much dependent on her good will towards the Bill.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The shadow Minister is making a powerful point—we are future-proofing for generations to come. To my mind, it is important that legislation is easy to read and understand, and it must be secure and tight. Future generations will be looking to us to set an example, which is why that is so important. A year ago, nobody knew about covid, so we cannot always read the future, but we must set things down tightly in legislation. That is why amendment 201, which was withdrawn, focused on the use of “may” and “must”—wording is so important. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must make the legislation as future-proof as possible.
Dr Whitehead
That is precisely my view of what we should be doing in Committee and throughout the passage of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will reflect on whether the clause is really tight enough to ensure that the provisions work, not just for her purposes but for the purposes of people in the future, and that she will look over the legislation at her leisure—there is plenty of time on Report—to see whether anything more needs to be done to ensure that that point is properly taken on board. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 8, page 5, line 32, at end insert
“and,
(c) include an analysis of whether the policies and measures set out in the environmental improvement plan will ensure that any targets set under sections 1 and 2 and any interim targets set under sections 10 and 13 are likely to be met.”
This amendment is another example of the theme that we have been developing, first on the extent to which the later parts of the Bill link properly to the earlier parts, and secondly on whether provisions should be included in the Bill to ensure that those links are made when the Bill becomes law and are not just in the minds of the Minister and well-disposed civil servants.
The amendment, which also relates to clause 7(5), proposes that the environmental improvement plan should include
“an analysis of whether the policies and measures set out in the environmental improvement plan will ensure that any targets set under sections 1 and 2”,
which we have agreed to,
“and any interim targets set under sections 10 and 13”,
which we will talk about later,
“are likely to be met.”
It is important to the proper functioning of any environmental improvement plan that it is drawn up on the basis of the targets. The Minister has mentioned that this is not just a question of the targets that are in the Bill; other targets can be set on the basis of the framework in clause 1. It seems to me that if that is one of our prime mechanisms for ensuring that what happens under the Bill as a whole works, it has to be a prime function of an environmental improvement plan. The idea of setting up an environmental improvement plan to miss, subvert or undermine those targets would be anathema to us, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that from happening. The two clauses are just not linked together. We therefore think, as I have mentioned before, that the amendment is important to rectify architectural defects in the Bill.
Under the amendment, the analysis would be one of the things the Secretary of State was required to include when preparing an environmental improvement plan. Of course, when the environmental improvement plan that we have at present was produced, no targets were in place, no targets had been set and no targets had been considered. This is therefore an entirely new thing that would have to go into the revision of the environmental improvement plan that the Secretary of State is required to do in 2023.
I hope that the Minister will be fairly generous in considering whether to put this provision in the Bill. I think that it is an important change that needs to be made and, given that we have thought about it for a while, we will consider dividing the Committee if there is not a reasonable response to what is a serious and considerable lack of joining up between this clause and the earlier clauses.
Rebecca Pow
I thank shadow Minister for his proposal that the Government annually assess the sufficiency of environmental improvement plan measures for achieving our targets. He is clearly aware, as are we and, indeed, all the people who have put so much work into the structure of the targets and the EIPs, that it is very important to keep the EIPs on track. With that in mind, I assure him that the whole system that has been set up—the Bill’s statutory cycle of monitoring, planning and reporting—is designed to ensure that the Government regularly assess the sufficiency of their actions, while allowing some flexibility in how they do so.
The EIP annual reports are intended to be a retrospective assessment of what has happened in the preceding 12 months. The five-yearly EIP review is a more comprehensive assessment in which the Government must look not only backwards but forwards and consider whether the EIP should include additional measures. If so, the EIP may be updated and a new version laid before Parliament.
The Office for Environmental Protection will comment yearly on the progress reported in each EIP annual report, providing it with the opportunity to flag early on where it believes there is a risk that the Government might not meet their legally binding, long-term targets. It may also make recommendations on how progress towards meeting targets can be improved, to which the Government must respond.
The Chair
Order. The Minister has finished her remarks; the hon. Gentleman is replying to the debate.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed. I am wondering in a non-specific way, Mr Gray, what the Minister might think about this issue, having responded to the debate so far.
The provision that we wish to place in clause 8(2) appears in subsection (3), so will the Minister consider including it in subsection (2), which states what an annual report must consist of, whereas subsection (3) states that the report might consider these matters. Surely those targets and interim targets are central to any annual report and are not a consideration that might arise in the report.
I do not know whether the wording is slack or whether there is a reason why the consideration of relevant targets under clauses 1 and 2 are in subsection (3) and not in subsection (2). Our amendment expresses the centrality of targets to annual reports.
Daniel Zeichner
I have to say that I am finding this a slightly dry discussion, Mr Gray.
I listened to the Minister carefully and I am trying to understand the amendment’s effect in the real world. For those that influence the environment—I think of water companies and transport authorities—the extra clarity offered by the amendment would make it far more likely that they would amend their planning and investment decisions at the right time, which seems to be key to what we are trying to achieve.
Dr Whitehead
I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend, although it is perhaps going a little too far for an hon. Friend to say that I am involved in dry discussions. On his suggestion, I will try to make my discussions a little damper in future.
To be honest, I do not think the Minister has given us a good reply. I do not want to press the amendment to a vote, but I want to put it on the record that we think it is important that these issues should be gathered together centrally in the annual reports and not put in the considerations about the annual reports. Again, I would hope—it is not a general reflection on this occasion, but an actual reflection—that the Minister might look at the fact that the wording applies to the documentation of the report and consider whether a drafting amendment to put subsection (3) into subsection (2) might not be a wise course of action at a future date.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Policy statement on environmental principles
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 16, page 10, line 6, leave out “proportionately”.
This amendment removes ministerial estimates of proportionality as a limitation on the policy statement on environmental principles.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 92, in clause 18, page 11, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the proportionality limitation on the requirement to consider the policy statement on environmental principles.
Dr Whitehead
I am afraid that we might be here discussing slightly dry propositions for a little while. Amendments 91 and 92 look at the wording in the Bill that relates to the proportionality of the interpretation by Ministers of the Crown when making policy. Clause 16(2) defines what a policy statement on environmental principles is. It explains that it
“is a statement explaining how the environmental principles should be interpreted and proportionately applied by Ministers of the Crown when making policy.”
Although that appears to be an innocuous point, our view is that it is not remotely as innocuous as it looks, because it is not just talking about the statement on how the environmental principles should be interpreted. It is stating that, even after that interpretation, there is a second course of action that may be taken: Ministers of the Crown may decide to apply them proportionately. As far as I can see, there is no definition of the word “proportionately” in clause 16 or in the Bill as a whole, even though it is quite usual to place an interpretation of particular words in a Bill.
My understanding is that the word “proportionately” has to be attached to something—it is proportionate to something, or proportionately a part of something. When it is stated in the—
Environment Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2020 - (3 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 92, in clause 18, page 11, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the proportionality limitation on the requirement to consider the policy statement on environmental principles.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I was in the middle of a brief exposition of the word “proportionately”, as found in clause 16, which we were discussing this morning. As I mentioned, the clause requires that a policy statement on environmental principles must be prepared in accordance with clauses 16 and 17. Subsection (2) defines the policy statement on environmental principles as
“a statement explaining how the environmental principles should be interpreted and proportionately applied by Ministers of the Crown when making policy.”
The word “proportionately” very much concerns Opposition Members, because the clause not only deals with the statement itself and how the environmental principles should be interpreted, but adds that Ministers of the Crown will be assumed to be proportionately applying those principles. It goes beyond the environmental principles themselves and gives Ministers of the Crown the leeway to apply those principles “proportionately”.
“Proportionately” is a strange word. The Cambridge philosopher of ordinary language J. L. Austin defined it, among others, as a “trouser-word”—a word that does not function properly without a pair of trousers on.
Dr Whitehead
I think J. L. Austin is very interesting, but others disagree. Indeed, the dictionary definition of “proportionately”, which underlines his point, is:
“In a way that corresponds in size or amount to something else.”
It has no consequence in its own right, and that is the problem that we have with this particular formulation. If there are no trousers on “proportionately”, it can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean. In this instance, it appears to mean what Ministers of the Crown may want it to mean. It is possible—not in terms of the intentions or anything else of present company—that the definition of “proportionately” is entirely what Ministers of the Crown may want to make of it. A much more straightforward example of that particular action is Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty deciding that words mean exactly what he wanted them to mean.
We may come on to this later, but the Bill should define what “proportionately” might mean, what its limits are and what Ministers may do when deciding, proportionately, what environmental principles should be. I accept that it may well be the case that Ministers have a view on environmental principles and how that policy statement may be put into place. This is not an appropriate way to bring Ministers into that particular discussion. For the sake of clarity, we would like the to see the word removed from the clause, so that it reads, “a policy statement is a statement explaining how the environmental principles should be interpreted.” That offers enough leeway as far as policy statements are concerned. I welcome the Minister’s explanation as to why that additional line should be necessary in the clause, and what it adds rather than what it takes away, in terms of making quite meaningless some of the things that I have outlined in the first part of the clause with regard to Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for these amendments, and welcome the opportunity to clarify why the provisions are needed. The amendments would remove the need for the policy statement to set out how the environmental principles should be proportionately applied by Ministers when making policy. They also remove important proportionality considerations associated with the legal duty to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles. Proportionate application is a key aspect of use of the principles, and it ensures that Government policy is reasoned and based on sensible decision making. It is vital that this policy statement provides current and future Ministers with clarity on how the principles should be applied proportionately, so that they are used in a balanced and sensible way. Setting out how these principles need to be applied in a proportionate manner does not weaken their effect, nor does ensuring that action on the basis of the policy statement is only taken where there is an environmental benefit. It simply means that in the policy statement, we will be clear that Ministers need to think through environmental, social and economic considerations in the round, and ensure that the environment is properly factored into policy made across Government from the very start of the process.
When the policy statement is then used, Ministers of the Crown will take action when it is sensible to do so. This approach is consistent with the objective in relation to the policy statement of embedding sustainable development, aimed at ensuring environmental, social, and economic factors are all considered when making policy. Not balancing those factors could have consequences that halt progress. For example, a disproportionate application of the “polluter pays” principle could result in anyone being asked to pay for any negligible harm on the environment, when in reality, many actions taken by humans cause some environmental harm, such as going for a walk in the country. It is essential to ensure that the principles are applied in an appropriate and balanced way, and proportionality is absolutely key to this. Since this amendment removes vital proportionality considerations, I ask the hon. Member not to press amendments 91 and 92.
The Chair
Before I call Daniel Zeichner, who caught my eye, can I explain a small point about procedure? It would be helpful if anybody who wishes to speak while the person who has moved the amendment is speaking would catch my eye one way or another—standing up in their place is the clearest way to do so. Those people speak, and the Minister speaks afterwards. That means the Minister is replying to the points that are made. For now, it is fine, but in future, Members should catch my eye while the mover of the amendment is speaking. They can speak, and the Minister can reply to what hon. Members have to say.
Daniel Zeichner
Thank you, Mr Gray. My apologies for muddling up the procedure. I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few points on what seems to be one of the most important parts of the Bill. For many of us, the precautionary principle has been a key part of our environmental protections.
It is fair to say that there is a difference of view internationally about how one approaches these things. Without trying to trivialise it in any way, there is a difference between the American approach and the European approach. Of course, we have been part of the European approach for a long time, and the precautionary principle has been absolutely key. The introduction of proportionality will seriously weaken our environmental protections. Although we have reams of paper to go through, that is the key distinction. I fear that the application of proportionality will water down our environmental protections.
I found the explanatory notes very helpful, as I always do. Paragraph 173 says:
“Proportionate application means ensuring that action taken on the basis of the principles balances the potential for environmental benefit against other benefits and costs associated with the action.”
Of course, as soon as we introduce that balancing side, those essential precautionary environmental protection are at risk. I am afraid, despite the Minister’s optimism about the Bill, that this is the crunch issue. If this amendment is not carried, there is no doubt that our environmental protections will be weakened.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend makes a key point about the importance of the amendment. It is not just that many things pivot on it; one could almost go so far as to say that the whole thrust of the Bill pivots on it.
The understanding has always been that the Bill really will put the environment on the map and will provide not only good environmental protection in the long term, but no regression and enhanced environmental protection in the future. If that word is at the heart of it, things could be traded off against considerations that are completely outwith the intentions and purposes of the Bill, and it could be subverted entirely at ministerial discretion. That is surely not something that we should easily countenance.
In a moment, we will come on to an amendment that attempts to get a definition of proportionality on to the statute book. Although we do not want to divide the Committee on this amendment, if we do not secure substantial progress with the next amendment, we may seek to divide the Committee at that point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Policy statement on environmental principles: effect
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 114, in clause 18, page 11, line 19, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment removes the exceptions for armed forces, defence and national security policy from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 93, in clause 18, page 11, line 19, leave out
“the armed forces, defence or”.
This amendment removes the exceptions for armed forces and defence policy from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles.
Deidre Brock
It is important to establish a principle that no area of Government should be exempted from its responsibilities to the environment. The amendment brings the activities of the Ministry of Defence, the armed forces, defence and national security into the scope of the Bill. I have been talking at length on this subject for some time now, and have submitted numerous parliamentary questions on it. Some of those questions actually received answers, but sadly I am still awaiting a letter from the Minister for Defence People and Veterans outlining the environmental impact assessment of the MOD’s operations at Cape Wrath, which he promised me in February of this year. Perhaps mentioning that today will jog his memory a little.
We have swathes of munitions dumps up and down the UK coast, still imperilling our fishers and others on our waters. There are also large chunks of land in the UK currently outside the scope of the Bill. Yes, hundreds of nuclear safety incidents on the Clyde were acknowledged by the MOD, but only because of written questions I had submitted. We have no idea what impact military fuels are having. Scientists for Global Responsibility estimates that 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions result from military-related activities.
I understand that the percentage share of the UK’s emissions total is lower for defence here, but our omissions from the military are still higher than those of some entire countries. By taking this action, the UK really could act as a world leader and role model. We have no idea what impact weapons testing or training efforts have. I know because of my parliamentary questions that assessments are made, but they are not published. It must be possible to make such assessments transparent without compromising the safety of our forces and their interests.
A number of witnesses to the Committee, when I asked them about the issue, seemed to agree that it was something of an anomaly. Lloyd Austin of Scottish Environment LINK, while accepting that exceptions will exist, said that they
“should be based…on a degree of justification for why…the environmental issue has to be overwritten. Nobody thinks the environment will always trump everything but, on the other hand, where the environment is trumped, there should be a good reason, and that reason should be transparent to citizens.”
John Bynorth of Environmental Protection Scotland said:
“It is a bit arbitrary and unjustified that the military…should not be subject to the same conditions as everyone else.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 143, Q202.]
Ruth Chambers, from Greener UK, speaking about the fact that this duty will not apply to the Ministry of Defence, said:
“Already, we seem to be absolving quite a large part of Government from the principles.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2020; c. 71, Q112.]
The environmental principles, that is.
I am not going to speak for long—we have many amendments to get through—but I have been raising this issue for a long time. I was delighted to see Labour come on board too, although disappointed to see that they still want to keep the exemption for national security. We have to ask what kind of national security will be left to us if the environment goes belly up.
From answers received from the House of Commons Library, I know that there are so many pieces of primary legislation containing exemptions relating to the armed forces that it is not possible to list them all. If we are going to start stopping these exemptions for the military, the place to start should be in the Environment Bill. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response, but I am going to press the amendment to a vote.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Clause 18 makes the armed forces, defence or national security exempt from due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles. It is detrimental to leave this whole section of Government out of the Bill’s provisions. If we want this Bill to be a legal framework for environmental governance and to have all the correct people in one room, why leave out one of the biggest polluters, the biggest spenders and the biggest landowners? It just does not make sense in terms of achieving ambitious net zero targets.
Were the exemption to be confined and constricted to decisions relating to urgent military matters and those of national security, it is of course entirely reasonable. I fully accept that there will be occasions when national security has to take precedence over environmental concerns. We do not want to impede the work of our armed forces or compromise our safety and security in any way. However, the clause is not drafted as tightly, cleverly and smartly as that. Rather, it is a blanket exclusion for the Ministry of Defence, the Defence Infrastructure Organisation and the armed forces from complying with the environmental principles set out in the Bill.
The carbon footprint of UK military spending was approximately 11 million tonnes of CO2 in 2018—very significant. Some £38 billion was spent on defence last year alone—more than 2% of our GDP. Bringing how that is spent in line with our environmental aims is essential to achieving our overall national environmental targets. If it is not in the Bill, it is just going to be left to goodwill and to hoping that it will work.
I hope that the Minister will shortly argue that the principle is important and, if it is, the armed forces and defence must not be exempt—that is how we show it is important. The Ministry of Defence is one of the largest landowners in the country, with an estate that is nearly equal to 2% of the UK landmass. Last week I was on Salisbury plain, which is the size of the Isle of Wight. It is where significant military work is carried out, but it is also where a significant environmental advantage could be held.
The Defence Infrastructure Organisation manages 431,400 hectares of land within the UK. The sites are used for training, accommodation and large bases and the organisation has a remit to ensure the safety, sustainability and rationalisation of the estate. It states that:
“MOD has a major role to play in the conservation of the UK’s natural resources. Stewardship of the estate means that the MOD has responsibility for some of the most unspoilt and remote areas in Britain; with statutory obligations to protect the protected habitats and species that they support.”
I am not arguing that the Ministry of Defence does not care about the environment. I am saying that, if we all care about the environment, the MOD should come within the legal framework of guidance. We can have an amendment specifically tailored for the armed forces. Much of the land used by the MOD for training and operations is in highly sensitive environments and many parts are located in areas of outstanding natural beauty, including Dartmoor, Lulworth, Warcop and the Kent downs. They are subject to a number of associated policy processes, such as bylaw reviews, planning applications and so on, which means that they are subject to environmental protection. They should be joined up and come within the remit of the Bill as well.
A reason for adding this matter to the Bill is that the Ministry of Defence is already deeply committed to environmental protection and to tackling climate change, but a major rethink of defence policy is needed to achieve our ambitious environmental aims. New approaches to procurement are needed in particular. The Air Force, for example, is looking at different types of aircraft fuel. That should come within the Environment Bill, not without.
It prompts the question of why there is a blanket exemption, as it does not give credit to the armed forces and to the newly formed strategic command for all the work they are doing to achieve our environmental goals. The clause should be tightened up considerably. Rather than separating them, here is an opportunity to link the Bill’s environmental principles to the armed forces’ environmental objectives. We are in a climate emergency. There is no time to wait around for the goodwill of enormous Departments to get in line—certainly not one with such significant spending, carbon emissions and land ownership. I urge the Minister to support the amendment, or to come back with a smarter amendment that enshrines our national security at the same time as enforcing the speed of environmental action that we need and expect the armed forces to be able to deliver.
Dr Whitehead
What the Committee needs to understand is that the inclusion in the Bill of the application of policy as set out in subsection (1) does not apply to the armed forces. Subsection (1) states:
“A Minister of the Crown must, when making policy, have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles currently in effect.”
The Minister must, therefore, have “due regard” to policies on environmental principles except where it relates to anything to do with the “armed forces”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said. She mentioned that it is particularly important when the land that the MOD has under its control is considered, which we indeed know from the handy “National Statistics” publication which states what land is owned by the MOD. The issue, however, is not only the land owned by the MOD but also the further 207,400 hectares over which it has rights in addition to its freehold and leasehold-owned land. A reasonable interpretation of that is to consider what is controlled by the MOD and the armed forces. Is that a total of 431,000 hectares, as mentioned by my hon. Friend? That is the size of Essex plus half of Greater London, to put it into context. That is the amount of land that is under no jurisdiction at all as far as environmental principles are concerned.
There may be good reasons for that huge amount of national land resource being exempt from these environmental protections, but none are immediately apparent to me. Not only are they not apparent to me, what is apparent to me is that an organisation that undertakes actions that prejudice the environmental quality or environmental protection of UK land is often required to mitigate those actions elsewhere in any other sector. If a new port berth is being decided upon, then one of the first things to happen is that a consideration of environmental mitigation takes place for the land that has been despoiled by the new port, even if the berth is regarded as necessary. Even that principle does not appear to apply as far as the MOD is concerned.
As my hon. Friend said, I accept that when a person drives across Salisbury plain, for example, they occasionally see great big tracks on the plain where tanks have driven around it, and that on the Lulworth ranges there is weaponry practice that has environmental impacts. Of course, that is a part of MOD defence activity, and it may be necessary for that activity to be carried out. However, it does not seem beyond our imagination to consider that the MOD and defence should be in a different position as far as environmental mitigation is concerned. It would be quite reasonable to suggest that within the necessary undertakings that the MOD has to go about doing, environmental mitigation should be part of that process, if necessary. To just give the armed forces a blanket let-off as far as any environmental principles are concerned seems, to me, a bridge too far.
Daniel Zeichner
We just had a discussion about proportionality, and it strikes me as perfectly possible to say to the MOD that it could react proportionately to these kinds of judgments. In our previous discussion, we introduced a notion that I would say will be used to the detriment of the environment; why could we not ask the MOD to act proportionately when it comes to its environmental obligations?
Dr Whitehead
Indeed, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It would not be difficult to draft something that would both protect the activities that I think we all agree the MOD and the Army need to do on occasions, and ask them to act proportionately in respect of their environmental obligations when undertaking those activities.
An amendment to this clause has been tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North—[Hon. Members: “And Leith.”] And Leith as well, yes; I have been to both Edinburgh North and Leith, so I should remember the connection between the two. The Labour party has also put forward amendments, which take out two sections of this clause and, as it were, challenge their inclusion and these exemptions separately. We do not see any substantive difference between what we are saying through those two particular challenges and, as it were, the overall challenge that the hon. Lady has put forward through her amendment: it is essentially a big question about why these particular exemptions are in place. We do not just have exemptions for the MOD; we have exemptions as far as
“taxation, spending or the allocation of resources within government”.
I am not exactly sure what land that controls, as we cannot put that in place in the same way as we can with the MOD, but it is also not apparent to me why those areas should also be treated differently.
Dr Whitehead
I stand corrected. So we are discussing amendments 93 and 114 in this group and discussing amendment 94 in the next group. I will remove my remarks on amendment 94 and save them for the next group. I have to say that I do not think there is much between the formulation put forward by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and the one put forward by us, as we will come to in the next amendment. Therefore, we support the hon. Lady in her endeavours to try and get some clarity as far as this section is concerned.
Rebecca Pow
I thank hon. Members for the amendments. Clearly, we have sparked some quite strong feelings here about this particular issue. I want to make it clear, Chair, that I am just going to focus on defence, to which the amendment relates.
While we recognise the intention behind these amendments, it is fundamental to the protection of our country that the exemptions for armed forces, defence and national security are maintained. The exemptions that would be removed by the amendments relate to highly sensitive matters that are vital for the protection of our realm, so it is appropriate for them to be omitted from the duty to have due regard to the environmental policy statement. A critical part of the role of Defence and Home Office Ministers is to make decisions about the use of UK forces to prevent harm, save lives, protect UK interests or deal with a threat. We have several colleagues in the Room who have strong armed forces links, and I think they will agree with that summary. It would not be appropriate for Ministers to have to go through the process of considering the set of environmental principles before implementing any vital and urgent policies related to the issues I have just mentioned.
Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence has its own environmental policies in place, as well as a commitment that its policies protect the environment, with a strong record on delivering on those commitments, which we had reference to from both sides, particularly from the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Cambridge. For example, the MOD require that all new infrastructure programmes, projects and activities have to include sustainability and environmental appraisals. Those appraisals cover a similar spectrum of analysis to the environmental principles.
I also want to highlight that the MOD takes the environment extremely seriously. It is adapting to mitigate defence’s impact on climate, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Putney, to build resilience and support the Government’s commitment to net-zero emissions and a review is underway to develop its response to net zero and climate change, with a new strategy planned to add to the existing sustainable development policy. That is a clear indication that the MOD means business where the environment is concerned.
As was touched on by a couple of Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, the Ministry of Defence owns or otherwise controls approximately 1% of the UK’s landmass—
Rebecca Pow
My facts say 1%, but shall we agree, Chair, that it is nearly 2%?
Rebecca Pow
It is a significant amount. Actually, I think the shadow Minister is right and it is nearer 2%. More than a third—38%—of that area is designated as sites of special scientific interest. SSSIs have a statutory duty that they will be managed and protected and that duty is not removed—it is not exempted. As such, that work carries on. The MOD’s record on getting those sites into favourable condition is good, with 48% of the sites in that condition. The MOD works very hard with Natural England on those plans and projects; it has a dedicated environmental team, working on the environment through the MOD.
When I was a news reporter, I had a wonderful day with the MOD up on Salisbury Plain, looking at its tremendous stone curlew project. Even though the tanks rattle across, the stone curlews can still thrive. The Whip is looking at his phone, but I am sure that he lives near there; I would like someone to report back to me on how the stone curlews are doing now, because that is a fantastic project.
To go back to my point, because of the particular sensitivities of this policy area as well as existing environmental commitments, I hope that I am giving some clarity as to why the MOD is exempted. It might be helpful for the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith to note that there are exemptions in the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Bill, and they are in categories that are quite similar to those in this Bill, if not a little bit wider. They are listed in clause 10(3) of that Bill as
“(a) national defence or civil emergency,
(b) finance or budgets.”
I thought that it might be interesting to put that on the record.
I hope that I have provided some clarity on this issue. I think we are covering a lot of the same ground here, so I ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.
Deidre Brock
The Minister talks about the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Bill, but unfortunately defence is still reserved to Westminster, so I am afraid that the Scottish Government would not have any control over that issue anyway.
The issue for me here is transparency for our citizens, so that they know exactly what impact the armed forces are having on our environment. The Minister talks about the highly sensitive nature of the armed forces’ activities, but not all their activities are sensitive. For example, what are their recycling rates and what are their targets towards the reduction of emissions? Regarding the environmental impact of the armed forces, just today we heard on the radio from the actor Joanna Lumley about the impact of underwater explosions on marine mammals, and the hearing loss that results when munitions that have been on the seabed for many years are detonated. Such issues will become more and more important. I have pursued the question of munitions dumps for a while, as I mentioned; it is not going away. There is an increasing clamour about it from around the world, and it is important for the Minister to remember that because it will return as an issue in the near future.
It is simply no longer acceptable for the armed forces to be exempt from reporting their progress towards climate change targets, or their compliance with environmental targets or any of the other targets that other parts of Government are required to report on. I am disappointed that the Government cannot support this amendment. As I have said, the number of exemptions for the armed forces in primary legislation across Government is extraordinary; in fact, there are so many that the Commons Library felt that it could not list them in their entirety in its briefing.
It is important to hold to the principle that we all have a part to play in trying to save the planet. There should be no exemptions for any Government Department. I accept that there are sensitivities around national security, but I think there are ways of addressing them and taking them into account. I am delighted that Labour Members are with me on this issue, and I will press the matter to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 18, page 11, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment removes the exceptions for tax, spending and resources from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles.
Bearing in mind that we have had something of a debate on this subsection overall, I need not detain the Committee long on this amendment, other than to say that it is a mystery to me that taxation, spending or the allocation of resources should be exempted in the same way that the armed forces should be exempted. The Minister defined why the armed forces should be exempted: they are doing things in the national interest and pursuing our defence. But taxation, spending and the allocation of resources are not doing that. They are doing things that are important to the country but do not come under that definition at all. I cannot understand the justification for exempting them from the provisions on the policy statements on environmental principles or what the exemption’s effect will be. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what her justification for this particular exemption is. I presume that it does not relate to national security or defence manoeuvres or activities that we should be pleased happen but do not need to know too much about. It would seem that this falls outside all those categories. There must therefore be some other reason and I am sure that we are about to hear about it.
Deidre Brock
The amendment would bring tax and spend into the scope of the Bill. I am glad that Labour is also addressing this because when I mentioned this on Second Reading, few Members seemed to have grasped it. It is a really important point. If we are not considering the big issues of politics and the spending on them, we are not putting the environment high on the list of priorities. Likewise, if environmental considerations do not play a part in taxation decisions, we are missing a great chance to influence people’s behaviour and help save our planet.
Rebecca Pow
I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendment. While we recognise the intention behind it, it is important to maintain the exemption to ensure sound economic and fiscal decision making. It is important to be clear that this exemption only refers to central spending decisions, because at fiscal events and spending reviews such decisions must be taken with consideration to a wide range of public priorities. These include public spending on individual areas such as health, defence, education and the environment, as well as sustainable economic growth and development, financial stability and sustainable levels of debt.
There is no exemption for individual policy interventions simply because they require spending. Ministers should still have due regard to the policy statement when developing and implementing all policies to which the statement is applicable. This means that while the policy statement will not need to be used when the Treasury is allocating budgets to Departments, it will be used when Departments develop policies that draw upon that budget. This is the best place for the use of the policy statement to effectively deliver environmental protection.
With regard to the exemption for taxation, let me reassure hon. Members that the Government are committed to encouraging positive environmental outcomes through the tax system, as demonstrated already by our commitment to introducing a new tax on plastic packaging, to encourage greater use of recycled plastic. We also have examples such as the woodland carbon guarantee and commitments to biodiversity net gain, with the Treasury commissioning the Dasgupta report. A raft of measures demonstrate this. However, we need to ensure the Treasury Minister’s ability to alter the UK’s fiscal position is not undermined, since taxation raises the revenue that allows us to deliver essential public services, such as the NHS, police and schools.
Although I recognise the purpose of the amendment, it is beneficial for the country that the Treasury can make economic and financial decisions with regard to a wide range of considerations, which will, of course, include the environment and climate. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw this amendment.
Dr Whitehead
As I always am, I will be polite. The Minister, with great aplomb, read out words from a piece of paper that was placed in front of her to explain what the clause means, but she must realise, as we all do, that that is total nonsense. It makes no sense at all.
Let us look at actions in various other areas of Government. The imperatives on net zero and climate change that we just passed through the House effectively apply to decision making in all Departments. Departments are not supposed to make decisions about their activities and spending without reference to those imperatives. Yet what we have on this piece of paper—I am sure it was assiduously drafted by someone seeking to defend this particular exemption—appears to drive a coach and horses through that consideration, let alone other considerations. Apparently, in taking its decisions on larger matters, the Treasury does not have to be bound by considerations on environmental protection.
I think that is a shock to all of us, because it means that the Bill is completely useless. The Treasury considers a large number of things in its policies, covering every area of practical Government activity, one way or another. If the situation is as the Minister has described, where do environmental protections stand? With any environmental protection, if it is part of the consideration of Treasury policy development, there is a door for the Treasury to run out of. As I understand it, that is what it says on the piece of paper.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Just for clarification, is the hon. Gentleman effectively saying that the Bill should provide the Treasury with an opportunity to give a blank cheque for whatever the Office for Environmental Protection requires?
Dr Whitehead
The phrase “due regard” comes in here, importantly. The truth is that clause 18 is a blank cheque in the opposite direction—a blank cheque for Ministers to invoke if they decide under certain circumstances not to be bound by environmental protection, as the Bill appears to suggest that we all should be. That is unconscionable; it should not be in the Bill.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Could the hon. Gentleman clarify what would happen in the situation that we have faced this year, in which the Treasury has had to make very fast decisions and give billions to businesses because of covid? Some of those businesses might not be of an environmental nature—in fact, some might be what we would regard as non-environmental or actually detrimental to the environment —but because of the social impact of that money, the Treasury has had to do it. It is my understanding that if the law were as the hon. Gentleman would like it, the Treasury would not have had that leeway. Could he clarify that?
Dr Whitehead
The Treasury would have had that leeway, because of the phrase “have due regard”. There are clearly circumstances in which emergencies or other issues mean that Ministers may at particular stages have to draw away from their environmental or climate change imperatives and responsibilities. However, the important thing about having due regard is that if they do so, they have to explain why and under what circumstances they are taking the decision. Clause 18 will do exactly the opposite: Ministers will not have to explain anything—they can just not do anything that they do not feel like doing. I hope that Conservative Members will join us in saying that that is not good enough and is not what the Bill should be doing.
There could be another formulation. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth has pointed the way; with the right formulation, we could encompass the sort of circumstances she mentions. Of course we would be happy to support that, because there are indeed considerations that need to be undertaken at certain stages of emergency and difficulty, and which may cause some difficulty with the imperatives. That is what due regard protects us from, to a considerable extent. However, the principle that someone who does something other than what we think the imperative should point towards should justify what they are doing and be accountable for it is a very important part of our processes, and that is not the case here.
Rebecca Pow
I just want to clarify a few points. As I am sure the shadow Minister knows, HMT takes environmental impact extremely seriously already; in fact, it is referred to in the Green Book, which guides policy making, that it has to be taken into account including consideration of natural capital. The environmental principles will be referred to in the Green Book, so we already have very strong measures that HMT is obviously being guided by.
Dr Whitehead
Forgive me, but I think the Minister has elided “is” and “ought”. Yes, the Treasury may do those things and put them in the Green Book, but under clause 18 it does not have to, just as the Ministry of Defence is doing things that we might say are laudable—we heard about curlews coexisting alongside tanks—but it does not have to, and if for any reason it did not do them, it would not have to say anything about it. It is entirely lucky that the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence are doing what they are doing, but that need not be the case. The Minister illustrated in what she read out a little while ago that that is not the case. They do not have to do those things under the Bill. In defence of the fact that they do not have do them, she has highlighted examples of where, despite that and because of their good nature and good will, they are doing them anyway. I would expect that to happen, but it does not mean that in legislation we should allow good luck to rule the things that we think are imperative as far as environmental protection is concerned.
Daniel Zeichner
This is a fascinating discussion. As the debate has unfolded, I have found myself looking at the clause and thinking, “What would have been in anyone’s mind when drafting that extra line?”. What do they think needs to be excluded, and for what purpose? If the clause existed without that line in the first place, then unless people are seeking something rather extraordinary, I would not have thought they would try to open a huge opportunity to drive a coach and horses through an environmental protection Bill. What was the thinking, I wonder?
Dr Whitehead
Indeed; my hon. Friend shines a light on it. If one were of a suspicious character, one might say, “Why is this line here anyway?”. As the Minister said, the Treasury and the MOD do quite a lot of work in this respect. One might say, “Good. They do quite a lot of work in this respect, and that needs to be encouraged, so let’s have a pretty strong starting point to bolster the work that they do already, and let’s have some limited exceptions, driven by absolute necessity, with accountability over what they consist of and how they are undertaken.” Instead, we have drafting that does the opposite. If hon. Members were suspicious, they might question why that drafting is in there, and not another form of drafting that is much closer to what we all want to see: environmental protections being respected as far as possible.
Frankly, the Minister has given us no explanation of why it is there. She has given us a very able and clear exposition of who does what through their good nature. I applaud her for that, because it is part of her Department’s remit to make sure other Departments do that. However, her Department’s remit would be strengthened if the clause was strengthened or if it was not there at all. On that basis, I am afraid that we will seek to divide the Committee on this amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 195, in clause 20, page 12, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must—
(a) consult on the criteria and thresholds to be applied in determining significance for the purposes of subsection (1), and
(b) publish guidance on those matters reflecting the results of the consultation.”
This amendment would require the Government to consult on what counts as “significant” for the purposes of this Clause.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 196, in clause 20, page 12, line 19, at end insert—
“(2A) The report must include—
(a) the results of an independent assessment of developments in international environmental protection legislation, and
(b) the Government’s proposed response to those developments.”
This amendment would require the report to include an independent assessment and the Government’s response to it.
Amendment 197, in clause 20, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State must make an oral statement to Parliament about the report as soon as reasonably practicable following the laying of the report.”
This amendment would require an oral statement to accompany the written report.
Dr Whitehead
I am afraid that we come to another discussion about the definition of a word in the Bill, which I know will cause some Members to groan. Nevertheless, as we saw in the last discussion, just a couple of words, or three, can have enormous significance in terms of a Bill’s wider consequences, so it is important that we look at them, what they mean, and their place in the Bill.
Amendment 195 seeks to define what is meant by “significant” where the clause states:
“The Secretary of State must report on developments in international environmental protection legislation which appear to the Secretary of State to be significant.”
The clause therefore provides for reports on what is happening around the world in terms of environmental protection legislation. What are the good and bad points, what can we learn from, and what things can we co-operate on? The clause kindly defines international environmental protection legislation as
“legislation of countries and territories outside the United Kingdom, and international organisations, that is mainly concerned with environmental protection.”
The clause also states:
“The Secretary of State must report under this section in relation to each reporting period.”
It then states what those reporting periods are to be. International environmental protection legislation is therefore defined, but the Secretary of State apparently has a completely free hand to decide which of those developments are significant, without any accompanying definition in the legislation of what that word means.
One might say that that is quite significant, because clearly there can be an enormous range of judgments on what, subjectively, a particular Secretary of State might think are significant international developments. For one Secretary of State, it might be that a particular state has adopted legislation similar to our own in their Parliament. Another might think it significant that another jurisdiction has decided that its army should be exempt from land holdings coming under its own environmental legislation, and that such an omission has produced riots and street clashes in that country as a result of the population deciding that it was a bad idea. A range of things might be regarded as significant or not.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
This point is fundamental. As drafted, the Bill has it as a subjective judgment by the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment seeks to make it objective. In our system—this goes to the heart of the amendment, and many others—the Secretary of State and Ministers representing the Department are responsible to Parliament for their actions and whether any judgment they make is correct. The Bill deliberately leaves it in the hands of the Secretary of State to make that subjective judgment, and if the House disagrees at the time the debate will happen at the time.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but that is not quite right, really. The Secretary of State must report on developments and on international environmental protection legislation that appears to him or her to be significant, and after he or she has taken a judgment, he or she produces a report that must be laid before Parliament. What comes before Parliament is not what is before the Secretary of State. It is not a gazetteer of international environmental protection action. It is a report after the Secretary of State has decided what is significant and what is not significant. Those things that the Secretary of State defines as not significant are left out of the report.
Parliament could conceivably say, “Aha! We have done a great deal of separate assiduous research and we have decided that the Secretary of State has left this and this and this out—why has the Secretary of State left these things out?”, but that requires a separate series of actions from Parliament that are outwith the report, not about the report itself. The amendment seeks to define what the Secretary of State should reasonably put into a report for Parliament to look at. We have also tabled an amendment on what should be done in addition to the report being published, which we will come to in a moment.
The central point of the amendment is that the Secretary of State should
“consult on the criteria and thresholds to be applied in determining significance”
and then
“publish guidance on those matters”.
That still gives the Secretary of State some leeway in determining what is in the report, but it means that there is a body of guidance by which the Secretary of State should be guided in terms of what he or she puts in the report for the subsequent perusal of Parliament. At present, because there is no definition of “significant” in the Bill, that guidance is completely lacking.
I hope that now I have given that explanation, the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden can support the amendment, as I think what he seeks to ensure is that Parliament gets a report and the chance to discuss what the Secretary of State has done. I would suggest that a much better way of doing that is by agreeing to the amendment, rather than the word standing unexplained, as it does at the moment.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for the amendment. I recognise the intention behind requiring further guidance on what counts as “significant”. However, this is a horizon-scanning provision. As such, it would be counterproductive for the Government to try to anticipate in advance the kinds of significant developments that might be identified.
There is no single overarching metric for the environment. Many of us touched on the complex landscape that is the environment earlier today. Creating an objective test is impossible. It is important that there is flexibility to take account of the full range of developments in the period, in order to produce a report that is useful in informing domestic legislation. The amendment would reduce the flexibility, potentially limiting the scope and use of the report.
The review will cover other countries’ legislation that aims to protect, maintain, restore or enhance the natural environment or that involves the monitoring, assessing, considering or reporting of anything in relation to the above that is significant. What is significant will depend on the period being assessed. Something significant today might not be significant next year and different things might be significant next year.
On the proposals for an independent assessment and an oral statement, I assure the hon. Member that there are already effective measures in place to allow Parliament to scrutinise the report. That point was ably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. When the report is laid before Parliament, Members can highlight any areas where they believe the Government have missed important developments. It is obviously really important that they do this, and it will ensure independent scrutiny. It is crucial that this is carried out and that we look at what is going on internationally. If we want to call ourselves global leaders, we have to be aware of what is being done elsewhere. If there are good examples, we need to copy them.
Daniel Zeichner
As I listen to the Minister, I think there is so much subjectivity involved in this. Just thinking back through the glorious array of Secretaries of State who we have had in the Conservative Government over the past decade—
Daniel Zeichner
There has been a glorious range of opinions, including those of one or two notorious climate change deniers, so there would have been a completely different view on things that were happening internationally, depending on which part of the spectrum of opinion was held by the office holder at the time. Clearly, there can be a change of Governments in the future when this legislation is in place. Surely having an objective set of criteria for how this is done is far better than just having a subjective view, with it depending on whether something is deemed to be significant by the office holder and Government at the time.
Rebecca Pow
I think the hon. Gentleman has stepped right into my trap, because that is why it is really important that the report goes before both Houses so that they can both comment. The whole purpose of it is that it will be well scrutinised, so that the right measures are introduced. There will be many measures, and we will not want all of them to be introduced, so we need to choose the very best ones. The whole idea of the Secretary of State’s report is that it will be open and transparent—I honestly hope that I have made that clear.
The clause is about ensuring that the Government take active steps to identify significant improvements and are accountable to Parliament for the actions that they will take in response. It is therefore right that the Government take full responsibility for producing the report. I do not think that requiring the Secretary of State to outsource the responsibility is the right approach. Additionally, independent consideration can already be provided by the Office for Environmental Protection—for example, clause 27 provides Ministers with the power to require the OEP to advise on any other matters relating to the natural environment, which could include developments in international environmental protection legislation that it sees as important, positive or progressive, so we have that extra layer there as well.
I hope that I have given some clarity, and I ask hon. Members not to press amendments 195 to 197.
The Chair
Amendments 195 to 197 are grouped together. We have debated them, but we will not be deciding on amendments 196 and 197.
The Chair
They are one group: amendments 195, 196 and 197. That is the group we are currently discussing.
The Chair
Well, it is too late. I asked you to discuss it in the first place, and you did not. You can now wind up on the group of amendments.
Dr Whitehead
Thank you, Chair. Following your advice, I will wind up on this group of amendments. In so doing, it is conceivable that I might refer to some of the amendments during the course of my discussion.
Dr Whitehead
We have the Minister’s explanation of how the word “significant” is to be defined: it is not to be defined, effectively. We also have what I would kindly say is a descriptive, rather than an objective, passage about what Secretaries of State do about significance. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge is really important, and it underlines what I said previously. We do not impugn the motives or the commitment of either the present Secretary of State or the present Minister in this respect. I am sure they will do everything they can to ensure that such reports are open and transparent, are put before the House and are properly discussed and that they include everything that most people would consider significant, as far as international environmental protection events are concerned.
However, that is not the point. The point is that different people could occupy those offices. They might have significantly different views and might produce virtually nothing for the House regarding environmental protection events. There would be nothing in the Bill to stop them doing that, except, possibly, if we were to pass amendment 197. That amendment would add to this part of the Bill by saying:
“The Secretary of State must make an oral statement to Parliament about the report as soon as reasonably practicable following the laying of the report.”
As the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden envisaged, the Secretary of State would have to come before the House and make an oral statement, on which he or she could be questioned. There would therefore be a clear line of transparency at that time as far as whatever the Secretary of State decided to do concerning the report. If the Minister went as far as to accept amendment 197, that would make a difference concerning this test of significance. As matters stand, we feel that the protections are woefully inadequate in terms of the way in which the report must be compiled and presented. Therefore, we seek to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 20, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State must—
(a) keep under consideration whether there are any steps which they could take which would or might secure better or further effect full compliance with the Aarhus Convention, and
(b) if they consider it appropriate to do so, take any of the steps identified by that consideration.
(8) A report under this section must set out what steps have been taken during the reporting period to secure better or further effect full compliance with the Aarhus Convention and what steps the Secretary of State intends to take during the next reporting period to that effect.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consider what steps may be taken to improve compliance with the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters and, if they consider it appropriate to do so, to take those steps.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 97, in clause 22, page 13, line 8, at end insert—
“(c) respect, protect and fulfil the rights contained in the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.”
This amendment requires the OEP to oversee implementation of the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.
Dr Whitehead
The explanatory statement for this particular amendment relates to the question of securing better or further effecting full compliance with the Aarhus convention, which is a wide-ranging convention relating to environmental protection and activities.
The amendment suggests that the Secretary of State should keep under consideration how the UK Government might secure better or further effect full compliance with the Aarhus convention. We are signatories to it, so one would have thought that we should try to fully comply with it, in general terms. The amendment is really asking the Secretary of State to do something that we ought to do anyway. If the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, the amendment also suggests that they take the steps identified in that consideration and produce a report setting out what steps are being taken to secure full compliance and what steps they intend to take over the next reporting period.
The Aarhus convention is important, but it has been, in some people’s eyes, somewhat overtaken by other events. Nevertheless, it remains important in international environmental considerations, and it important that it should be put into the Bill as one of the Secretary of State’s considerations to undertake.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing the Committee’s attention to the Aarhus convention, which is of course an international agreement. I do not deny its importance, so he and I agree on that.
The UK ratified the convention in 2005, and we remain a party to it in our own right. Our exit from the EU does not change our commitment to respect, protect and fulfil the rights contained in this important international agreement. Implementation of the Aarhus convention is overseen by the Aarhus convention compliance committee, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs co-ordinates the UK’s ongoing engagement with the committee on our implementation and on findings pertaining to the UK on specific issues. The committee has welcomed the willingness of the United Kingdom to discuss compliance issues in a constructive manner.
Clause 20 requires the Government to review significant developments in international environmental protection legislation, as we discussed. The findings of that review will then be used to inform Government policy on environmental protections, enabling the UK to stay at the forefront of international best practice on environmental protection. The amendment would require that report to include material about existing obligations under the Aarhus convention, not new, innovative developments in environmental protection legislation. That would dilute the purpose of the clause. We independently meet our convention obligations, and there is no need to amend clause 20 to ensure that we continue to do so.
Amendment 97 is unnecessary, as the provisions of the Aarhus convention already fall within the remit of the OEP, where they have been given effect in UK law and meet the definition of environmental law. The OEP will improve access to justice: it will receive complaints free of charge to complainants and will have powers to investigate and enforce compliance with environmental law by public authorities. The OEP will be legally required to keep complainants informed about the handling of their complaints, and it will also have to produce public statements when it takes enforcement action, unless it would not be in the public interest to do so. In addition, public authorities that have been subject to legal proceedings by the OEP will be required to publish a statement setting out the steps they intend to take in the light of the outcome of the proceedings.
Given that we are already engaged with the convention committee on our obligations, the amendments are unnecessary. I ask the hon. Gentlemen not to press them.
Dr Whitehead
I appreciate that the Minister has already replied, but I wonder whether she could—
Dr Whitehead
Has the Minister thought about the extent to which the Aarhus convention is fully implemented in the UK, either via retained EU law or the existing domestic system? In terms of her response to this debate, was she saying that it is the case that the Aarhus convention is now fully implemented in UK law?
Rebecca Pow
I know I am not able to speak again, but perhaps the shadow Minister will allow me to intervene on him—I think I will have to put this in the form of a question, which makes it quite tricky, Mr Gray. Does the shadow Minister agree that the UK’s commitment to the Aarhus convention is unaffected by EU exit, because the UK is a party to the convention in its own right?
Dr Whitehead
That is true, but nevertheless there is the question of the extent to which that commitment itself is a freestanding commitment or additional, via EU retained law. I think the Minister will agree that there is EU retained law in respect of the Aarhus convention. While it is true that we are an individual signatory to it, we were also effectively a joint signatory to it through the EU joint law arrangement. Therefore, we were actually twofold signatories, as far as the Aarhus convention is concerned. Does the fact that we are now a onefold signatory to the Aarhus convention fully replace what it was that we were originally as a twofold signatory to the Aarhus convention? I think the Minister was saying yes, but I am not absolutely certain that that is the case.
Richard Graham
I am slightly confused that the shadow Minister appears to be suggesting that if we are a signatory to any convention in our own right, we are somehow a stronger signatory if we are also a signatory as part of the EU, which we have already left. Are we not straying into areas of semantics way beyond the Environment Bill today?
Dr Whitehead
I can understand the hon. Member indicating that this may be semantics, and indeed, it may be. I was attempting to elucidate the question of whether our being an original signatory to the Aarhus convention—when the convention took place—is identical to what has happened in terms of our being a joint signatory to the Aarhus convention, which took place through our EU membership. There are instances where something that the UK originally signed up for was signed up for jointly through the EU at a different stage. A lot of the conventions on atomic materials transfers and various similar things, which have gone through Euratom or the International Atomic Energy Agency are subject to that sort of progression, where what we signed with the IAEA and what the European Community signed up to subsequently, are a progression in terms of those original signatories. They therefore mean slightly different things, even though it appears that there are two signatories.
It may be the case that the hon. Member is right, and I am seeking to get the Minister to elucidate whether, indeed, the hon. Member is absolutely right. Is the fact that we are a signatory to the Aarhus convention exactly the same as what was the case when we were previously—in addition—a joint signatory with the European Union? Are there any particular matters relating to that signatory which should be converted into UK law to ensure that we are actually in the right place, as far as that signatory issue is concerned? The Minister may well stand up and say yes, that is the case—in which case, I will be a very happy Member of Parliament.
The Chair
That question must hang in the air, because the Minister has already spoken. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw the amendment?
Dr Whitehead
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
The Office for Environmental Protection
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 179, page 121, line 16, at end insert
“with the consent of the Environmental Audit and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committees of the House of Commons”.
The amendment would require the appointment of the Chair and other non-executive members of the Office for Environmental Protection to be made with the consent of the relevant select committees.
We have now moved from chapter 1 of the Bill, which is about environmental governance and improving the natural environment, to the very important topic of the Office for Environmental Protection, which I think will detain the Committee for a little while, as we will discuss not only its formation and operation, but the amendments that the Government made while the Bill was not before us, changing what the Opposition think are substantial elements of the OEP’s operation.
Clause 21 states:
“A body corporate called the Office for Environmental Protection is established.”
So before anybody worries too much about where we have got to, that is all we have done so far. We have just established the Office for Environmental Protection. As with all good Bills, however, the meaning is often contained at the end, in the schedules. That is the next bit we are dealing with this afternoon—the schedule that sets up what the Office for Environmental Protection is about. I assume that we will get stuck into the substance of the Office for Environmental Protection’s objectives, independence and general function in our next sitting, but this afternoon we are concentrating on some details about the OEP’s membership, non-executive directors, interim chief executive and so on. Some people may say that those are not particularly central or important to the OEP, but they nevertheless have quite considerable repercussions in terms of its independence or otherwise.
Amendment 179 looks at the first appointment of the chair and non-executive members, and at how they are appointed and with what agreement. I am sure hon. Members will agree that, in addition to what the Office for Environmental Protection does, a key part of its independence lies in who its chair is, who the non-executive directors are, how they act in their role and the extent to which they ensure and guarantee that the office carries out an independent function in terms of that protection role. Paragraph 1(1) of schedule 1 defines what the OEP consists of: a chair, at least two but not more than five other non-executive members, a chief executive, and
“at least one, but not more than three, executive members.”
Paragraph 1(2) states:
“The members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State”.
Under paragraph 2, the non-executive members are also to be appointed by the Secretary of State, but
“The Secretary of State must consult the Chair before appointing any other non-executive member.”
The key is that a lot of the appointments effectively flow from the appointment of the chair. The Secretary of State must consult the chair on how other members are appointed having appointed the chair in the first place. The question then is whether it is right that the chair of the OEP is appointed simply because the Secretary of State decides that he or she should be appointed and has an untrammelled ability to do that. We think that that could create a cascading lack of independence in the whole OEP, depending on how the process is carried out. If it is carried out without any scrutiny or accountability, it is quite possible that the Secretary of State could appoint someone whom he/she particularly favours or thinks will give him or her an easy time with the appointment of other members of the office, and shape the office to be entirely subservient to what the Secretary of State wants to do.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is making an important point. A theme runs through the debates today: an extraordinary concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of State. In the discussion on the Aarhus convention, we saw the move away from supranational bodies. It is a basic principle that if power is spread, there is far more chance of it being exercised properly, particularly with something as important as environmental protection. Does he agree that this is just the latest example of a theme that has developed all the way through?
Dr Whitehead
That is indeed a concern. We have raised, and will repeatedly raise, the difference between the Bill’s aspirations and many of the practicalities. The difference between the Bill’s lofty aspirations and its often severely lacking practicalities is apparent throughout its construction. This is one instance where that is the case. The chair of the OEP is, in the first instance, to be a non-executive member of the office. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister shares my understanding, but it looks to be the case that the chair will be appointed from among the non-executive members whom the Secretary of State has appointed in the first place. The key at that point is who the non-executive members are and how they are appointed. In this instance, they appointed just by the Secretary of State. We suggest a procedure that grounds those appointments within parliamentary procedures.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Does the hon. Member recognise that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee have the opportunity in the appointment process to scrutinise the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate?
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member has put his finger exactly on the problem, because according to this piece of legislation, in practice, they do not. There is no requirement to do that in the Bill. The amendment is designed to do exactly what he suggests should be done, which is that the appointment should take place with the scrutiny and consent of the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Rebecca Pow
I will keep my comments to what the amendment refers to, which is the involvement of the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Parliament should have a role in the process of making significant public appointments. To scrutinise key appointments made by Ministers is a proper role for Parliament. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee—I am proud to have been a member of both, and many hon. Members here are members of those Committees—will jointly carry out a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the OEP chair.
As the shadow Minister knows, there has already been a lot of discussion about this. This is a commitment. The Secretary of State will duly consider any recommendation made by the Committees.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Minister says that the preferred candidate can be scrutinised. Is that not a bit of a Hobson’s choice?
Rebecca Pow
This is an open and fair process, and other appointments are duly scrutinised in that way. The considerations and views of both Committees will be taken extremely seriously because the work they do is very pertinent to the work in this sphere of Government. The OEP chair is then consulted by the Secretary of State on the appointments of the non-executive members. We do not believe it necessary or desirable for Parliament to scrutinise all those individual appointments in the way that has been suggested.
Ministers are accountable and responsible to Parliament for public appointments, and they should therefore retain the ability to make the final determinations. Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to Parliament and the public for the overall performance of the public body and of public money. The OEP will be added to the schedule of the Public Appointments Order in Council and so will be independently regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Secretary of State will be required to act in accordance with the governance code, including with the principles of public appointments, which would ensure that members are appointed through a fair and open process.
The chair of the OEP will be classed as a significant appointment, requiring a senior independent panel member, approved by the commissioner, to sit on the advisory assessment panel, which can report back to the commissioner on any breaches of process. We have also introduced, in paragraph 17, a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to the need to protect the OEP’s independence in exercising functions in respect of the OEP, including on public appointments.
Those arrangements, and the requirements in the Bill, provide the appropriate balance between parliamentary oversight and ministerial accountability, while ensuring that appointments to the OEP are made fairly and on merit. I therefore request that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test withdraw his amendment.
The Chair
Order. The Minister sat down before you asked, Mr Graham, but I dare say you may intervene on the shadow Minister. I call Dr Alan Whitehead.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister has yet again provided us with a description of things that happen, as opposed to what ought to happen as far as this House is concerned. On the second category of events, she appears to be saying that Select Committees may well take it upon themselves to interview and discuss candidates for posts—with the agreement of that candidate—and report back their thoughts, and that Ministers may then decide that they like or do not like what the Select Committee has said, but are pleased, in any event, that the Select Committee did that piece of work.
I do not think the Minister can show me anything in the Bill that requires that process to be cemented, so that the Secretary of State could not go ahead with an appointment without Select Committees having done that work. Let us say, for example, that the Select Committees decided that they did not want to do the work or were too busy with other matters, and the Secretary of State appointed the chair and the non-executive members of the board, there would be nothing that anyone could do about it, because nothing in the legislation says that that scrutiny has to happen. The Minister should be able to confirm that there is nothing in the legislation for that.
Richard Graham
I think I understand the position of the Opposition, which is to undermine slightly the independence of the new Office for Environmental Protection before it has even got under way by suggesting that the appointments process for the chair will somehow be rigged, with some crony of the Minister or the Secretary of State comfortably slotted into position. Shock, horror! That never happened under the Government of which he was a member.
In fact, what has taken place is rather remarkable. It is much closer to an American appointments hearing than almost anything that has ever happened in relation to senior appointments to new independent offices. The idea that two—not just one but two—Select Committees would be so disinterested in their unusual and new power to scrutinise and hold to account someone who is being put forward as the first chairman of a new independent body and would completely overlook their responsibilities is surely bizarre. The hon. Member is a reasonable man. Can he not agree that this is a very good process?
Dr Whitehead
A very good one, if I may say, but nevertheless a speech. You are right, Mr Gray.
The point the hon. Gentleman was making is that a process of scrutiny will, in this instance, be undertaken by the Select Committees in question. However, we need to look at the circumstances whereby that scrutiny comes about. The Committee and, indeed, members of the Select Committee, may say “Actually, this particular piece of formulation in the schedule relates to the appointment of the initial chair of the Office for Environmental Protection” but I think it probably applies to the appointment of chairs as they go forward.
Rebecca Pow
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Select Committees pressed for that scrutiny and they have welcomed the fact that they will be able to scrutinise the potential chair. They did some prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill; that was one of their recommendations and we accepted it. It has gone down extremely well. I want to back up the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester in terms of what is being put in place. I am sure the shadow Minister, when he fully understands the process, will agree with me that the purpose is that non-exec members in particular are appointed on a fair and open basis, regulated through our public appointments process.
Dr Whitehead
I am not suggesting that anything is other than that, and I am not suggesting that the Select Committees are anything other than pleased with what they have undertaken to do and the welcome their work has received from the Government. However, the Minister, in a sense, answered her own question by stating that the Select Committees pushed for that. That is what Select Committees do, and they have the power to summon all sorts of people. In this instance, as far as I understand—I may not have fully understood the process—the Select Committees in their power as Select Committees in general pushed for the hearing and Ministers thought that was a good idea and they went ahead with it. To that extent, yes, things have gone well, but it is still not in the Bill that that should ever happen. It is entirely down to the Select Committees. We should not do it that way round.
Rebecca Pow
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me that the very fact that that has happened demonstrates that Select Committees are taken seriously? As such, the measure in the Bill is sensible, serious and fair.
Dr Whitehead
As it happens, yes. However, again, we are in “as it happens” territory, which we seem to be in rather a lot this afternoon. As it happens, yes, that appears to be working quite well. I do not know, should there be a future reconstitution of the Office for Environmental Protection or future appointments of non-exec members and the chair, whether that procedure would necessarily be replicated. It might be; it might not. We are lucky we have Select Committees that are as strong as they are.
Cherilyn Mackrory
As a new Member, I am just understanding the mechanisms here. From what I am hearing, the process that has just taken place to ensure that we are where we are is due to good parliamentary mechanisms. It seems that the hon. Member is asking Ministers to put more parliamentary mechanisms in the Bill when those checks and balances are already in place and work very well.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member is quite right to draw attention to good parliamentary mechanisms. I do not want us to be diverted into a long discussion about the Executive and the unwritten UK constitution, but Parliament is not putting a provision on the Executive by passing this Bill—that does not exist. Instead, Parliament has used parliamentary procedures outside of that to have an effect on the Executive, and the Executive have agreed for that effect to be placed upon them. That is a good thing—I do not in any way want to undermine that. As the hon. Member says, that has worked well.
Cherilyn Mackrory
The hon. Gentleman is illustrating the point perfectly. Secretaries of State come and go at the mercy of the electorate, whereas the parliamentary checks and balances are always here. That is what should govern the procedure.
Dr Whitehead
Yes, indeed—Secretaries of State come and go, just as Presidents of the USA come and go. Nevertheless, while they are there, Presidents can appoint justices of the Supreme Court who are always there. Although the member of the Executive has gone, the effect of their actions remains—in this example, with the judiciary branch in the US. In principle, that is what could happen as far as this construction is concerned in the Bill. A Secretary of State who comes and goes could appoint, without involving the parliamentary process, somebody who will outlast the Secretary of State in that position.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am a member of the Treasury Committee. We do a lot of selection hearings and most of them are agreed through parliamentary processes. We find we end up doing an awful lot of selection hearings, and we have spent a huge amount of time doing them, on the board of the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Policy Committee and so on. We end up having discussions about whether we want to do all these hearings. Do we do them in this way or that way? Do we do reappointment hearings? We retain flexibility around that, because it is done through the parliamentary procedure.
It seems to me that the danger of setting down in legislation that all non-executive members should be appointed on the consent of the two Committees is that we bind their hands into the future. They may decide that they want to do it in some other way. We retain more flexibility for the Committees if they do it through parliamentary means.
Dr Whitehead
Well, yes is the answer. We are trying to bind those Committees to some extent to do the right thing, as far as those appointments are concerned. The hon. Gentleman who has experience on the Treasury Committee and other hon. Members who have experience on Committees will know that Committees take their responsibilities seriously. I have been party to that sort of discussion in Select Committees that I have served on in the past. They take their responsibilities very seriously. They take the issue seriously. They do it very carefully and make sure that the result of their deliberations is as good as it can be. That is something that I am absolutely fine with; I do not wish to fetter that in any way.
However, the hon. Gentleman and other Members also know that that has not always been the case with Select Committees. Indeed, in my time in Parliament, is has largely not been the case. The process of deciding upon the appointment of members of various organisations via a Select Committee hearing is a relatively recent innovation. That came about not as a result of legislation but as a result of Select Committees pushing their own authority within the parliamentary system.
In one sense, that is perfectly acceptable, but I am seeking to draw a distinction between that process, which has by and large resulted in a good outcome as far as these appointments are concerned, and the fact that it says in a piece of legislation, “That is what is supposed to be done.” There are other pieces of legislation in existence that specify what is supposed to be done, but this piece of legislation does not. I wonder to myself why those pieces of legislation specify those things whereas this piece of legislation does not.
It would not be difficult—on the contrary, it would be very straightforward—to specify in this piece of legislation what is to be done, while agreeing that that is largely what happens in practice in this Parliament. That is a good thing, and it is a sign of our changing unwritten constitution—I emphasise the word “unwritten”. That is why, in a piece of legislation, it is probably necessary to write down what our intentions are and how they are to be carried out in practice by the House in its interpretation of the unwritten constitution of this country.
Daniel Zeichner
I had the privilege of serving on the Transport Committee for a couple of years. Like the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire—my near neighbour—I went to a number of hearings and found them very useful. It strikes me that there is a range of levels of significance. This appointment is hugely significant. It takes back from a supranational body, the European Union, responsibility for one of the most important oversights. We all agree that it would be good to go through this process, so I do not understand why the Government do not want to codify in law what will in fact happen. I do not quite see what they are frightened of. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Dr Whitehead
Yes, indeed, Mr Gray. I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be a good idea for the Government to put this in the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that, in practice, the creaking oak of the British constitution does things in sometimes surprising ways in order to develop itself. It is always useful to have something on the face of a piece of legislation to fix how the unwritten constitution works in respect of a particular function of Government. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain from putting this in the legislation.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 15, in schedule 1, page 122, line 5, leave out “may” and insert “must”.”
The amendment asks for “may” to be left out and “must” to be inserted. As I recall, we have had previous discussions about that in this Committee, so I do not think I need to add anything further.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 154, in schedule 1, page 122, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
This amendment prevents the Government from giving directions to the interim chief executive of the OEP.
The amendment concerns the directions that the Secretary of State may give an interim chief executive of the Office for Environmental Protection. As hon. Members will see, paragraph 4(3) of schedule 1 refers to an interim chief executive
“exercising the power in sub-paragraph (2)”,
which states:
“Where the OEP has fewer members than are needed to hold a meeting that is quorate…an interim chief executive may incur expenditure and do other things in the name and on behalf of the OEP.”
The key point is that the interim chief executive may do “other things” in the name of and on behalf of the OEP, even though the OEP does not have sufficient members to be quorate and take a decision.
What appears to be envisaged is that in those circumstances,
“an interim chief executive must act in accordance with any directions given by the Secretary of State.”
Quite simply, if an interim chief executive is in post without those other members of the OEP being appointed—depending on the speed with which that is done, it could be quite a while—the independence of the OEP will not be compromised just a little bit; it will be compromised completely, in that the interim chief executive is completely the creature of the Secretary of State.
The Chair
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to the wrong amendment, because this amendment requires that sub-paragraph (3) be deleted from paragraph 4. You are referring to sub-paragraph (2), I think.
Dr Whitehead
Mr Gray, if I gave that impression then I am sorry, but I thought I was speaking to sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 4, which is that the chief executive
“must act in accordance with any directions given by the Secretary of State.”
As far as I can tell, amendment 154 leaves out sub-paragraph (3), which is the sub-paragraph to which I was referring.
That is, in essence, the case that we want to make this afternoon. As hon. Members have already asked, why is this particular provision in place? What is the problem here? If this is an interim chief executive of a body that is going to be independent, why the lack of independence when the OEP is still forming itself? Is it because the Secretary of State thinks that the interim chief executive might go rogue and do all sorts of odd things in the absence of other non-executive directors to hold them in place? In that case, the appointment process for the interim chief executive must be pretty lacking. Is it that the Secretary of State might be tempted to mould the OEP and its operations before it is fully functional as an independent office and can therefore, as it were, hit back?
I would not like to think that either of those are correct interpretations of this sub-paragraph, but as it is written, that is what it appears to say: that the interim chief executive does as the Secretary of State says. That seems to fly in the face of everything I have understood about the OEP and how it is supposed to work, how it is supposed to be set up and how it is supposed to start operating. As the amendment states, we would therefore like to see the sub-paragraph excised from this Bill, so that the interim chief executive has the beginnings of the independence in his or her actions in the OEP that we would expect the OEP to have when it is fully formed.
Anthony Browne
I have set up lots of organisations and it is completely standard to go through a process where there is a shadow or interim chief executive and an interim board. There is a critical difference between that position and a substantive chief executive, which is that they are setting up the way the whole system works—the operations, the modus operandi—and making significant decisions that will last for many years or decades. They are doing it in a position where there is not full governance around it, such as a fully established board, an established chair and everything else. It is right that there is some oversight of what an interim chief executive is doing in setting up the organisation, because the rest of the governance infrastructure will not be there yet.
Daniel Zeichner
There has not been any comment yet on the extraordinary situation we find ourselves in. We are just 55 days away from the end of the year and the new situation that we are about to embark upon, and there is nothing in place. That is part of the problem. It is a shambles, quite frankly, that we are leaving the European Union and entering a period where it is unclear how our environmental protections will work. I suggest much more will be said about that as we go through our debates.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire have said, this is a key moment in setting the path ahead for this new organisation. This provision feeds into this general sense that, far from having a much more sophisticated and wider way of approaching these issues, it all comes down to centralising power in the hands of the Secretary of State to determine the way forward. That cannot be right and I think there is genuine outrage among many who are looking at how this process is unfolding.
We have gone from helping to establish strong environmental principles as a leading player in the European Union to the extraordinary position we find ourselves in. We have no idea how long this is going to take. Is it going to be in place? Perhaps the Minister could tell us. Perhaps things are in train and we are waiting for announcements. Perhaps it will happen next week or in January, or perhaps it will not happen for months and months. In the meantime, many of our own protections are in limbo, effectively.
The schedule gives us no confidence that the Government even have a plan for where we are going with this. I hope the Minister can give us some reassurances, because many of my constituents—and, I suspect, many constituents of other Members—are really worried about these issues. At a time of climate crisis and biodiversity emergency, how can we possibly be setting an example to the rest of the world as we approach COP26 when we are in this shambolic position, with the suggestion that this so-called independent agency should effectively be run by the Secretary of State?
Rebecca Pow
There have been some fiery comments about this particular amendment, Chair.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for our inclusion in the Bill of a mechanism to appoint an interim chief executive of the OEP. I want to give some reassurances that establishing this independent body that can hold future Governments to account is of crucial importance. That remains very much in focus when considering this power for the Secretary of State to appoint an interim chief executive.
The initial role of the interim chief executive would be to take urgent administrative decisions to ensure that the OEP is up and running as soon as possible, which I know is a key concern of Members. I want to say a little about that role and why it is necessary. Such decisions would include staff recruitment and other matters related to setting up the new body. I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, who has a lot of experience in setting up these bodies. It is a fully practical step to help with the interim period. By way of background information for the hon. Member for Cambridge—he raised some pertinent points—we intend that the permanent chief executive will be in place no later than autumn 2021, and the proposed timeline then allows for the OEP chair to lead the appointment of that chief executive.
By way of more background, the Secretary of State has asked officials to assemble a team of staff within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs group, to be funded from the Department’s budget, to receive and validate any complaints against the criteria for complaining to the OEP; so there will be a team in place in the interim. A lot of work has gone on behind the scenes but we had a lull because of the coronavirus, so it is nobody’s fault that this has happened. Obviously, other structures and plans are being put in place, but that is why details of an interim chief executive have had to be considered. That power will be required for the interim chief executive only in the event that a quorate board is not in place in time to make the decisions. If the board is quorate in time, it will be able to make its own arrangements. During any period when they are making administrative decisions on behalf of the OEP before the board is quorate, the interim chief executive must be capable of being held to account. That is essential good governance and oversight of public funds. That is why we are giving the Secretary of State, as the accountable Minister, the power to direct the interim chief executive during that period.
The shadow Minister was, if I may say so, making some slightly malign intimations about what he potentially thought the Secretary of State had in mind in controlling the interim chief executive. I would like to set all those thoughts and views aside—that is not the purpose; it is a practical arrangement. I would like to give more reassurance on two point. First, the Bill provides for the interim chief executive to report to the OEP’s board, not the Secretary of State, as soon as the board is quorate. Secondly, the Government will not commence the OEP’s statutory functions before the OEP is quorate. Therefore, the interim chief executive will only be able to make decisions relating to the OEP’s statutory functions when they report to a quorate board, not to the Secretary of State. Therefore, the Secretary of State will not have any power of direction over the OEP’s statutory functions. It is important to make that clear. Amendment 154 is, consequently, unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Dr Whitehead
I wonder whether the Minister has considered at what point the interim chief executive of the OEP must be in place, bearing in mind that the actual chief executive is not to be appointed until next August. The OEP, which is essential, should be operational from 1 January—indeed, we have had assurances on that—because of the differences in environmental protection that may result from our leaving the EU, and so not having areas of EU law available for environmental protection purposes, which are supposed to be replaced by, among other things, the independence of the OEP, to ensure that those areas of law are fully upheld.
The Minister appears to be telling us that there will be something like an OEP in existence from 1 January, and that it will have something like an interim chief executive to run it—indeed, I understand that a lot of work on that has already been done—but that during that entire period the OEP will not be independent, because effectively it will be run by the Secretary of State. That may be a function of the fact that the process is dragging on in a way that we did not anticipate, and that the Minister probably did not anticipate, overlapping the period when lots of work should have been under way to get this system going, to ensure a seamless change on 1 January. Instead we will have a raggedy process that is a very, very long way from any of the aspirations that were expressed for the OEP—the way it will operate, what it will do in terms of environmental protection, and its independence of the Secretary of State.
I accept that when a new organisation is set up—as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, and he has experience of these matters—there can be issues. If someone is setting up, say, a new subsidiary company, the board of the company that is setting up the new company will appoint a chief executive of that subsidiary company, and while that chief executive is getting in place it is quite reasonable for the board of the superior or parent company to expect that person to be responsible to the superior or parent company as the new company is being set up. Only if, for example, at a later date Chinese walls are inserted between the operation of the subsidiary and that of the superior or parent company does that reporting go adrift; but that is only when things are properly set up.
We are not in that situation here. We said from the word go that we would set up an independent body that would be responsible for all the environmental legislation that has come over to us from the EU, which is now bedding down in UK law, and that that responsibility needed to be exercised from day one of that transfer.
Rebecca Pow
Does the shadow Minister not agree that an unprecedented and unexpected incident has occurred? We have had the coronavirus pandemic. In the light of that, does he not agree that arrangements are well under way for setting up the OEP, and that the Government fully intend—I have given more details today—to introduce the OEP by 2021? Because of the pause in consideration of the Bill and because of the coronavirus, we cannot confirm the exact date, but we will implement—indeed, are implementing—bona fide transitional arrangements, with a secretariat that will support the OEP chair. The chair is currently being sought, through a public appointments campaign. The whole system is in process. We will have an interim chief executive and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire understands exactly the role of that person. There is nothing malignant about it, and the Secretary of State will certainly not control him. Does the hon. Member agree that I made that quite clear in my speech just now?
Dr Whitehead
Well, I hope the Secretary of State will not be controlling him. [Interruption.] Or her. I hope the Secretary of State will scrupulously keep his or her hands out of controlling that person. I am pleased to hear assurances from the Minister that that may well be the case—in terms of the Minister’s bona fides, I would expect nothing less. That is what the Minister should be saying, because that has always been her commitment on the OEP in the past; but that does not in any way excuse the fact that it says something opposite on the face of the Bill. That is the issue that, as legislators, we need to look at.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 155, in schedule 1, page 122, line 15, after sub-paragraph (4) insert
“;but an appointment may be made in reliance on this sub-paragraph only with the approval of the Chair.”.
This amendment requires the Chair’s approval for civil servants or other external persons as interim chief executive of the OEP.
Although it is late afternoon and I do not want to go on the record as being excessively shirty for a long period, I am afraid that discussion of the amendment is part of that shirtiness process. Paragraph 4(4) of schedule 1, which was written as part of the Bill and was not part of the suite of amendments we saw when the Bill reconvened from the Government side, suggests that rules that the chief executive may not be an employee or a civil servant do not apply to the appointment and operation of an interim chief executive.
The constraints on the appointment of an interim chief executive are not there. They could be an employee of the Department, a civil servant, or someone placed by the Secretary of State in that position, when the requirement to underpin the independence of the OEP means that should not be the case for the chief executive proper. That underlines the theme of determined non-independence of the OEP in its early stages, and the Secretary of State’s ability to mould and shape how the OEP works, before it is properly formed.
Amendment 155
“requires the Chair’s approval for civil servants or other external persons as interim chief executive of the OEP.”
Having been appointed, the real chair—not the interim chair—would have the authority to act as a guardian of the independence of the OEP. We have already been through the process of appointing the chair, so at the point at which the interim chief executive might be appointed from within the civil service or the Department, or that might be proposed, the chair of the OEP would not necessarily say that was bad or impossible, but would at least have the authority to decide whether the Secretary of State was doing the right thing. That seems to me to be the least of the requirements that should be placed on this sub-paragraph.
We have discussed the independence of the OEP as it is set up. Having got to the position of having a reasonably independent chair in place, to then not involve the chair in the appointment of the interim chief executive seems perverse. The amendment does nothing except try to ensure that the OEP is visibly independent; Members from all parties can agree to that.
Anthony Browne
I used to be the chair of the Regulatory Policy Committee, a non-departmental public body linked to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; I appointed its entire new board. In a previous life, as I have mentioned, I was involved in setting up various other bodies, such as TheCityUK and the HomeOwners Alliance, and I have been involved tangentially in setting up independent bodies as part of the civil service.
I completely salute the support expressed by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test and the Opposition for the independence of the OEP. They are doggedly making sure that it is fully independent, and I totally support that; it will function properly only if it is fully independent. However, on the issue of the interim chief executive, I think—to follow the dogged analogy—that they are slightly barking up the wrong tree.
The whole point about the interim chief executive of any organisation is that they are setting it up. They are designing the org chart, saying “Right: this committee will do this, we need to hire these personnel to do that, these are the finances, this is the first draft budget,” and everything else—they are not actually fulfilling the substantive end function of the public body. The Opposition are worried about the timing, and I am worried about the timing too.
What normally, or very often, happens is that an organisation does not go through a recruitment process for an external interim chief executive. The chief executive is normally banned from being a civil servant, which is absolutely right, but we are talking about getting somebody to set the body up and get it going before the recruitment process for the end chief executive, the appointment of the entire board and everything else, which will take a long, long time—I think it took me about eight months to recruit a new board for the Regulatory Policy Committee.
The thing to do is get a civil servant who has experience of setting up bodies. Because of employment rules in the civil service, they can basically just be reassigned and put in place immediately. They can start setting up the organisation and doing all the stuff that needs doing, and in the meantime we can recruit the full, substantive, independent chief executive, which takes longer. When the independent chief executive is recruited, they will then have an organisation that they can work with and can retune and rejig if they want. That is a far better and more efficient way of setting up an organisation than taking the completely purist approach that the first chief executive has to be a fully independent person who is not a civil servant and will not take directions from the civil service.
Anthony Browne
I have finished, but the hon. Gentleman is welcome to succeed me.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can unfinish briefly.
This is not just about setting up another body; it is an extraordinarily delicate issue. The complaint out there is concern about independence. Because of the substantial shift away from a supranational body, surely it is much more important to make sure that everybody sees that that the new body is independent from the outset. This is exactly the wrong way of going about giving people that confidence.
Anthony Browne
I will just make one observation, speaking as somebody who has hired various chief executives for other organisations. On the boards that I have been on, the recruitment processes for external chief executives has taken at least three months just to identify the candidate. The sort of people we are looking for are often on notice periods of three or six months, so we are really talking about a minimum of six months, maybe nine months—quite probably a year—to hire the substantive chief executive.
Do we want to sit around doing nothing, with no organisation and no one doing anything for a year or nine months, while we hire the substantive chief executive? I agree with the principle, but what is more important is getting the machinery up and running, the cog wheels going and the pieces in place, and doing the recruitment of the substantive chief executive in the meantime. When we finally appoint them, which might well be six or nine months later, they will then have a skeletal organisation to run.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for his interest in the interim chief executive’s role and the Secretary of State’s power to appoint them. I reiterate what I mentioned in our debate on amendment 154: that the role of the interim chief executive is to take the urgent administrative decisions required to ensure that the OEP is up and running on time. That power will be required only in the event that a quorate board is not in place soon enough to make those decisions; that is the crucial point. If the Secretary of State is required to consult the chair on the appointment, the power may not be worth exercising, because we expect the board to become quorate soon after the chair starts in post.
Amendment 155 actually has the potential to delay the appointment of the interim chief executive, which I think is what my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire was alluding to. That would actually defeat the point of appointing one. He or she might be there for just a couple of days.
Richard Graham
The only disappointing aspect of this debate has been a relatively determined approach by some Opposition hon. Members in trying to demonstrate that the independence of this new Office for Environmental Protection will be somehow compromised from the start. Does my hon. Friend agree that, actually, what is being put in place is a pragmatic approach to try to get something up and running as fast as possible, given the extraordinary circumstances of this year, and that to do anything else would only delay things and be counterproductive? We all want the same end; this is the best way to do it.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I could not have put it better myself. I feel that I am under a certain amount of attack here. This is all being put into place so that we can get things up and running. As everyone knows, we are in an extraordinary time. I know the shadow Minister said that the provision was in there anyway as a failsafe, in case we needed this interim set-up. It could well have never been needed to be used, but it is there in case we need it.
We want the OEP to get off to a good start. When the chair is appointed—as I said, that process is well under way—we want them to be the person to appoint what I would call the first real chief executive. That is the right process. I think we would all agree with that. The requirement in the amendment would be disproportionate to how long the interim post might be there, because we expect this chief executive to be fully in place during 2021.
I must clarify another separate point. Although it would be a short-term role, the interim chief would be able to make decisions on behalf of the OEP, but they would be just set-up decisions. That is also why—I allude again to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire—we need to get the right person in place, because they have a lot of work to do to put the tools in place. Allowing for the successful candidate not to be an employee of the OEP, such as a civil servant on secondment, helps to widen the field of candidates. We need to ensure that the person has the right skills to swing into action very quickly and get this whole system set up.
I remind the shadow Minister that the Secretary of State is subject to parliamentary scrutiny—there is a long process by which that will happen—concerning all the decisions taken in respect of the OEP. I have a page I could read about how the OEP will be independent, but I am sure we will get into that in discussing other clauses. The Secretary of State would be legally required to have regard for the need to protect the OEP’s independence in making this appointment, as required by paragraph 17 of schedule 1 to the Bill. The amendment is unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw it.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister spoke of the importance of getting things done now. After all the problems we have had, I cannot for the life of me see how that is in any way impacted by the idea that the chair of the OEP, who will shortly be in place, should have a say in deciding—guidance has properly been put in for the independence of the OEP—whether long-term recruits should not be from the civil service or any other external persons. Why should the chair not have that say in an appointment?
I assume that the chair of the OEP would be equally concerned to ensure that things are up and running as quickly as possible, that a proper and good appointment is made of an interim chief executive, and that, if a good case is put forward, that appointment might be of someone in the civil service or another person in the Department.
The amendment does not stop any of those things from happening; it merely says, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned, that if it is the intention that the OEP will be truly independent it is the look of the thing from the beginning that will convince people of that.
I do not think that we can duck the issue. There are a lot of people out there who are profoundly suspicious and concerned that the OEP will not have its independence and will not be able to act as an environmental watchdog in the way that is claimed. Indeed, they will have suspicions, many of which we do not share, that a lot of what is being done is to undermine that independence, and—I would not go so far as to say to strangle the OEP at birth—to clutch the OEP much more closely to the bosom of Government than might have otherwise been the intention.
I hear what the Minister says about the fact that it was extremely fortunate that the provisions in the Bill were there anyway, which sort of came to the rescue when we were in the position of having to do these things very much at the last minute, rather than in a more considered way over a longer period. The fact that they have always been here, and always allowed that to happen, increases some of the suspicions out there. It is our duty, and would at least be good sense, for us to dispel those suspicions as early as we can in the life of the OEP.
Accepting the amendment would not, therefore, be a big deal. I do not intend to divide the Committee yet again, because we have made our point by dividing the Committee on other amendments, but this one is entirely on the same theme. I enjoin the Minister to think again about whether she wants to introduce something at a later date in proceedings that at least waves a flag in the direction of proper independence for the OEP as it gets under way, in addition to when it is fully under way. That would be very helpful for all of us who are concerned, in terms of what we will try to do to ensure that the OEP does its job properly.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Paragraph 17 of schedule 1 explicitly says:
“In exercising functions in respect of the OEP, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect its independence.”
I notice that the Opposition have not tabled an amendment to that, because they are obviously happy with it.
Dr Whitehead
That is right, but that is the OEP as it is up and running; this is about the OEP as it is formed. Our point on a number of things this afternoon has been that if we undermine the independence of the OEP as it is being formed it is rather difficult to carry out paragraph 17 later on, when the OEP is fully functioning. I thank the hon. Member for drawing attention to that point, but it is not entirely what we are discussing this afternoon—although I fully agree that the Secretary of State should, of course, have regard to the independence of the OEP when it is up and running and functioning. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move amendment 188, in schedule 1, page 124, line 26, at end insert—
“10A Where the function is being exercised in relation to Scotland or in Scotland the OEP must—
(a) delegate the function to an environmental governance body designated by the Scottish Ministers, and
(b) provide the resources for that function to be exercised.”
This amendment aims to introduce the geographical imperative to ensure clear lines of reporting and response in Scotland and to clarify that the body acting in Scotland will be acting with consent of Scottish Ministers, thus respecting the devolution settlement.
Clearly, the Bill before us is applicable largely to this place because, as I have already referenced, environmental policy is, in the main, devolved. There are, however, still areas here and there within the Bill that require a little tidying to ensure that there is no danger of devolved regulatory powers being affected or even overridden inadvertently.
The amendment ensures that on the rare occasions when the OEP acts in Scotland, it will do so only with the consent of Scottish Ministers. In fact, amendments 190 and 191 also seek to respect the devolved Administration in Scotland.
Amendment 188 is about respecting the devolved Administration in Scotland, ensuring that the regulatory functions remain with the Scottish regulator, as is currently the case. It is about the Scottish Parliament and Government forging a different kind of future that will keep driving forward improvements in environmental policy. It means, too, that the Scottish regulator—currently the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—would maintain a holistic view of environmental policy in Scotland. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. The amendment gives me a good opportunity to demonstrate that the Government’s new environmental governance framework respects the devolved settlements. She will be aware that the environment is largely a devolved matter and, as such, it is for each Administration to develop and deliver their own environmental governance proposal in relation to the devolved functions.
The Bill therefore makes a clear distinction between devolved and non-devolved functions, and we have ensured that the OEP can cover England and any matters across the wider UK that have not been devolved. That is necessary, as non-devolved matters cannot be addressed by the devolved Administration’s own governance arrangements once these ones are in place.
We expect that all the remaining devolved matters that fall outside the remit of the OEP will be addressed by the devolved Administration’s governance proposals in due course. Indeed, we welcome the steps that Scotland has taken to establish its own environmental body. The Bill is drafted in such a way as to ensure that the OEP can exercise its functions only on matters that are not devolved in respect of Scotland, so it would be inappropriate to delegate such functions to Environmental Standards Scotland, the intended equivalent Scottish body, to deliver those functions.
We do, none the less—and I did want to be at pains to say this—expect that the OEP will work harmoniously and productively with equivalent bodies in the devolved Administrations. That is obviously really important, since we cannot control the air, water or lots of things like that: in many cases, we will be working in tandem. That is why in clause 40(2)(f) we have made provision for the OEP to share information with its devolved equivalents and why in clause 24(4) we have placed a duty on it to consult them on any relevant matters.
Beyond the provisions already in the Bill, the OEP and its equivalent bodies will also have discretion to jointly decide how best to co-ordinate these activities. The OEP has been carefully designed to respect the devolution settlements by limiting its scope to environmental law, the definition of which specifically excludes matters falling within the devolved competence in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
The Government consider it inappropriate and contrary to the delineation of legislative responsibilities under the devolution settlements to delegate the OEP’s functions in this context. I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue, because I want to be at pains to be clear about how we are working with the devolved Administrations, but I believe the amendment is unnecessary. I ask her to kindly withdraw it.
Deidre Brock
I have great respect for the Minister and for her sincerity—I genuinely do. I think she absolutely means what she says and she absolutely thinks that the way things are at the moment under her ministerial leadership will remain the same forever.
I am afraid that, ultimately, her suggestions do not cut the mustard with me, because environmental policy is devolved to Scotland. The amendment simply requires that, rather than Scottish Ministers just being consulted, they are actually required to give some sort of consent. As the amendment says in sub-paragraph (a), whatever the environmental issue is, the function should be put to a
“body designated by the Scottish Ministers”.
Without that agreement from the Government, I am afraid that I will have to ask that the amendment be put to a vote. Things are either devolved or they are not. I do not think that whether the Government at the time feel that they have a greater locus in an area than the devolved Government in place at the time should be part of the consideration. It is important that the responsibility for environmental policy that rests with devolved Governments is fully respected and that the agreement of the Scottish Government is sought in all instances to do with environmental policy.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Environment Bill (Tenth sitting)
Thursday 5th November 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 November 2020 - (5 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members about social distancing. Spaces available to Members are clearly marked. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if you could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk. I also remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent, please. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We will continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room, and shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same, or a similar, issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection list shows the order of debate. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
We now continue our consideration of schedule 1. I call Dr Alan Whitehead to move amendment 157.
Schedule 1
The Office for Environmental Protection
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 157, in schedule 1, page 124, line 40, at end insert—
“12A (1) At the start of each five-year period, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an indicative five-year budget for the OEP.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1) ‘five-year period’ means—
(a) the period of five financial years beginning with the financial year that begins after the commencement of this Schedule, and
(b) each subsequent period of five financial years.
12B If the OEP requests additional funding, due to a change in the nature or extent of its functions, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a statement responding to the request.”
This amendment requires the OEP to be given a five-year indicative budget, and allows it to request in-budget increases.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. Before we start, I note the Minister’s absence this morning. I understand that she is unwell. I hope to convey the wishes of us all, and particularly of the Opposition, for her speedy recovery and return to her full powers, which are considerable, in the business of guiding the Committee. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I appreciate that her absence has meant that we have had to slightly rearrange how we proceed today. The Opposition fully support those changes, and hope that we can get through today in a useful and amicable way and be out in good time this afternoon. That is certainly our intention.
We tabled amendment 157 on the basis of the need to underpin the independence of the Office for Environmental Protection as far as its financing is concerned. The Bill effectively states that the Minister can provide funds for the OEP from time to time, as he or she directs. I do not have the exact wording in front of me, but that is essentially what it states. That is not good enough; independent bodies associated with Departments need a clear line of sight of the money that they will receive for their activities.
In the case of another departmentally associated independent body, the Environment Agency, the combination of the Government hugging it closer, in terms of the agency’s activities, and substantially reducing its funding has created a real problem with its activities. We therefore suggest that the procedure for funding the OEP should be that, at the start of each five-year period, the Secretary of State publishes and lays before Parliament an indicative five-year budget, which we anticipate would be maintained for the life of the Parliament. We suggest that that be done not just for the first five-year period, but for each subsequent five-year period, so that at the beginning of each period the OEP has a clear remit in front of it, knows what its budget is and what it can and cannot do, and cuts its cloth accordingly, with a clear line of sight as far as financing is concerned.
That would mean, among other things, that in each Parliament the OEP has guaranteed independence for its activities. I reflect, in parallel, on the experience of Select Committees, which we were talking about in Tuesday’s proceedings. Following changes made a little while ago, Select Committee members are selected at the beginning of each Parliament, and their membership continues independently of the wishes or interference of bodies such as the Government Whips Office—heaven forfend that it would ever do such a thing—or of suggestions that people ought or ought not be on Select Committees because of their views about supporting the Government. Select Committees are proof that that works. Not only are their memberships selected and agreed at the beginning of each parliamentary Session, but their budgets come from a parliamentary vote, not from Government sources.
We are trying to set up a procedure that is reasonably close to that, in that the budget is set. It would not be limitless, but it would be known and secure for a five-year period—the lifetime of a Government. It would not be possible for it to be diluted, diverted or whatever during that period. We think that is an important principle in setting up the OEP, and we hope that the Minister for the time being—I am not sure how to refer to him—will come at least some way towards meeting that principle, perhaps by accepting this amendment. I hope he will at least indicate that he will think seriously about it. If we are not able to get that very clear assurance, we will seek to divide the Committee to put that principle on the record.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about the funding. Let us be honest: if we do not have the correct funding in place, how can the OEP be impartial and carry out its job effectively? Does he agree that it would be a concern if the OEP did not have separate estimates from those of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? How else will it maintain its impartiality?
Dr Whitehead
That is absolutely right. We need to make sure, as we go through each element of the OEP’s formation and operation, that it is not only thought to be independent, but seen to be so in its activities. This is an important part of the OEP being seen to be independent. I await the Minister’s thoughts on how we might proceed.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his kind remarks in wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane a speedy recovery, and for the amicable tone in which he is seeking to work today. I thank him for the amendment. It highlights the unusual commitment this Government have already made to giving the OEP an indicative multi-annual budget, in response to Parliament’s scrutiny of the draft Bill. This budget will be formally ring-fenced in any given spending review period; that will provide the OEP with more longer-term financial certainty than afforded to most arm’s length bodies.
However, it would be unnecessary and unhelpful to include this commitment in the Bill. Other bodies with multi-annual funding commitments, such as the Office for Budget Responsibility, do not have it set out in legislation. In this Bill we have already included mechanisms to ensure that the OEP will remain adequately funded under this and future Governments.
The Bill imposes a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to provide the OEP with enough funding to undertake its statutory functions. There is also a duty on the OEP, in its annual statement of accounts, to provide an assessment of whether it was provided with sufficient funding by the Secretary of State during that year. The OEP’s statement of accounts will be laid before Parliament.
That brings me to the second part of the amendment. Parliament will have ample opportunity to scrutinise the funding of the OEP further, and to hold Government to account accordingly. The OEP’s funding will be made public through a separate line in DEFRA’s estimate, with further detail in the OEP’s own annual financial report. We will give the OEP the option of providing the relevant Select Committee with an additional estimates memorandum alongside the DEFRA estimate. The memorandum would provide the Select Committee with a clear statement of what is in the estimate, and why any additional funding is being sought.
The OEP will therefore be able to provide Government and Parliament with additional information relating to any changes in funding and how the funding will be applied, enabling any perceived shortcomings to be highlighted. In that spirit, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I echo the remarks made by the shadow Minister, my hon Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, about sending our best wishes to the Minister, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane. I wish her a speedy recovery.
I will add to the shadow Minister’s remarks about strengthening the multi-annual budget provision and putting it in the legislation. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that there will be some indication of the multi-annual budget, but I ask for it to be stronger. I draw the Committee’s attention to what the Select Cttee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said on the funding of the OEP in April 2019. The Bill has been in progress for a long time, so we may not all remember what the Committee said then—some, like me, may not even have been an MP then. It said:
“A history of sustained budget cuts to DEFRA’s arm’s length bodies does not fill us with confidence that the current funding provisions for the Office for Environmental Protection in the draft Bill are sufficient. Given the importance of the OEP’s independence from Government”—
that independence is the reason why it is important that we discuss this matter alongside amendment 156—
“it should have additional budgetary protections than is customary for Non-Departmental Public Bodies.
The Government should commit to providing a multi-annual budgetary framework for the Office for Environmental Protection in the Bill. This commitment would help to ensure the Office for Environmental Protection’s independence from Government and is consistent with best practice as seen with the Office for Budgetary Responsibility. Rather than grant-in-aid, the Office for Environmental Protection should also have its own estimate which should be negotiated directly with HM Treasury, and voted on by Parliament in the yearly Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill.”
The Select Committee argues that the requirement for multi-annual provision should be fundamentally written into the Bill, not subject to whims or dependent on good intentions in the future. That is very important for the next topic of our conversation about the independence of the OEP.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I also send my good wishes to the hon. Member for Taunton Deane and wish her a speedy recovery.
Much of the discussion on Tuesday was about—as it will be today—the independence of the OEP. Of course, organisations cannot be truly independent if they are heavily dependent on another organisation for their funding and resourcing. I echo many of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and the shadow Minister. This might seem a slightly arcane discussion about how the funding is separated and arrived at, but a point that I have already made, and will, I suspect, continue to make, is that the organisation is so important that it has to be independent, and be seen to be independent, and has to have public confidence, because it replaces a very strong regime.
Sadly, we saw on Tuesday, and will, I fear, see as we go through further clauses today, that the sense of independence is being eroded. That is important, because when we look at other organisations that are involved in environmental protection, we see that the record, particularly under this Government, is absolutely atrocious.
The Lords Select Committee in 2018 described the cuts made to many of these organisations as having a “profound negative impact” on England’s biodiversity. The funding cuts to Natural England under this Government have been absolutely astonishing—there was a cut of some £265 million in 2008-09, and of a mere £85.6 million in 2019-20. This matters because we are being asked to trust the Government to resource the organisation properly. I am sure many of us are regular watchers of “Countryfile”; just a few weeks ago, it had a feature based on Unchecked UK’s report, “The UK’s Enforcement Gap”, which looked at the impact of funding cuts on these organisations. Natural England had a 72% cut between 2009 and 2019, and the Food Standards Agency a 51% cut. The report concluded:
“The implications of these cuts are significant, with declines in almost every metric of regulatory activity—including food safety checks, water pollution sampling”,
and many others. That is the evidence before us regarding past promises from the Government.
Talking of environmental issues and the cuts to Natural England, staggeringly, the monitoring of sites of special scientific interest has declined by 62% between 2010 and 2019. There are many other damaging statistics that one could cite, but it all leads one to conclude that the new organisation—the key organisation for protecting our environment—must be properly resourced to do the job. All the evidence suggests the Government cannot be trusted.
The Chair
I should apologise to the Committee; I should have brought in other speakers before the Minister. That is what I will do in future. I am sorry if that has caused any confusion, but seven months’ absence has made me a little too rusty.
Dr Whitehead
Thank you, Mr Howarth, for that note of concern about Committee proceedings. I am sure that in no way tripped us up or stopped us achieving our purpose, but thank you for clarifying matters.
I hear what the Minister says about ring-fencing efforts that might be made on the funding process by the Government, but that does not remotely meet the need to fix and set out a budget at the beginning of the period, so that the funding is not just ring-fenced, but clearly separated out from the daily business in the period after that budget has been set. Given the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, I am afraid that we will have to divide the Committee to set down a clear marker about what we want to happen. We hope that the Government will think seriously about the issue as the Bill goes through the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir George. In the Committee’s discussions on Tuesday, I noted that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, raised on a couple of occasions—in columns 285 and 287 of the Official Report —the appointment of non-executive directors to the future Office for Environmental Protection. He intimated strongly that it would be a good idea for such directors to be appointed with the consent of the two relevant Select Committees. He later said that perhaps the Select Committees would decide that they would not want to be involved in the appointment of non-executive members of the board.
I have been in contact with the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who confirmed that there has never been an approach from Labour Front-Bench Members or any member of his Committee with that suggestion. He does not recall a suggestion for pre-appointment hearings for NEDs—apart from the chair—by any member of his Committee during its inquiry into the draft Environment Bill last year, either. In his view, it is an impractical suggestion, which had never been raised before. May I therefore invite the shadow Minister to withdraw some of his comments about the appointment of non-executive directors from Tuesday’s discussions?
The Chair
It is the tradition of this House that, for good reasons, the Chair does not take responsibility for the content of right hon. and hon. Members’ speeches. The hon. Member was perfectly entitled to raise his concern, and it is now on the record. I am sure that the shadow Minister will respond if he wants to do so.
Dr Alan Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 156, in schedule 1, page 126, line 2, leave out
‘have regard to the need to’.
This amendment makes the independence of the OEP an absolute requirement.
I apologise for de-knighting you earlier, Sir George; I will continue in the right vein. I will respond briefly to the point of order by the hon. Member for Gloucester. My intention on Tuesday was to draw attention to the principal architecture of various issues and how they might work relative to Select Committees. It was not to impugn the actions of anyone on a Select Committee or any proceedings of Select Committees. If the hon. Member for Gloucester felt that I was doing that in any way, I hope I can set the record straight this morning. As to the remarks that I made about how, in principle, Select Committees work and might have a hand in the appointments, and about the difference between those Committees having a hand in the appointments and the Government—in principle, but not necessarily in practice—not referring to them, I fully stand by those remarks for the future. I hope that that clarifies things for the hon. Gentleman.
Richard Graham
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s comments. The key thing is that there is an important separation between the responsibilities of Select Committees and what a Government choose to do in a Bill. The implication of what he said on Tuesday was that those ideas had been well discussed, and raised previously, and that it was perfectly normal for the two relevant environmental Select Committees effectively to have hearings for non-executive directors, as well as for the chair. I thought it would be helpful to put the record straight and to say that that had never been discussed in the Environmental Audit Committee and that the Chairman had never been approached about it by anyone from any party.
The Chair
Order. I have made the point that the Chair is not responsible for the content of any right hon. or hon. Member’s speech. Mr Graham has raised his concern in a point of order. Dr Whitehead has responded, and I propose that we now stick rigidly to the amendment at hand and continue with consideration of it.
Dr Whitehead
Thank you, Sir George. We can perhaps talk about this offline, so to speak. I am happy to stand by what I said previously, but I would welcome discussing it further with the hon. Gentleman if he would like to.
The amendment is fairly straightforward. On Tuesday, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth made a point about paragraph 17 of schedule 1, which reads:
“In exercising functions in respect of the OEP, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect its independence.”
In her intervention, she emphasised the words “protect its independence”. However, we would rather emphasise the fact that the wording
“have regard to the need to protect its independence”
would not actually protect the OEP’s independence. We suggest deleting the words
“have regard to the need to”
so that the passage would read, “In exercising functions in respect of the OEP, the Secretary of State must protect its independence.” That is simpler and more straightforward, and makes the duty of the Secretary of State clear. I hope that the Minister will respond positively.
Fleur Anderson
I also want to speak about the independence of the Office for Environmental Protection. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), promised us a new, “world-leading”, independent environmental watchdog. However, what is in the Bill is not good enough. The current wording is:
“In exercising functions in respect of the OEP, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect its independence.”
The amendment would change that so that the Secretary of State “must protect its independence”. We have had previous amendments that were short but important, and this is another one. Instead of giving a nod to something, hoping it will happen or wishing for the best, we will actually write this proposal into the Bill. That is important in relation to our earlier conversations about the appointment of the chair and the OEP’s independence.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friends have made a powerful case, to which I will not add much more. Looking at what we are losing through leaving the European Union, I was very struck by the Library briefing, which states:
“EU law is monitored and enforced by the European Commission under Article 258…as the ‘Guardian of the Treaties’. It is overseen by the Court of Justice of the European Union… which can levy fines on Member States that are found to be in breach of EU law.”
That is an incredibly powerful position. Although we had only a certain amount of influence over that arrangement as a member state, it could be used to considerable effect.
I was very struck by the evidence to the Committee from ClientEarth, which has obviously used that arrangement to good effect on behalf of the citizens of the UK in challenging the Government’s record on air quality. Even back in March, before the amendments before us and others were tabled, ClientEarth was very clear:
“Despite the Government’s words about the independence of the OEP, the funding structure envisaged in the Bill places the OEP too close to Defra and too much discretion is given to the Secretary of State in the appointment of the OEP’s members.”
Those at ClientEarth are concerned because they know that, in the past, they could intervene and act on behalf of UK citizens, but under this system, they will not be able to. That key change weakens our protections, and it is why it is so important that amendments such as this are pursued, although I suspect they will not be successful. However, I think that these provisions in the Bill will be torn to shreds in the other place, quite frankly.
Leo Docherty
I agree with Opposition Members who have spoken about the need to protect the independence of the OEP. That is why we have introduced a new duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to protect the OEP’s independence, and placed a duty on the OEP to act objectively, impartially and transparently. Unlike with most public bodies, the Bill gives Ministers no power to set the OEP’s programme of activity or to direct the exercise of its functions. Parliament can scrutinise the actions of the Secretary of State in exercising functions in relation to the OEP to ensure that the Government are not interfering in the delivery of the OEP’s statutory functions.
The operational independence of the OEP, however, which we wholeheartedly support, should not impede the Secretary of State in exercising appropriate scrutiny and oversight of the OEP. That is important because the Secretary of State, as an elected representative of the Government, is accountable to Parliament and the public for the overall performance of the body and for the use of public money. Requiring the Secretary of State to actively protect the OEP’s independence at all times would be incompatible with that ministerial accountability, which is one of the Government’s key principles of good corporate governance.
The amendment would prevent DEFRA, the OEP’s parent Department, from exercising appropriate oversight, including accounting officer responsibilities. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw his amendment.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friends have made powerful contributions on the overall independence of the OEP and the circumstances under which that independence can be enhanced or undermined. In terms of our general discussions this morning, hon. Members will see that the importance of the OEP—its crucial role in holding other bodies to account and possibly taking them to court—puts the OEP into a reasonably unique category as far as such bodies are concerned. Comparisons with some of those other bodies fall rather short in terms of making a distinction between the importance of the OEP and, indeed, the importance originally attached to it by previous Secretaries of State in introducing the Bill in the first place.
That, essentially, is a theme that we will be pursuing today, and amendment 156 is part of that. While I hear what the Minister says about the Department’s ability to guide and control part of the OEP’s actions, it is not good enough, in the context of the formulation before us, to say that the independence of the OEP can be compromised for the purposes set out. We do not intend to pursue the point to a Division this morning, but in terms of the corpus of our contributions on this clause, I want to place on record that the same goes for the debate later today, and we hope that those comments will be heard.I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 22
Principal objectives of the OEP and exercise of its functions
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 189, in clause 22, page 13, line 16, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment removes the restriction on the OEP overlapping with the Committee on Climate Change.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 30 and 66.
Government new clause 4—Memorandum of understanding.
Deidre Brock
May I send my best wishes to the Minister, and wish her a speedy recovery? I look forward to seeing her back in her place next week.
I say from the outset that amendment 189 is really a probing amendment. I am trying to gain a better understanding of what the Government were seeing to achieve in the clause by excluding areas of climate change committee activity from OEP oversight. However, I note the Government’s in new clause 4, and I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member for Aldershot has to say in that regard.
Leo Docherty
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for her warm wishes, which I will convey to the Minister, and for tabling amendment 189, which gives me the opportunity to explain how the Bill will ensure that there will be clarity over the respective remits of the OEP and the Committee on Climate Change. Government amendments 30 and 66 and new clause 4 will ensure that the OEP does not duplicate the work of the Committee on Climate Change, as well as requiring the two bodies to prepare a memorandum of understanding. I will come on to those in more detail in a moment.
Amendment 189 would remove clause 22(5), which would weaken the overall provision of the Bill to clarify the respective roles of the two bodies. That provision requires the OEP to set out in its strategy how it intends to avoid any overlap with the Committee on Climate Change when exercising its functions. That ensures that the avoidance of such an overlap would run through the OEP’s entire operation. That would be difficult to achieve simply through a memorandum of understanding. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw amendment 189 to ensure that the Office for Environmental Protection and the Committee on Climate Change can work together seamlessly.
Government amendments 30 and 66 and new clause 4 are part of a package of measures, including statutory requirements already set out in the Bill, that help to clarify the distinct roles of the two bodies to ensure that they develop an effective working relationship. Government amendment 30 will ensure that the OEP does not duplicate the work of the Committee on Climate Change by providing that the OEP will not monitor or report on specific matters already within the statutory remit of the Committee on Climate Change. Government amendment 66 ensures the same effect in Northern Ireland should the Northern Ireland Assembly choose to extend the OEP to Northern Ireland.
The OEP has an important role to play alongside and in collaboration with the Committee on Climate Change in ensuring that the UK continues to drive forward ambitious action on climate change. That role is not being called into question by the amendments. Indeed, Greener UK has welcomed the amendments and their addition to the existing provisions, which
“ensure that there is no duplication and overlap”.––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2020; c. 74, Q116.]
The Committee on Climate Change is also supportive of both the existing measures and the Government amendments. I therefore commend Government amendments 30 and 66 and new clause 4 to the Committee, and graciously urge the hon. Member to withdraw amendment 189.
Dr Whitehead
I think we can claim a little collective win on this. We have been concerned about the possible clash between the remit of the Committee on Climate Change and that of the OEP, almost since the publication of the Bill. I think the matter was raised in proceedings before they were suspended earlier in the year. To avoid duplication and a possible treading on each other’s toes, it is really important that there is not a mix-up between what the OEP does on elements of the climate change and environmental remit, and what the Committee on Climate Change is doing.
The amendments that the Government tabled to clarify and codify that distinction, which also refer to Northern Ireland, seem a positive step forward in how we decide what we are going to do. In a moment, we will come to an amendment that tries to clarify that for another Government body. I welcome these amendments.
Daniel Zeichner
I, too, welcome the amendments, but does my hon. Friend agree that they demonstrate that the overall architecture of the whole system has been flawed from the outset? I am thinking of the relationship with other organisations and, for instance, the interaction with the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill, which we have long argued were done in the wrong order.
Dr Whitehead
Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It indicates that the thinking when the Bill was constructed in the first instance did not take account of those distinctions. We may need to go further in deciding who has what brief, as far as these issues are concerned.
On this particular issue, the Minister’s clarification is welcome. Obviously, the Opposition have not won many amendments so far, so being on the right side of a new amendment can be the cause of some rejoicing. We do not wish to oppose the amendments; on the contrary, we support them.
The Chair
Government amendments 30 and 66 and Government new clause 4 will be determined later in the proceedings.
Deidre Brock
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 105, in clause 22, page 13, line 18, at end insert—
‘(5A) The Energy Act 2013 is amended in accordance with subsections (5B) and (5C).
(5B) In section 131(1), for “may” substitute “must”.
(5C) In section 131(2), after subsection (c), insert—
“(d) the duty of the Authority in assisting the delivery of greenhouse gas emissions targets as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008.”
(5D) This section comes into force at the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment is intended to facilitate co-operation between the OEP and the Energy Authority.
This amendment follows on from our previous debate about clarifying which of various bodies does what. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, there are a number of other issues relating to which body does what—how that works in the overall scheme of things as far as environmental protection is concerned, and how that relates to climate change issues.
One body that has a very substantial hand in the process and is very involved in the consequences of environmental protection, the use and deployment of energy, and decisions about where energy comes from—particularly as far as climate change and net zero considerations are concerned—is Ofgem: the body responsible for those considerations in the energy sphere.
The amendment would align Ofgem’s responsibilities and remit with the other bodies that we have discussed this morning. Ministers have argued that Ofgem’s remit includes concerns about the environment and climate change, but in practice, its written remit does not. Its remit at the moment is simply to secure good value for customers; it does not go into the areas that we have been talking about today. However, from the Energy Act 2013 onwards, the Government have had the ability to put that right. In part 5 of the Act, there is provision for the Government to put forward a strategy and policy statement, which would produce the remit for that body.
I have now been concerned for a long time that while part 5 of the Act would have been simple for the Government to implement—it is there on the statute book, with detailed guidance on how to do it—it has been curtailed merely because it is up to the Minister to trigger the provision. There is no start date for its implementation—we may come later to similar points about this Bill—and the Government have decided not to implement it. They have therefore resiled from the idea of producing a strategy and policy statement.
The amendment seeks to do two things. First, it would amend part 5 of the Energy Act 2013 to ensure that a remit for the policy and strategy statement is written into the Act. Secondly, it would ensure the implementation of that part of the Act by setting a timescale. Ministers would therefore need to pay attention to the insertion of Ofgem’s climate and environmental brief and do something about it by bringing that part of the Act into force within a set period of time.
It is a simple amendment. I appreciate that it would amend another Act of Parliament so we might have to go through a Marx Brothers tootsie-frootsie ice cream sketch form-guide discussion to get to a thorough understanding of how the 2013 Act relates to the Bill, but I hope hon. Members are assured that the Opposition tried hard to draft the amendment so that it would properly give effect to what we want it to do. If hon. Members do not take our word for it, a copy of the Energy Act 2013 is freely available on my desk for them to peruse at their leisure.
Leo Docherty
The hon. Member’s amendment raises a question about the making of a strategy and policy statement for Ofgem. As he will be aware, the Government intend to publish an energy White Paper ahead of COP26, and it would make sense to draft a strategy and policy statement in the light of the policies and priorities set out in the White Paper. It would be inappropriate to give a specific timeline on publishing the strategy and policy statement at this stage.
Ofgem already has various powers and duties in relation to its important role in the transition to net zero. Its duty is to protect existing and future consumers and, as is already set out in legislation, that includes their interest in the reduction of targeted greenhouse gas emissions. At the start of the year, we welcomed Ofgem’s new decarbonisation action plan, which contains important proposals, including enhancing flexibility in the electricity system and decarbonising heat, which will help us to meet our vital commitment to eliminate our contribution to global warming by 2050.
Given the existing decarbonisation duties on Ofgem, the work it is already undertaking in that area and the close and productive working relationship at all levels between Ofgem and central Government, it is not necessary to place any new duties on Ofgem in relation to the delivery of greenhouse gas emissions targets. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for the interesting reply that—he will have to forgive me for saying this—he read out from the piece of paper put in front of him. Nevertheless, that piece of paper is quite interesting, because it appears to say two slightly different things. First, it says, “Don’t worry about putting something in the Bill today, because the energy White Paper is shortly to appear.” There may well be a proposal in the White Paper to implement part 5 of the Energy Act 2013—finally, after seven years. That White Paper has been imminently expected for two years, but is so very imminently expected now that it might appear before Christmas. That statement appears to say that that is what the Government are going to do and that a proposal to unlock part 5 of the Energy Act 2013 will be in the White Paper. If that is the case, that is an interesting development.
Dr Whitehead
I have effectively concluded my comments, Sir George. I hope the Minister will write to me shortly to give a clear indication about what that package means, and we can go from there. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 203, in clause 22, page 13, line 22, after “33(1)(b)” insert “,35(1)(b)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 208. It requires the OEP’s enforcement policy to set out how the OEP will determine whether a failure to comply with environmental law is serious for the purposes of clause 35(1)(b), which is inserted by Amendment 208.
Leo Docherty
This group of amendments clarifies the circumstances in which the OEP may bring an environmental review, in order to ensure there is no doubt about its thresholds for action. Government amendment 203 ensures that the OEP’s enforcement policy will set out a consistent approach in determining whether a serious failure has occurred throughout its enforcement process, and is consequential on amendment 208.
Dr Whitehead
We are in an interesting set of circumstances regarding these amendments, and some others that are still to come. Essentially, the Government are amending their own Bill, so on several occasions—both today and in the not-too-distant future—the Opposition may be in the position of stoutly defending the Government’s Bill while, I suspect, Government Members will stoutly defend the amendments that the Government have tabled.
We are potentially in an odd position, in that we actually do not think that the Bill is very good as it stands, particularly in terms of the protection of the independence of the OEP, but we are certainly prepared to defend it from further erosion by what we consider to be a systematic series of Government amendments that, taken together, seriously undermine the OEP’s independence of action over its life.
These amendments are the first part of that action, which took place, to our dismay, over the period the Bill was suspended. Clearly, at some stage somebody decided that the Bill was too kind to the OEP and that further restrictions should be placed on its activities and freedom of action in relation to a series of things, such as notices, environmental improvement plans, and whether the OEP can bring about a review if a subject continues to do what it was doing after a notice has been given. Previously, the Bill enabled the OEP to do that; following the amendments, it no longer can. It has had a substantial element of its freedom to act, and to act appropriately, removed by the amendments.
The other important element in this group of amendments, which will recur in a number of other areas, is, as we have raised in Committee before, the use of the word “serious”. The amendments have curtailed systematically throughout the Bill the remit of the OEP to undertake various actions on the basis of what it thinks is best in a particular set of circumstances, to the extent that before the OEP can act it has to pass a test of whether the action is regarded as serious. We have discussed how a series of differences can flow from one word. The problem with the introduction of the word “serious” in these areas of the Bill and others is that there is no definition in the Bill of what “serious” means. Let us have a guess: who can determine what “serious” means through guidance? Does anyone have any thoughts?
Dr Whitehead
No. The Secretary of State can decide by guidance how “serious” is to be interpreted regarding the OEP’s actions.
Fleur Anderson
It is a fact that environmental protection and action that breaches air pollution limits, for example, will happen slowly and incrementally. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hard to determine the point at which that becomes serious?
For example, Putney High Street in my constituency is one of the most polluted high streets in the country. That has happened slowly over many years; it would be hard to say when it became serious. When will the Office for Environmental Protection be enabled to step in and say, “This is an issue”? That goes for rivers and all the other issues we will discuss.
The nature of environmental action is that it will happen slowly. The measure of saying something is “serious” will limit the term to so few large-scale events that the Office for Environmental Protection will be rendered so weak in its action.
The Chair
Order. This is no criticism of the hon. Lady, but her contribution could have been a speech rather than an intervention, which should be brief. I am sure the Committee appreciated it, whether it was a speech or an intervention, but I hope interventions will be kept brief in future.
Dr Whitehead
Thank you, Sir George. I am sure that all Committee members will abide by your guidance in the remaining sessions. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney has hit the nail on the head regarding the discussion of seriousness.
Richard Graham
The explanatory statement to Government amendment 208 lays out clearly that
“the OEP may only bring an environmental review against a public authority if it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the authority has failed to comply with environmental law”.
The explanatory statement to Government amendment 209 adds:
“The OEP may only bring an environmental review after it has given a decision notice.”
The steps are clearly laid out. Surely, we should all have confidence in the OEP doing its job as defined by the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
I am not sure whether the hon. Member has addressed himself to the totality of these issues. I will raise a question concerning the explanatory notes and the notes on the purport of the amendments in a subsequent debate.
The steps that the OEP must take in providing a notice are perfectly reasonable and should be undertaken; the big difference is the additional test, after those steps have been taken, as to whether the whole thing is serious or not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney rightly said, in many instances one cannot set a point at which something becomes serious or not.
Richard Graham
We have to be serious about this. If the borough council is not cleaning a particular street in Putney properly, that is not an issue that the OEP should immediately jump at on the evidence of one photograph from one constituent. It should not say, “Right—we must take the authority to court!” There have to be some boundaries, so the insertion of the word “serious” is surely sensible and appropriate.
Dr Whitehead
The central point is that it ought to be within the remit of the OEP to decide what constitutes a cumulation, to the point that something becomes serious. The amendments take that decision out of the hands of the OEP so that a serious test threshold would have to be passed before it could take action in the case of a cumulative serious problem. The hon. Gentleman can read what the amendment paper indicates about whether the OEP considers that that test has been passed.
Richard Graham
I fear that the shadow Minister has not read the explanatory statement clearly. It begins:
“This amendment provides that the OEP”
and refers to whether it is satisfied, and whether
“it…considers that the failure…would be serious.”
The emphasis is on the OEP. Does he not accept that?
Dr Whitehead
Yes. Of course the emphasis is on the OEP, but the test of what is serious is outwith the remit of the OEP. The hon. Gentleman can look at other explanatory notes in this regard. There is no definition of “serious” in the Bill. The guidance on the test of seriousness that has to be achieved is inevitably outside the Bill: it is within the remit of the Minister to decide.
As to the decision on whether something is serious enough to proceed—and I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we are now talking about two different versions of “serious”—if the agency itself, in its work, thinks something is serious, I would have thought that it should be able to proceed. However, the question whether something is serious in terms of the test that must now be passed by the agencies concerned is outside the consideration of whether the agency itself thinks that something may or may not be cumulatively serious. That is a central concern that we have in this area, and other areas.
If the issue were as straightforward as the hon. Gentleman suggests, why on earth would the Government amendments have been tabled in the first place? They have not been put in for a laugh—there is a serious purpose behind them, which is to put “serious” on the face of the Bill and take the definition outside the legislation, so that control of the word “serious” is outside the OEP’s remit.
Frankly, as with the old fable of the frog that does not get out of the saucepan before it boils because at no stage does it decide it is too hot for it to stay, the OEP would have no ability to pull the frog out of the saucepan at any stage. It would simply have to stand by while the frog boiled, and then refer the boiled frog to the Minister and say, “Is that serious enough and should we perhaps have done something about it beforehand?” That seems to me to be a bit of a concern about how the OEP works in the long term.
We do not intend to divide the Committee on the amendment, because we are making a general point about seriousness as part of the corpus of Government amendments that have been tabled. However, when we debate clause 23 we certainly intend to divide the Committee, for reasons that I shall set out.
Amendment 203 agreed to.
Leo Docherty
I beg to move amendment 204, in clause 22, page 13, line 22, after “36(1)” insert “and (6A)”
Leo Docherty
We have sought to ensure that the OEP focuses its enforcement function on the most significant and serious breaches of environmental law. Unlike the European Commission, which can only take action against member state Governments, the new Office for Environmental Protection will enforce the delivery of environmental law by all levels of public authority, from local authorities and arm’s length bodies to central Government. On that basis, it is important that the OEP should have the ability to focus on the most significant or serious breaches of environmental law.
Clause 36 allows the OEP to apply to intervene in a judicial review relating to an alleged failure to comply with environmental law. However, the clause as currently drafted does not require the OEP to focus such interventions on serious cases when initiating its own enforcement actions. Amendments 204 and 220 will therefore improve the clause by increasing consistency across the OEP’s application of its enforcement function.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman had not indicated that he wished to speak. I call Dr Alan Whitehead.
Dr Whitehead
I put my pen up, Sir George, but that is probably more appropriate for the auction room than the Bill Committee. I will try to raise my pen higher or make some other sign in future.
The Chair
In future, I will assume that the hon. Gentleman wants to take part, rather than assuming that he does not.
Dr Whitehead
That is kind of you, Sir George; thank you. These amendments follow on from the debate that we had on the last series of amendments. As the Minister said, they would make proceedings consistent across the Bill, but that is precisely the point that we have been making. This series of amendments consistently seeks to introduce different levels of judgment necessary for the OEP to carry out a range of things, including, in the case of amendment 220, applications
“to intervene in a judicial or statutory review relating to an alleged failure by a public authority to comply with environmental law”.
The amendment states that the OEP may apply to intervene in proceedings
“only if it considers that the failure, if it occurred, would be serious”.
As there is no definition of “serious”, the OEP is left in the dark about whether it may intervene or not if it considers a failure to be serious—its definition may not be in line with the Government’s. It is really curious that the explanatory statement to amendment 220 states:
“This amendment provides that the OEP may apply to intervene in a judicial or statutory review relating to an alleged failure by a public authority to comply with environmental law only if it considers that the failure, if it occurred, would be serious”
but that
“If that test is satisfied, it may apply to intervene”.
What test? Who can satisfy it? There is no test in the Bill or, apparently, in the remit of the OEP, yet the explanatory statement refers to a test being satisfied. I can draw no other conclusion: the only way to reconcile the amendment and its explanatory statement is for the Government to provide guidance—separately from the OEP—on how that test can be satisfied. That is one of the fundamental problems that we are grappling with here. Although I accept that the amendments are consequent to the central idea of seriousness, unless we bottom out what seriousness is and how the test can be satisfied, we will not have made any further progress on amendments that sort things out in the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is explaining quite a complicated situation really well. What I find baffling about this discussion is that earlier this morning Government Members asserted the independence of the OEP, and here they are introducing an amendment that restricts its independence and makes a judgment as to where to intervene. Does he share my puzzlement?
Dr Whitehead
I do share my hon. Friend’s puzzlement because we appear to be having things in different ways. If the question of seriousness were so straightforward, we would not have to worry about putting these things in the Bill in the first place; the previous formulations would be perfectly adequate.
There is a purpose behind the Government amendments, and that purpose has to be, as I have explained, to take the definition outside the work of the OEP. For that reason, we really have to divide on amendment 220 to establish clearly what we think about this particular activity taking place.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
On a point of order, Sir George. Hon. Members will have noticed that amendment 204 is consequential. We had to vote on it because of the inclusion of the two amendments in this part of the Bill. However, we wanted to vote on amendment 220. Perhaps we could have it on the record that that is what we wanted to do, but procedurally we were required not to.
The Chair
We can have a Division on that when we come to it.
Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Fay Jones.)
Environment Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Tuesday 10th November 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 November 2020 - (10 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We have a great deal to get through today, so there is no time for idle chitchat.
Clause 37
Duty of the OEP to Involve the Relevant Minister
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Hon. Members will see that under clause 38, when the Office for Environmental Protection
“gives an information notice or a decision notice, applies for an environmental review, judicial review or statutory review or applies to intervene in a judicial review or statutory review, it must publish a statement”.
What is curious about this clause is that while it states at the beginning that the OEP “must” publish a statement, the next subsection says that that does not apply
“if the OEP considers that in the circumstances it would not be in the public interest to publish a statement.”
My concern is this: in what circumstances would it not be in the public interest to publish a statement; and why is it only for the OEP and no one else to decide that it should not publish such a statement? I would like to hear from the Minister what she considers those circumstances to be and, if the OEP so decided, what would be the criteria upon which that decision would be taken?
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
When we last met we all agreed that the OEP should have as much independence as possible. I fully support that. What I find confusing about the hon. Gentleman’s argument is that he is talking about reducing the OEP’s ability or flexibility to do what it sees fit, and he is trying to set down in law exactly what it should do in different circumstances. Surely we should appoint an independent regulator, make sure that the best people are running it and—as much as one can—let it decide whether to issue a notice or not. This would limit its independence.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman will have accepted already that, throughout the passage of the Bill, we have tried to assert robustly—this is accepted on all sides—that the OEP should be truly independent and should undertake its activities in that spirit of independence. We have tried to point out that a number of measures in the Bill would undermine that independence by putting constraints on the way in which it acts.
Secondly, we have tried to ensure that the OEP is set up in such a way that it is fully transparent and organisationally accountable for what it does. Those two things go together: the OEP should be fully independent, and it should be set up in such a way that that independence is based on accountability and transparency in its actions. Clause 38—I remind hon. Members that this is a clause stand part debate, not an Opposition amendment—appears to suggest that the OEP has an option to be less than transparent in its dealings with the public in relation to public statements. That is a substantial caveat on a requirement. It is a “must”, not a “may”. It “must” publish those statements, but the caveat is that if the OEP thinks that it is not in the public interest, it does not have to do so. On the face of it, that is resiling from the second principle that I set out: that the OEP should act in a publicly transparent and accountable way.
What I want from the Minister is either an explanation of why that subsection has been placed in the Bill or to know whether there could be a potential challenge to the subsection, which appears to enable the OEP to decide, regardless of any other criteria, that it feels something would not be in the public interest. If the OEP decided that it would not be in the public interest to publish a statement—so no such statement would appear and people would not know even that a statement was about to come out—what would be the potential challenge, and what machinery exists elsewhere in the Bill that one may not yet have seen that would enable criteria to be applied to how the OEP considers what is in the public interest or otherwise? All hon. Members will agree that if the question of public interest is subjective and internal to an organisation, that is not necessarily a good test of what the public interest might be considered to be.
That is why this is a stand part debate: it is a question to the Minister, rather than a suggestion that this clause be removed.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Good morning, Mr Gray. My hon. Friend is making important points. In paragraph 340 of the explanatory notes, there is a comparison with how the European Commission works. One of the key issues is: is this system now stronger or weaker? Does my hon. Friend believe that this is a more or less transparent process?
Dr Whitehead
As my hon. Friend suggests, it is a less transparent process than before. It appears that, in this clause, we are retreating from the principle of transparency. Of course, I may be completely wrong, and there may be factors, to which I hope to be pointed shortly, that mitigate or dissolve that concern. I am sure that the Minister can reassure me on that, or point to things that mean that the clause, odd though it looks in terms of transparency, is not as bad as it seems on the surface.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is good to be back. I thank the shadow Minister for his comments, and all hon. Members for carrying the proceedings last week when I was unwell. I put on record my thanks to the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, who did a sterling job, and to the Opposition for, I think, being kind.
We are talking about clauses 37 to 40 en bloc. Those clauses ensure that the OEP can operate effectively, openly and transparently when carrying out its important duties, which of course is vital. Clause 37 ensures that relevant Ministers are informed and able to participate in relevant enforcement cases, and that the OEP can recommend ministerial involvement in legal proceedings. That allows it to make a case for a Minister’s participation in instances where it may be helpful for Ministers to provide input to the proceedings.
The shadow Minister touched on clause 38. I gather that he will not oppose it, but it is always good to have some questions and inquiries. I hope I will make it clear that the clause requires the OEP to publish statements at specific points during the enforcement process. The clause is important because it establishes the OEP as an open, effective and transparent watchdog.
If the OEP, having decided to carry out an investigation, is to do so effectively, we must enable it to obtain and review all the available information from other public bodies, so that it can reach a robust and fair conclusion. Clause 39 therefore ensures that, in appropriate circumstances, obligations of secrecy that would otherwise apply are disapplied to enable public authorities to provide information to the OEP in complaints and enforcement cases. All these clauses work together. It is important to note, though, that we have also ensured that certain fundamental protections, such as those set out in the Data Protection Act 2018, are unaffected by this clause.
Openness and transparency are important, but confidentiality is also vital to allow the OEP to establish a safe space for dialogue with public authorities, so that it can quickly and effectively establish the facts in a case and explore potential pragmatic solutions without the need for litigation, where that can be reasonably avoided. The whole system has been set up in a way that means that when the OEP is carrying out its enforcement functions, it first takes a liaison, advisory and discussion role. We want to do all that before we get down the road of litigation and all those other things. That is very important.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire for his comments. He is absolutely right that we do not want to tie the hands of the OEP. It has to be independent, and it has to be able to come to its conclusions about which bits of information will and will not be relevant.
Clause 40 plays an important role in the OEP carrying out its functions by ensuring an appropriate degree of confidentiality during the enforcement process. I assure the shadow Minister that the clause does not create a blanket ability to prevent information being disclosed, which I think is his fear; that is not how the OEP will operate. The OEP and public authorities will still have to assess any requests for information case by case, in line with the relevant regulations.
Clauses 39 and 40 therefore strike a careful balance between retaining confidentiality of that very sensitive aspect of the enforcement process and creating greater transparency across the process. As has been said many times, transparency is absolutely key to good governance. The EU does not even have such a system, so we are setting ourselves up as world leaders by introducing this kind of independent body. I hope those points have reassured the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for her explanation. I am not entirely happy with the way the clause is drafted, but I accept what she has said and will not oppose it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 38 to 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41
Meaning of “natural environment”
The Chair
We now come to amendment 113. No member of the Committee has signed the amendment, but anyone may move it if they wish. No one has signalled that they wish to, so we will move straight on.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 126, in clause 41, page 25, line 35, after “structures” insert
“but including sites of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest insofar as they form part of the landscape”.
This amendment seeks to widen the definition of “natural environment” in this Part to include the historic environment. For the avoidance of doubt, we do not seek the inclusion of the historic environment in the definition of “environmental law”, or in the enforcement functions of the OEP.
The amendment revisits, in a slightly different way, a discussion that we had about the definition of “natural environment” and the effect of buildings and other structures on the environment. As the Committee will recall, when we spoke about that in a previous sitting, we discussed the fact that the appearance of the natural environment has, over centuries, been changed by human activities. If we went back in time, there would be no point at which we could say, “This is the natural environment, so we will use this point in time for our definition, because after this time, it is no longer the natural environment.” The natural environment is clearly constantly changing through human intervention.
Amendment 126 would give the clause a better grip on the issue than amendment 113, which was not moved. Amendment 113 sought to leave out
“(except buildings or other structures)”,
but amendment 126 would insert
“but including sites of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest insofar as they form part of the landscape”.
That is the nub of the question, as far as our landscape is concerned. Not only has the natural environment been changed over time in the way that I have described, but there are, in our natural environment, a whole host of structures—they might come under the definition of “buildings or other structures”, which, as hon. Members can see, are effectively excluded from the clause—that in various ways become part of the natural landscape as a result of their longevity in it, and because they have, at some stage, changed that landscape, thereby becoming a part of it.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is important to recognise that people may not even know of such places. There is a mountain called Twmbarlwm just outside my constituency. On the top, it has a twmp, or pimple, which is an iron age burial mound. People do not even know that that pimple is manmade. They would be affronted if anyone tried to deal with it. They assume it is natural, but it is not, though it has been there for hundreds of centuries. It is important that we make every effort to cover all eventualities. If this Bill is to be groundbreaking for generations to come, we must cover all bases.
Dr Whitehead
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. That underlines what we know is right in our hearts. If we reduced this to a few lines on a piece of paper, we might have to start making them distinctive in order to define what we are talking about. This amendment tries to ensure that such structures are regarded as part of the natural landscape.
Anthony Browne
The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that many historical monuments have become part of the landscape. The UK is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. After 40,000 years of continuous human habitation, there is virtually nothing left that is not touched by the hand of man. I fully support the desire to protect monuments and so on, but the Bill is about protecting the environment. There is a separate legal framework for protecting monuments. I am worried about confusing the objective of the Bill, and worried that the OEP will be tasked with protecting monuments—when there is a separate legal framework for that—rather than protecting the natural environment.
Dr Whitehead
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point but it is not a question of the OEP having to take on the mantle of English Heritage, or a national monuments commission, and assiduously sweeping the leaves off ramparts and other things. Hon. Members will see that clause 41 is simply a meaning clause: it defines what we mean elsewhere in the Bill. It is important inasmuch as it provides a serious context in which other measures in the Bill can be seated. That is its only function. When we are seating those meanings within other parts of the Bill, it is important that we are clear about the extent of those meanings or indeed the limits of those meanings. That is all that the amendment seeks to do. It does not seek to do anything more, and does not give the OEP any obligation as far as these monuments and buildings are concerned, nor the changes in the landscape to which I refer. The hon. Member can rest assured that there would be no duty of care on the OEP, and it is merely a matter of including that in the definition.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share with me concerns that the National Trust—one of the custodians of our British landscape—is also concerned about that very clause? They say that heritage and the natural environment “go hand in hand”. They will be looking to the clause to put them together in the correct way, as my hon. Friend said, for the very nature of our British environment. Nobody in this room would disagree with that.
Dr Whitehead
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which I had not fully covered. The National Trust is, indeed, responsible for sweeping the leaves and various other things from these monuments, and it is among the bodies expressing concern that the meaning of clause 41 will not adequately serve the purpose of guiding the clauses that go before it. I hope that the Minister can provide a good explanation for the meaning in parenthesis being as it is. It is not that it should not be there—it will cover a number of issues, and if it was not there then we might start considering a modern block of flats part of the natural environment. Clearly, we would not want to go that far. I hope that the Minister accepts that amendment 126 strikes the right balance, ensuring that we have a much better definition to work with and that we make a distinction between buildings and other structures that are clearly not part of our natural environment and those that have become so, certainly in the public’s view, and deserve to be included in this meaning clause.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendment on the meaning of the natural environment. Obviously, we discussed this previously in some of the earlier clauses relating to heritage and such. I recognise that the natural environment does not exist in a vacuum and that our interactions with it and use of it create a heritage that we should be proud of, as I think we all are. It does not exist in a vacuum—the shadow Minister himself touched on this—but I believe it would be inappropriate to include the elements in the amendment in this particular definition, given that one of its key aims is to determine the scope of the functions of the Office for Environmental Protection.
The OEP must remain focused on its principal objective of environmental protection and the improvement of the natural environment. It is not its place to investigate complaints against breaches of legislation such as that concerned with cultural heritage such as listed buildings, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire touched on, listed building consents or protection for ancient monuments. There is a raft of legislation that deals with all those things, and that is not the role of the OEP.
Daniel Zeichner
I welcome the Minister back to the Committee. This is a fine distinction, but does she not agree that, in so dramatically excluding “buildings or other structures”, the Bill goes too far, and the amendment is an attempt to bring it back slightly?
Rebecca Pow
Obviously all that has been considered and thought about, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will come on to what the 25-year plan says in a minute, because that really nails why the wording he wants is not there: it is because we believe it is already covered. It is important to note that the hon. Member’s explanatory statement—[Interruption.] I will just stop that buzzing, Mr Chairman; it is very annoying.
Rebecca Pow
I apologise—I did not know it was on.
It is important to note that the hon. Member’s explanatory statement is very specific about the effect he intends the amendment to have. It states that he specifically does not wish the historic environment to be included,
“in the definition of ‘environmental law’, or in the enforcement functions of the OEP.”
It is necessary to have a distinction to ensure that, as I have just touched on, laws concerning, for example, building safety or other matters do not get tangled up in this and are not included in the OEP’s remit. Its focus must be the natural environment.
The clarification is welcome, and it is good to think about it, but unfortunately I must also point out our concern about the unintended effect that this amendment will have. The three definitions in clauses 41, 42 and 43 are intrinsically linked, working together to underpin the OEP and determine the scope of its enforcement functions. Therefore, including those matters within the meaning of the natural environment would mean that they would also be included in scope of the meaning of “environmental law” and the OEP’s enforcement policy.
Going slightly back on the previous point I made, the definition would not preclude the OEP’s looking at any breaches of environmental law that were related to the environment, for example, around Maiden castle or the twmp mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport West. Say, for example, that that was a protected habitat or there was a protected species within that habitat—I have the same around my wonderful Wellington monument, which is managed by the National Trust—and there was seen to be some contravention of the nature conservation law in relation to that habitat, which I would say Maiden castle is very much part and parcel of; that would come under the remit of the OEP to investigate, so a lot of it is included.
In line with the explanatory note, I am sure hon. Members will agree with my earlier point that it would not be appropriate for the OEP to oversee legislation in relation to all those specific wider matters. I assure the shadow Minister that the absence of the historic environment from this definition does not preclude the Government’s work on important aspects of the historic environment. For example, to touch on the previous intervention, the Bill ensures that the 25-year environment plan, including the recognition of the connection between the natural environment and heritage that is specifically written out in that 25-year plan, will be adopted as the first environmental improvement plan through the Bill. I also remind hon. Members that we have a manifesto pledge to protect and restore the natural environment, which is all part of this—it is all-encompassing. The 25-year environment plan will set the benchmark for future plans, including how to balance environmental and heritage considerations. In the light of that explanation, I ask the hon. Member to kindly withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
With the greatest respect, I do not think the Minister has made the sort of case I anticipated she might make this morning to explain why the clause is so loose as far as buildings and other structures are concerned. It is not the case that our amendment would prejudice clauses subsequent to this—the Minister set out clauses 42 and 43 as falling within, for example, the meaning of environmental law. We think it would be a good thing if the structures and buildings that have changed the natural environment and have effectively become part of it were included in those considerations.
Rebecca Pow
I have the exact words here of the 25-year environment plan, which is the first environmental improvement plan. It commits us to:
“Safeguarding and enhancing the beauty of our natural scenery and improving its environmental value while being sensitive to considerations of its heritage.”
It is in there.
Dr Whitehead
I am sorry to say that that is rather a tenuous linkage to the fact that we must set out a plan. I have a copy of the plan we have already set out in front of me. There is merely half a line within that general plan to say that we should be “sensitive”. There is nothing else in the plan, as far as I can see, that says anything further than that—nothing that goes anywhere near the sort of consideration that we are putting in front of the Committee this morning.
The amendment makes it clear that we should not only be sensitive, but that we should include as a consideration those historic monuments and those elements of heritage that effectively form part of the natural landscape. Nothing in the Bill addresses that point, and the amendment seeks to put that consideration on the face of the Bill.
The Minister has underlined our point to some extent. Being sensitive is not good enough; we have to have something in the Bill that spells out the overall consideration that should be made when thinking about the natural environment. We think strongly about this point, to the extent that we will press the Committee to a Division this morning. The amendment has very considerable merit and, whether or not the Division is successful—we will see when the votes come out, rather in the way of the American election—we nevertheless hope that the Minister will consider the point further.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 125, in clause 41, page 25, line 35, after “water” insert “, including the marine environment”.
This amendment clarifies that the natural environment includes a reference to the marine environment and is not confined to inland waters.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 193, in clause 41, page 25, line 35, at end insert—
“(d) the marine environment,”.
This amendment aims to ensure that the seas and oceans and the health of those environments are considered when the OEP is working.
Dr Whitehead
Before I discuss the amendment, I would like to seek your guidance, Mr Gray. As you can see, unfortunately, our Whip is not with us this morning through illness, but I wish to get a note to the Government Whip. Since I cannot walk out of the room to talk to him, may I through you or somebody pass this note to him?
The Chair
I would be delighted to pass that to the Minister, who will pass it on to her Whip.
Dr Whitehead
I shall be grateful if the Minister could draw the Whip’s attention to that when he returns.
The Chair
It might be appropriate for the shadow Minister to appoint one of the other Labour Members as a temporary Whip. That might be helpful for the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
Yes, that is quite right. Perhaps I should have thought of that; it is difficult to do mid-flight.
It was also remiss of me not to welcome the Minister back to her place this morning. I think she knows that when she was absent last week, we sent her our good wishes for a speedy recovery. Indeed, our wishes have come true as she is with us today. I am pleased to see her in her place and I hope that she has indeed had a speedy recovery and is fully back with us, as I am sure she is. I am sorry that I did not place that on the record earlier, but I was rather preoccupied with Maiden castle and various other things.
The amendment seeks to include a better definition, effectively through a few simple words, in the same clause that we were talking about previously concerning the meaning of “natural environment”. It would mean that subsection 41(c), which begins
“land (except buildings or other structures), air and water”,
had at the end a clarification that that includes the marine environment.
It seems pretty obvious that that ought to be in the Bill. We are a country with a length of coastline that is almost uniquely extensive in Europe, and we are an island. Obviously, in the UK, we also have extensive inland waterways, such as lakes, rivers and, indeed, man-made inland waterways that have effectively become part of the natural environment, as I am sure hon. Members agree, such that they merit the sort of protection suggested by the definition in this clause. When the Minister replies, will she assure us that man-made inland waterways are included in the definition of “water” in the clause?
At no point does the Bill mention the marine environment. To the credit of Members across the House, we have developed sites of special scientific interest and conservation zones in the marine environment and around the coastline, sometimes quite a way offshore. It is not a question of having the land and the foreshore, and then simply the deep blue yonder. The marine environment must be seen as an integral part of the process of environmental conservation. Our legislation includes substantial activity to enable environmental protection and conservation to take place in those zones.
Ruth Jones
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. During the passage of the Fisheries Bill, we spent a long time considering how to avoid dredgers damaging the marine environment. That should be included in this Bill, so that our legislation is joined up and cohesive, and ensures that the marine environment is as protected as the land.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend’s important point underlines the purpose of our amendment and impels me to highlight that this is not just a theoretical question about the protection of the marine environment, but a practical question about how we approach that. For example, the marine conservation zone in Lyme bay has the very practical effect of—among other things—preserving the environment for cold-water corals and various other things in that very fragile ecosystem that require our protection to survive and thrive. Those considerations of the marine environment are absolutely and indistinguishably conjoined.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the purpose of the amendment? Given that paragraph 355 of the explanatory notes to the Bill states:
“This includes both the marine and terrestrial environments. ‘Water’ will include seawater, freshwater and other forms of water”,
I am not sure what the purpose of the amendment is.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman has quoted the explanatory note, which is not legislation. One of the problems that Committees face is that explanatory notes have a sort of half-life: they are quite often helpful for elucidation, but they add nothing whatsoever to, or take nothing away from, the legislation in front of us. Explanatory notes might mention what is or is not the case, but essentially they indicate only how benevolently or otherwise the Government look upon the legislation.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I am as big a champion for the marine environment as anyone in this room; before this time last year, it was our livelihood. I am struggling to understand the purpose of the amendment because everything in the marine environment is covered by
“land (except buildings or other structures), air and water, and the natural systems, cycles and processes through which they interact.”
I am struggling to see what in the marine environment is not covered by the Bill as originally written.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member will see that the Bill merely contents itself with the word “water”, which can have a number of different interpretations. In this instance, it has a substantially strong interpretation. This is not a problem with the present Government, but we are talking about legislation that must stand the test of time. It is possible and reasonably straightforward to define “water” in this case as internal waterways, rivers and other water services within the land mass. The hon. Member will see that that is what the clause appears to suggest. The “natural environment” is defined as
“plants, wild animals and other living organisms,”
“their habitats” and “land”, which suggests that the word “water” should be taken in the context of the other things in the clause.
Cherilyn Mackrory
With respect, I disagree. What the hon. Member suggests is that the land stops on the foreshore. It does not, of course; it goes straight out to sea and becomes the seabed. The land does not stop. What we are arguing here are the semantics of where our land and our waters end, which will be covered in the Fisheries Bill.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member is right to the extent that land does extend under the water, otherwise the seas would drain fairly rapidly and we would be in a bad state. According to the hon. Member’s definition, we are conjoined with every other country in the world. The clause does not say that we must have a definition of “natural environment” that includes that—it stops in terms of what is on our land and what is not under the sea, as far as land is concerned. Arguably, the fact that it includes water could be defined, as the hon. Member suggests, as including everything on that land that is under the sea. It is nevertheless our responsibility—there are different areas of concern expressed in international treaties about territorial waters and various other things.
Anthony Browne
I completely and utterly support that the definition should cover the marine environment. My question to the hon. Member is why he picks on the marine environment as the one point of clarification needed in “land…air and water”. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth has talked about some aspects of the land, but does it cover soil? Does the hon. Gentleman want clarification on that? Does it cover underground waterways, for example, which are big in my area? The big issue in South Cambridgeshire is the aquifer, which is definitely under the ground. Does it cover cave systems? Is “air” just the air we breathe when we talk about air pollution, or is it also the ozone layer and so on? We could carry on with multiple long definitions and a long train of different qualifications, but I think that would create legal uncertainty for lawyers to interpret. The Bill is very generic—“land…air and water” covers everything that is important.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go down a detailed path of discussing subterranean water outlets. I assume, because water is within our land mass, that those would be covered by the elision of land mass and water, which is suggested by the clause. Without going into a lengthy disposition about how far under the ground water might be counted as being covered under this arrangement, we can rest assured that those matters are not a serious issue of dispute.
That is why I do not want to go into enormous detail. The amendment is straightforward and short. It proposes several words that would put the matter to rest. It just states in a modest way that the definition should include the marine environment, so that if anyone is in any doubt, there it is in the Bill. That is all we are suggesting. There is no side to that. There are no additional consequences. It merely says we should be clear that that is what it includes. I think we all agree that it should include that.
This morning, we were treated to a quote from the explanatory notes, which indicated that the marine environment should be included, but it is not. We are just doing a modest labour in the vineyard by attempting to ensure that when people say something, they mean what they say. The best way to ensure that people mean what they say is to say it. That is what we propose to do on the face of the Bill.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Amendments 125 and 193 have similar intentions. My amendment was meant as a probing amendment. I will not revisit the areas that the shadow Minister has eloquently gone through. My assumption was that the marine environment was considered for inclusion here and the decision was taken to exclude it. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what the rationale was for that.
Obviously, marine life is just as vital to the global ecosystem as terrestrial life, and the health of marine environments also needs to be protected. There may be some other agencies responsible, which the Government reckon should do the job, but surely there is a good case to be made for an agency with an overarching view of these tasks and challenges for the whole environment. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Daniel Zeichner
This is a short clause, but it is very important. I am fortunate to represent Cambridge, a city with some fantastic environmental organisations. The David Attenborough Building is renowned. It houses the Cambridge Conservation Initiative, which includes the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Fauna & Flora International and BirdLife International. I was fortunate to visit them a while ago, when I was preparing for a Westminster Hall debate. I was briefed by a range of dazzling experts. I was struck from their presentations by how many talked about the marine environment. I had not realised how significant it was. That was very much the term they used throughout their recommendations and advice to me.
I know the Minister cares passionately about the marine environment. I remember a Prime Minister’s Question Time when she questioned the showering habits of the Speaker. It is amazing the things that people remember. I should be clear that she was referring to the microbeads in Mr Bercow’s shower gel. I do not doubt the passion that she feels for the marine environment.
That leads me to question, given that we all agree on this point, why it cannot be put in the Bill. I believe the Government intend to include it. If there is such resistance to putting it in the Bill, it is either because each side wants to defend its position and does not want to give way, or there is something a bit more sinister.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister says no. She might want to think about that, maybe not this morning, but as the Bill progresses. I would have said that including that one phrase would strengthen the Bill from the Government’s point of view and not leave people wondering what other treasures close to our land mass some parts of Government organisations have their eye on.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Minister for his very kind opening words. I also thank him for his interest in the clause, which is crucial to future environmental governance. I appreciate the sentiments behind the amendment, but I must disagree and say that it is unnecessary. I have thought about this matter a great deal myself, as hon. Friends and Members can imagine. I have also spoken to the Natural Capital Committee at length about this, and it is satisfied with what we have come up with after much discussion.
Hon. Members are aware that the marine environment is by far the largest part of the UK’s environment and, as such, is an enormous part of our natural world. It is therefore vital that we safeguard crucial marine ecosystems, and that is a core part of our environmental policy. One of the names I get in my portfolio is the marine Minister, so I say, “Leave water and the marine space out at your peril.”
That is why the marine environment is included within the existing clause, as is clarified on page 57 of the explanatory notes. I hear what everyone says about the explanatory notes, but the meaning of the natural environment explicitly covers “water”. This includes seawater, canals, lakes, the Somerset levels—which are seawater that has come inland, goes back out, and is then joined by inland water—and all the underground aquifers.
A very good point was made: where do we stop with these lists of things? That is important to remember. The definition also covers—I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth and for Keighley for mentioning this—the land that includes the seabed, the intertidal zones and the coastal plains. They are all part of the natural environment. Any plant, wild animal, living organism or habitat is also included in the definition, regardless of where it is physically.
Out of interest, I want to touch on the target-setting powers in the Bill. Targets can be set on any matter relating to the natural environment, which could include the marine environment. That means we can set long-term targets or legally binding targets that can help improve the marine environment. The Government must set out at least one target in their four priority areas, which include air, biodiversity, water and nature. The initial round of targets might include a marine environment target, and that could be one of the biodiversity targets. That measure is already in the Bill; it will actually bolster, protect and strengthen the myriad measures we already have in place for protecting the marine space. All of this will dovetail with the sustainability elements in the Fisheries Bill, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport West, so it is all part and parcel.
I hope I have provided some assurances. The marine environment is very much included within the definition and, as such, each element of the environmental governance framework—including the OEP—will apply to it. On those grounds, I propose that the amendment is unnecessary, and I respectfully ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister has given some good and solid assurances concerning what she thinks the clause could be interpreted to mean. Clearly, the fact that she has said that this morning suggests that it might be possible, should there be a dispute about this, to draw upon her words as underlining the Government’s good intentions. We have never disputed that. We are happy that the Minister thinks in that particular way.
The Chair
I hope it is not impertinent of me to point out that we have now been at this for more than an hour and have achieved only clause 41, which is less speedy progress than other Committees I have chaired. It might be helpful to the Committee to seek to make speedier progress.
Clause 42
Meaning of “Environmental Protection”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move amendment 31, in Clause 42, page26, line 1, after “considering” insert “advising”.
Member’s explanatory statement
The fourth limb of the definition of environmental protection covers the functions of monitoring, assessing, considering or reporting on anything within the other three limbs. This amendment adds the function of “advising”, which was included in the equivalent provisions of the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill (clause 31(2)(d)), and last session’s Environment Bill (clause 40(2)(d)).
Rebecca Pow
Before I begin, it was terribly remiss of me that I omitted to mention the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith when discussing the previous amendment. I meant to do so, but I forgot to pick up my bit of paper. All the hon. Lady’s comments were welcome and duly noted, and added to the general discussion and debate that we had about marine matters. I apologise for that; I meant to do so and then it was too late.
Government amendments 31 and 65 insert the word “advising” into clause 42(d) of the Bill and make the same amendment to schedule 2 in respect of the Office for Environmental Protection in Northern Ireland. This is a technical amendment to ensure that our new environmental governance framework can operate fully and effectively.
Environmental protection is at the heart of what the Bill intends to achieve, and as such it is vital that we ensure that the meaning of environmental protection provided in the Bill is as effective as possible. Without the amendment, statutory duties for public bodies to advise on environmental protection, such as section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006—which we all refer to as the NERC Act—which places a duty on Natural England to provide advice at the request of a public authority, would not be considered environmental law.
The OEP would not be able to monitor or enforce this kind of legislative provision and the Secretary of State would also not be obliged to make a statement about any new legislation in this place. Therefore, not including “advising” in this clause would place unnecessary and unhelpful limitations on our new environmental governance framework. This would limit the Government’s ambition to be a global leader in championing the most effective policies and legislation for the environment. I therefore commend the amendment to the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister’s amendment does indeed clarify matters and enables a better definition for monitoring assessments and reporting. The Opposition are happy for the word “advising” to go into the clause, but I would like the Minister to reflect briefly on why that word, which she is now putting in as an administrative amendment, was in previous iterations of the Bill. It was in the original Bill two years ago and also in the current Bill’s immediate predecessor, which was unable to make progress because of the election. Why is it, then, that the word did not appear in the current Bill? Was it an accident? Did someone consider it inappropriate, and is the Minister now making up for that lapse? Unless it was an accident, could the Minister assure me that there was no underlying reason for leaving out the word, the reinsertion of which now requires a Government amendment, and that she has not mentioned anything that we ought to consider?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and for saying that the Opposition are happy with getting the word “advising” into this clause. I think I am at complete liberty to say that it was just a technical correction. I am pleased that it has been spotted and thank the hon. Gentleman for having done so.
Amendment 31 agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Meaning of “environmental law”
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 127, in clause 43, page 26, line 6, leave out “mainly”.
This amendment ensures that any legislative provision that concerns environmental protection is included in the definition of “environmental law”.
Clause 43 concerns itself with one word, but, as I think hon. Members will appreciate, it provides, as is the case with many Bills, the crucial underpinning of a particular part—namely, those clauses up to clause 43. In other words, it defines the words we have discussed this morning and on other occasions. Although it may appear that a great deal of debate is focused on very small parts of the Bill—on one or two words—it is important to pay attention to them and to get this right. I appreciate that we may appear not to be making the progress we would otherwise want to make, but this is essential for the overall progress of the Bill. I can reveal to the Committee that I have discussed with the Government Whip exactly how much progress we can make today, and we need to ensure that it is commensurate with getting the Bill through in good order overall. I assure hon. Members—and, indeed, you, Mr Gray—that we want to make good progress and get the Bill through in good order and in good time. I hope that what we do this morning will aid rather than impede that progress.
Clause 43 concerns itself with the meaning of environmental law. Subsection (1) states that it
“is mainly concerned with environmental protection, and…is not concerned with an excluded matter”.
Subsection (2) defines excluded matters. We are concerned about the word “mainly”. We think that legislation that defines the meaning of environmental law should be “concerned with” environmental protection, not “concerned mainly with” with environmental protection. The use of that word implies that a number of other things could be construed as not being concerned with environmental protection. Logic suggests that the inclusion of the word “mainly” admits the possibility and, indeed, the likelihood that there are things outwith that particular definition.
Subsection (2) refers to excluded matters and I think we will discuss some of those in a future debate. Nevertheless, assuming it stands, it defines what is outwith the concerns of environmental protection. The Bill itself puts forward the things that are excluded from consideration, while subsection (1) uses the word “mainly”, which adds another area of uncertainty regarding what is and what is not excluded.
Ruth Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the term “mainly concerned” is ambiguous, with no clear legal meaning? Indeed, Dr David Wolfe QC drew attention to this issue in his written evidence to the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is a mine of carefully culled information from previous sittings of the Committee, including the evidence sessions, which underline the points we are making this morning. She has set out that this is not just our concern; it is widely shared outside this Committee Room, and for that reason it deserves additional consideration.
Our case is that the word “mainly” should be removed and that the definition of environmental law should be that it is “concerned with environmental protection”. Subject to concerns that we may have about some of the areas listed under excluded matters, the fact that subsections (1) and (2) sit together should provide a very clear line of discussion about the meaning of environmental law as far as legislative provision is concerned.
Rebecca Pow
I support the broad approach to defining environmental law, which has always been our intention with clause 43. We also need to ensure, however, that the definition is practical and workable, particularly for the OEP. The definition must not give the OEP such a wide remit that it is unmanageable or intrudes into areas where it would be inappropriate for the OEP to act or to be expected to act.
Rebecca Pow
I think that is quite a good example, but the hon. Member for Cambridge might come up with another.
Daniel Zeichner
I will not come up with a counter-example, but I think many would draw a very different conclusion from the Minister’s example. I am not a lawyer, but we are advised that the term “mainly” is mainly ambiguous in law. Others have suggested that “related to” would be a better term. Why have the Government chosen “mainly” rather than “related to”?
Rebecca Pow
Just like the hon. Gentleman, we have also taken a great deal of advice and have used “mainly” for the reasons that I have set out. Although the OEP could still prioritise, it would be unhelpful for stakeholders were the OEP to be concerned in a huge range of issues that have only minor or tangential links to environmental protection or improvement.
It is important to note that the definition is already broader than it might initially seem because it applies to individual legislative provisions, so it could be part of a wider Act or statutory instrument. That means that even if most of an Act or statutory instrument is not mainly concerned with environmental protections, any specific provisions that are considered environmental law would come under the OEP’s remit. It is also worth noting that the term “mainly” is not prescribed in the Bill. The OEP and public authorities will therefore be able to interpret it in accordance with its normal—another legal word—meaning.
I appreciate the intentions of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, but the amendment is not necessary or appropriate because the existing definition is sufficiently broad and balanced with the need to maintain the OEP’s focus on the protection and improvement of the natural environmental. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for her response—she had a good go at it. We will not withdraw our concern, but as the Minister has given some reassurance about how the term “mainly” might be interpreted and has indicated that some thought was given to that prior to the Bill’s drafting, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move amendment 115, in clause 43, page 26, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment removes the exceptions for legislative provisions relating to armed forces and national security matters from the definition of ‘environmental law’ for the purposes of the scope of the OEP’s functions.
I thank the Minister for her kind words and would like to correct myself slightly because I did not welcome her back to her place earlier. I am very pleased to see her and am glad that she has recovered.
The armed forces are potentially among the biggest polluters. The evidence from Scotland demonstrates that there has to be some oversight of the potential for environmental damage. I mentioned that previously in respect of the issues that have arisen. The nuclear bases on the Clyde do some work with SEPA—the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—and local authorities to alert them to some instances, but not all. Even those scant measures are the subject of voluntary agreements rather than obligations or regulatory oversight. No information is forthcoming, however, on the rest of the defence estate across Scotland. I imagine there is nothing about the estates across England either.
We know that the MOD does environmental assessments because it told me so in answer to written questions, but that information is kept secret. That is not good enough. We all have to play our part. As I have said, no individual Department should be completely excused from shouldering that responsibility. The phrase “so far as is reasonably practical” is used in a lot of legislation from which defence and our armed forces are exempt, and it could be too easily used as a get-out when that suited. It is time for that loophole to be removed, and for oversight to be in a place whereby such activities could receive independent and robust scrutiny that—while allowing for sensitivities around national security and similar matters—ensured that activities could be monitored satisfactorily. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. We heard something about the issue with respect to previous clauses as well, and we recognise the intention behind those. Protecting our country is fundamental, which is why exemptions for the armed forces and national security are maintained. Any legislation that could be covered by those exemptions would concern highly sensitive matters that were vital to the protection of our realm, so it is appropriate to restrict the OEP’s oversight of and access to information in such areas.
We want to make it clear, so that there is absolutely no doubt, that legislative provisions relating to these matters cannot be environmental law, and so cannot fall within the OEP’s remit. Legislative provisions concerning national security would cover matters such as the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent and other policy areas vital to the protection and defence of the UK, which are of the utmost importance.
The single most important thing that we do is protect our people. It would not be appropriate for the OEP to have jurisdiction here, where its intervention could hinder vital work. We expect that such specialist matters would also be outside the OEP’s areas of expertise. As such, the OEP would not be appropriately qualified to enforce such issues. Legislative provisions concerning the armed forces would cover matters related to personnel and staffing that link to defence capability and matters such as the Armed Forces Act. It would not be appropriate for the OEP to have a role overseeing the legislation.
To be clear: the exemption does not mean that public authorities such as the MOD or any of the armed forces will be exempt from scrutiny by the OEP in respect of their implementation of environmental law—for example, a lot of MOD land has site of special scientific interest designation; it simply means that legislation concerning the armed forces or national security will be excluded from the OEP’s remit. Much of the defence land is protected land with SSSI designation. The OEP will still be able to hold public authorities accountable on that land for their statutory duties concerning the protection of the site, as the relevant legislative provisions will not be covered as regards national security or the armed forces.
The Scottish Government have, I note, taken a similar approach on the issue in section 10(3)(a) of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill 2018. They also have a number of exemptions that are not unrelated to this. It is worth noting that the Ministry of Defence has its own environmental policies, and it went into that in some detail last week. It does a great deal of good environmental work. I should mention the stone curlew project I visited, but there are many others where it is doing excellent work for protected species and habitats. It prides itself on that, and has a strong record of delivering on those commitments. On the whole, its SSSIs are in pretty good condition, so all credit to the MOD.
I know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith has done a lot of work in this area, and it is something she has talked about from the beginning. I thank her for raising this, because it gives us a chance to make the argument. Given the sensitivities and existing environmental commitments, and given my clarification that the provision does not exempt from scrutiny public authorities that are concerned with national security, I hope she will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Deidre Brock
I remind the Minister again that the Scottish Government have no control over defence issues, so it is perhaps no surprise that they have had to exempt that in the continuity Bill. I hear what she says about some scrutiny being applied, but I still feel that there is too much of a blackout around the information relating to these areas. That is what I, environmental groups and members of the public have issues with.
I appreciate that there are sensitive areas that will have to be dealt with differently, but I am afraid I remain to be convinced that the exemptions are appropriate in this day and age, and that transparency across Government is not required by the public and various environmental groups that we have all dealt with. This is certainly a principle that is very important to me. With that in mind, I will push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 43, page 26, line 11, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment removes the exceptions for legislative provisions relating to tax, spending and the allocation of resources within government from the definition of ‘environmental law’ for the purposes of the scope of the OEP’s functions.
You will be relieved to hear, Mr Gray, that I will not be pushing the amendment to a vote, although that is something I am keeping in my back pocket for the future. It seems to me that by fully exempting the main thrusts of Government policy, which are the biggest tools in the Government’s cupboard, the Government are not driving their policy towards the best possible environmental goals. By wholly exempting tax and spend from their thinking on such matters, the Government are missing a chance to engage their biggest public policy lever.
I would have thought that at least some consideration of these issues would have been useful for the Government. That would have shown real commitment to change, improvement, making a future unlike the past and putting the environment at the middle of decision making. As I have said in the past, I appreciate the Minister’s sincerity and her belief in these issues, but surely she does not want it to look as though the Government are merely ticking a box to say that the gap left by Brexit is being filled. Instead, she can show that there is an environmental heart to this legislation and this Government, not simply warm words. Here is an opportunity to prove that.
I am particularly keen to hear the Minister’s reasoning behind the exemption, because it seems that the Government are missing a trick by not showing their commitment to environmental issues on this particular point.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling her amendment and for saying she will not push it to a vote. Although I recognise the intention behind the amendment, it is important that the exemption is maintained to ensure sound economic and fiscal decision making. It would be inappropriate for the OEP to have oversight of the implementation of legislative provisions that specifically concerned taxation, spending or the allocation of resources, as the OEP needs to keep its focus on the protection of the natural environment.
Legislation regarding taxation is developed by Treasury Ministers, as the hon. Lady knows, and it is important that they are able to set taxes to raise the revenue that allows us to deliver essential services, such as the NHS, policing, education and schools—all those things that we all need and want. It would not be appropriate for the OEP to have jurisdiction over this area or over the administration of taxation regimes by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
I want to give a bit of clarity on this, as I think there may be some confusion: the term “taxation” does not extend to legislation relating to regulatory schemes such as the plastic bag charge, which was particularly successful, or the imposition of fees to cover the cost of a regulatory regime. Therefore, legislation relating to these matters could be considered within environmental law, and the OEP could take enforcement action if the public authority failed to comply.
The words
“spending and the allocation of resources within government”
refer to decisions about how money and resources are designated within and between Departments. When specifically considering the exclusion or allocation of resources, it is important to note that it is only the legislative provisions on this subject that are excluded. It is just a matter of being very clear about that, as there are many other areas, such as the plastic bag charge, where the OEP will be able to engage.
If a public authority were to argue that it did not have adequate resources to implement an environmental law, that would not stop the legislative provisions in question being environmental law, although the authority’s comments on its resources could, of course, be considered during the OEP’s investigation. On those grounds, I ask the hon. Member whether she might withdraw her amendment, now that I have given her more clarity.
Deidre Brock
I thank the Minister for her comments, which have provided me with some clarity. As I said, I will not be pressing this matter to a vote, although I think I will pursue it in the future. We are all well aware of the Treasury’s track record in resisting attempts to constrain its activities in any way—I suspect there has been some arm twisting done behind the scenes on this one—and this is an issue I will revisit. I thank her again for her words and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 32, in clause 43, page 26, line 16, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Amendment 33, in clause 43, page 26, line 21, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Amendment 34, in clause 43, page 26, line 22, leave out “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.
See Amendment 28.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Interpretation of Part 1: General
Amendments made: 35, in clause 44, page 27, line 7, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Amendment 36, in clause 44, page 27, line 17, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.—(Rebecca Pow.)
The Chair
We come to amendment 78. It was not moved previously by any member of the Committee, but if any member of the Committee wished to move it now, they would be welcome to do so.
Dr Whitehead
I would like to. This amendment, as hon. Members will see, Mr Gray, was tabled by two previous members of the Committee. With the effluxion of time, however, they are no longer members of the Committee, for reasons of ascent—
Dr Whitehead
Elevated indeed, to higher and more august posts in the Opposition ranks. They are therefore no longer on the Committee, but that does not mean that what they put forward should have less consideration by the Committee.
The fact that additional consideration should be given is underlined by the information that we received just before the Committee met, which was that the Government proposed to table amendments that will come up later in the Bill’s consideration, concerning illegal deforestation in supply chains and the due diligence to be carried out in connection with those supply chains. Hon. Members will see from the latest marshalled list of amendments that those amendments—a new clause, which we will debate later, and a defining amendment that will be debated a little earlier than that—have now indeed been tabled.
The amendments, in essence, adopt substantial parts of another amendment that was tabled by some hon. Friends and will appear as new clause 5, which we will debate much later. This concerns the question of due diligence in respect of overseas supplies of timber, for example, and various other elements such as that. I suggest that my amendment was an essential defining part of new clause 5, which has in effect been run with by the Government in the proposals they have just tabled. There is a complete chain of connection between all those.
In that context, what is missing from the Bill is a definition not just of environmental harm, whether direct or indirect, but of what is meant in that context by the global footprint of environmental harm or environmental activity. By tabling their amendments, the Government are strongly indicating that the global footprint of environmental harm is a key element of the Bill.
I am delighted that the Government have tabled their amendments, because they cover an area that a lot of people have been concerned about for a long time. We will debate the detail when we get to the new clause, but the fact that the Government have considered the issue, listened and looked at what is before us in Committee—
Ruth Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is good to see the Government using the important proposal tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) as a stepping stone to improve the Bill? We should welcome the Government doing that.
Dr Whitehead
Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend reminds me of the constituencies of our hon. Friends who tabled new clause 5, so I may now refer to them.
The amendments that the Government have tabled are important and we welcome them. We would like to add to our welcome the idea that the definition in the clause––which is, after all, as I have emphasised, an interpretation clause to ensure that we know the content, detail and background––should be placed so that it links not only to what we have already discussed in the Bill but to what is in the Government amendments. This will be our only opportunity to discuss this because, by the time we get to the Government amendments, we will have gone past this section of the Bill, so it is important that we decide this one way or the other today.
The Chair
I apologise to the Committee. I had not spotted the fact that this amendment was debated on a previous occasion and that we therefore should not be having a second debate on it but should have moved it formally.
Amendment proposed: 78, in clause 44, page 27, line 24, at end insert—
“‘global footprint’ means—
(a) direct and indirect environmental harm, caused by, and
(b) human rights violations arising in connection with the production, transportation or other handling of goods which are imported, manufactured, processed, or sold (whether for the production of other goods or otherwise), including but not limited to direct and indirect harm associated with—
(i) greenhouse gas emissions;
(ii) ecosystem conversion and degradation;
(iii) deforestation and forest degradation;
(iv) biodiversity loss;
(v) water pollution and abstraction; and
(vi) air pollution.”—(Dr Whitehead.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Improving the Natural Environment: Northern Ireland
Amendment proposed: 194, page 127, line 6, schedule 2, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
‘(4) An environmental improvement plan must set out—
(a) the steps that the Department intends to take to improve the natural environment;
(b) any steps that any other Northern Ireland department intends to take to improve the natural environment;
(c) long-term targets, setting a measurable standard which must be achieved by a specified date that is no less than 15 years after the target is set; and
(d) interim targets relating to each long-term target, setting a measurable standard which must be achieved by a specified date that is—
(i) no more than 5 years after the target is set; and
(ii) no more than 5 years after the most recent review of the environmental improvement plan.
(4A) It is the duty of the Department to ensure that all long-term and interim targets set in an environmental improvement plan are met and the Department must publish an annual report stating how it is meeting these targets.” —(Deidre Brock.)
The amendment will ensure that Northern Ireland has interim and long-term environmental targets, and places a duty on the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to ensure these targets are met.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Amendment made: 65, page 132, line 1, schedule 2, after “considering” insert “advising”. —(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment makes provision for Northern Ireland equivalent to the provision made by Amendment 31.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
The Office for Environmental Protection: Northern Ireland
Amendment made: 66, in schedule 3, page 133, line 33, at end insert—
“(2A) But the OEP must not monitor the implementation of, or report on, a matter within the remit of the Committee on Climate Change.
(2B) A matter is within the remit of the Committee on Climate Change if it is a matter on which the Committee is, or may be, required to advise or report under Part 1, sections 34 to 36, or section 48 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment modifies the OEP’s duty to monitor, and power to report on, the implementation of Northern Ireland environmental law under paragraph 2 of Schedule 3. It provides that the OEP must not monitor or report on matters within the remit of the Committee on Climate Change, which is defined in sub-paragraph (2B) by reference to specified provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008.
Rebecca Pow
I beg to move amendment 221, in schedule 3, page 146, line 24, at end insert—
“22A (1) Section (Guidance on OEP’s enforcement policy and functions) (guidance on OEP’s enforcement policy and functions) is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection (1) insert ‘, so far as relating to the OEP’s Part 1 enforcement functions.’
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a) after ‘policy,’ insert ‘so far as relating to its Part 1 enforcement functions,’;
(b) in paragraph (b) for ‘enforcement functions’ substitute ‘Part 1 enforcement functions’.
(4) In subsection (5) for “enforcement functions” substitute ‘Part 1 enforcement functions’.”
Schedule 3 to the Bill confers on the OEP enforcement functions in relation to Northern Ireland, which are similar to its enforcement functions under Part 1 of the Bill. Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under NC24 is not to apply to the enforcement functions conferred by Schedule 3, which are devolved. This amendment ensures that when Schedule 3 comes into force, the guidance power under NC24 will be limited to the OEP’s enforcement functions under Part 1 of the Bill and will not include its enforcement functions under Schedule 3.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 24—Guidance on OEP’s enforcement policy and functions.
Rebecca Pow
That was a massive canter or, actually, a gallop. We have whizzed on. The amendment and new clause will provide a power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in clause 22(6) concerning its enforcement policy. The OEP will be required to have regard to this guidance in preparing its enforcement policy and in carrying out its enforcement functions. This is an important new provision, which will allow the Secretary of State to seek to address any ambiguities or issues relating to the OEP’s enforcement functions where necessary. We expect the OEP to develop an effective and proportionate enforcement policy in any event, but Secretary of State guidance can act as a helpful resource for the OEP in the process. For example, the Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP relating to how it should respect the integrity of other statutory regimes, including those implemented by regulators such as the Environment Agency. That could also be invaluable to resolve and clarify any confusion that may arise regarding the wider environmental regulatory landscape.
As the Minister ultimately responsible to Parliament for the OEP’s use of public money, it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should be able to act if the OEP were not exercising its functions effectively or needed guidance from the Secretary of State to be able to do so, for instance, if it were failing to act strategically and, therefore, not taking appropriate action in relation to major systematic issues. The new clause will not provide the Secretary of State with any power to issue directions to the OEP—that is important—or to intervene in specific decisions. Rather, the OEP is simply required to have regard to the guidance in preparing its enforcement policy and exercising its enforcement functions. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must exercise the power in line with the provision in paragraph 17 of schedule 1, which requires them to
“have regard to the need to protect”
the OEP’s independence. That is important as well.
Rebecca Pow
May I just finish? Any guidance must also be laid before Parliament and published. That means that the process will be transparent, and the Secretary of State will ultimately be accountable to Parliament.
There are precedents elsewhere in legislation for this type of approach. For example, the Climate Change Act 2007 provides for the Secretary of State to give guidance to the Committee on Climate Change—a body that is considered to be highly effective and independent.
Daniel Zeichner
This is very important, and it came as a surprise to many of us that the Government are introducing it as an amendment. Will the Minister explain why it was not in the Bill originally? What was the process that led to the introduction of these amendments?
Rebecca Pow
As usual, much debate and discussion went on. It is all about transparency and clarity for the OEP—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is raising his eyebrows. The Opposition are always seeking to suggest that there is something underhand going on, but I wear my heart on my sleeve, and this is all in the interests of transparency. There is a whole flowchart about how the OEP will remain independent. Schedule 1(17) sets out that the Secretary of State must be aware of the independence of the OEP. It is about giving much more clarity and focus to the way that the OEP will operate.
Amendment 221 is a consequential amendment to schedule 3, which provides an option to extend the OEP’s funtions to apply to devolved matters in the future. As the functions conferred by schedule 3 are devolved, the amendment ensures that, if schedule 3 comes into force, any guidance issued under new clause 24 will not apply to those devolved functions. Amendment 221 is therefore necessary to ensure that new clause 24 is compatible with the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland. It leaves the Government the flexibility to assist the OEP through guidance if ever necessary while ensuring that it remains an independent enforcement body. In the light of that, amendment 221 is essential to ensuring that new clause 24 is compatible with the devolution settlement for Northern Ireland.
Dr Whitehead
I do not have any great objections to this clause, but we should reflect on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. It is a bit shocking that this proposal was not in the Bill previously. This section is about ensuring that the OEP is set up and functions well in Northern Ireland, with all the issues that go with devolved government and the replication of its functions in the Province. Yet the ability to transfer functions on a devolved basis appears not to have occurred to the framers of the Bill before it was put before us. It is only after what in this context we might call the fortunate suspension of the Bill for quite a long time that it has been possible to reflect on that omission and this amendment appears before us. That is a bit concerning, in terms of what else in the Bill might not do justice particularly to the devolution settlements. That is a worry, but we are not worried about the actual content that has appeared. Therefore, we do not want to divide the Committee on this amendment.
Amendment 221 agreed to.
Amendment made: 67, in schedule 3, page 148, line 18, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”. —(Rebecca Pow.)
Environment Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Tuesday 10th November 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 November 2020 - (10 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
There are two things on which I want to reflect. We must remember that the schedule concerns the Northern Ireland function of the Office for Environmental Protection, and should effectively provide the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly with a reasonable replica of what is required to set up the OEP in England and Wales. At the same time, it should provide for substantial reporting and discretion to the Assembly by the OEP.
A particular concern, about which I hope the Minister will reflect and respond, is that that replication of the OEP’s operation for its Northern Ireland function is not as close as it could be. Amendment 194, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who both represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, was discussed earlier as part of a debate on a group of amendments, so we did not actually discuss its content. I draw the Committee’s attention to the effect that amendment would have on the OEP in Northern Ireland: it sought essentially to provide a mechanism for long-term and interim targets.
That mechanism was the same as the one for the OEP response to targets set out in clauses 1 to 6. Although there is reference to those targets in general, it is very different from clause 1. Indeed, it does not include, for example, achievement measures and does not specifically discuss interim targets. That could have been resolved with the amendment, as the formulation is different from the one for England and Wales. I wonder whether that has arisen by commission or omission. Was the Government’s intention that there should be different arrangements relating to targets and interim targets for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland? Was their intention that the OEP should have different responsibilities towards targets in Northern Ireland? That is the first concern.
The second concern relates to the formulation of the requirement for Ministers to lay before Parliament the notices and legal actions that the OEP has introduced in respect of environmental law and environmental protection. Hon. Members will see that there is a repetition of our earlier debate about what we characterised as a particularly egregious “may” and “must” issue. Clause 3(6), on page 134 of the Bill states:
“The Northern Ireland department concerned may, if it thinks fit, lay before the Northern Ireland Assembly— (a) the advice, and (b) any response that department may make to the advice.”
Hon. Members will recall that is exactly what we debated, and whether the Minister responsible might decide that he or she would lay something before Parliament or, on the other hand, they might decide that they would not lay something before Parliament, and that was the end of that. We expressed concern about what we thought was a very poor formulation, as far as the UK Parliament was concerned, when we discussed the relevant amendment.
In the first instance, it looks as if that formulation is simply being repeated as far as the OEP and the Minister are concerned, in Northern Ireland, but there is a difference: it is not the Minister who may lay something before the Northern Ireland Assembly if he or she sees fit, but the Northern Ireland Department. I am puzzled by that formulation. How it is possible for an entire Department to think that something is fit, or not? In the formulation used in the England and Wales version, there is a person—the Minister—who must decide whether or not it is fit. We criticised the potential actions of that person in not thinking that something was fit.
I am puzzled about how this will work. Someone, somewhere, may or may not decide to lay something before the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is okay as far as it goes, but we do not like the idea of “may or may not”. However, I do not think what we are considering is a particularly easy legal concept: not only an entire Department thinking fit, but an entire Department thinking at all. The formulation that the Department “thinks fit” would require an entire Department to decide something, and an entire Department then to decide whether what it thought fit would be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly.
There is no identified person at any stage in this to whom the Northern Ireland Assembly say, “We would rather you had put that in front of us. Why have you not, and why did you not think it was fit to put that in front of us?” Instead, they presumably have to knock on the door of the UK’s Northern Ireland Office and ask to speak to someone who could shed some light on that, then pursue how that thinking and fitness came about in the corridors of that Office.
That seems to be a very strange formulation. Can the Minister elucidate whether that means that an individual, one way or another, is responsible in the Northern Ireland Office and can be identified and can take the responsibility for thinking fit or otherwise? Or is it just a formulation that is so legally opaque as to make it virtually unworkable? If that is the case, would the Minister think about taking that away and thinking again about how the provision is formulated as far as Northern Ireland is concerned?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I want to be clear that, as part of our dual commitment to a strong Union and protecting and enhancing the natural environment, the Northern Ireland Executive have asked us to extend certain aspects of our new environmental governance framework to Northern Ireland, subject to affirmation from the Assembly. A great deal of discussion has gone into that, and the Executive asked for that. I want to be clear about that. They do not believe it is clouded in opaqueness, because they have been fully engaged.
Schedule 3 provides an option to extend the OEP’s functions to apply to devolved matters in Northern Ireland in the future, should the Assembly decide to do so. That is important. The shadow Minister touched on targets, but we voted on that earlier in schedule 2, so I do not think that is necessarily relevant to what we are talking about now.
The provisions in part 1 of schedule 3 will provide the OEP with powers in Northern Ireland broadly equivalent to those in England. For example, the OEP will be able to monitor and report on the implementation of Northern Irish environmental law, much as it would be able to do in England under clause 26. Similarly, schedule 3 provides for the extension of the OEP’s enforcement functions to Northern Ireland, taking into account the two nations’ different court systems. Part 2 will provide for the OEP to adapt its operating procedures appropriately if extended to cover devolved matters in Northern Ireland, and amends the general functions of the OEP so they may adequately apply to Northern Ireland. For example, part 2 ensures appropriate Northern Ireland representation on the OEP board and ensures that the OEP’s remit covers Northern Irish environmental law. Schedule 3 is essential to ensure the extension of the OEP to Northern Ireland should the Assembly decide to do that. I hope that I have made that quite clear.
Dr Whitehead
I do not think the Minister has clarified what paragraph 3(6) of schedule 3 means. I offered a possible interpretation of what that clause meant—it appears to say that an entire Department is responsible for thinking, and for thinking something fit. I assume that the entire Department that is mentioned in the provision is the Northern Ireland Department concerned, so that, as the Minister said, should these matters proceed properly towards devolution, there will be—she said that there has been, as I anticipated there should have been— extensive discussion with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland on how this will work and what it means, and that a substantial part of this process is at their request. It is important to understand, since we are making legislation here for that to work there, what this actually means. I assume that it does not mean that the UK Northern Ireland Office is responsible, if it thinks fit, for laying before the Northern Assembly—
Rebecca Pow
First, I want to clarify the fact that the decision to commence provisions to extend the OEP to devolved matters to Northern Ireland is a matter for Northern Ireland Ministers and for affirmation by the Assembly. I also want to point out that it is common practice for Northern Ireland to confer powers on a Department. Departmental functions are exercised subject to the direction and control of the departmental Minister, as set out in the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for that. That is very helpful. If it is the case that a Department, in Northern Ireland practice, effectively takes its cue for these things from the Minister in the Department that is responsible, that potentially answers my particular question. I have not heard that before, but it would be good if we could be assured that that is what will happen in practice once that goes into devolution—that there will be a person responsible for thinking fit, namely, the Minister in that Department.
Rebecca Pow
I will intervene again and give those assurances. I send a great many letters to my counterpart in that Department. We have a lot of toing and froing, so the hon. Gentleman can be assured that there is a lot of communication. We want it to work for Northern Ireland the way that they want it to work
Dr Whitehead
Absolutely, and that is what we want to do as well. That is why we want to ensure that it works as well as it should. It appears, I hope, that this formulation, strange as it looks, is capable of being operated in a sound way, as far as the Assembly is concerned for the future, and that people will not be running around corridors asking a building to think, but running around corridors asking the Minister to think, which is what I thought should have been in the Bill. If it works that way round, that is fine. I thank the Minister for her clarification. I have no intention of opposing the schedule.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Producer responsibility obligations
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 16, in schedule 4, page 151, line 12, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
It is still a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, even though we are not mentioning that. It is lovely to have the Minister back in her rightful place. The Environment Bill is very important and long overdue, as we have heard. I want to touch on the reason we are here, what we are dealing with, and how we can honour the pledges and promises made to the people of the United Kingdom, primarily in England.
The Bill, according to the Government’s published paper, comprises two thematic halves. The first provides a legal framework for environmental governance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test so knowledgably touched on this morning and last week. The second half of the Bill makes provision for specific improvement of the environment, including measures on waste and resource efficiency, which we are discussing today. In the coming days, we will cover air quality and environmental recall; water; nature and biodiversity; and conservation covenants. They will all be discussed. We need to get the Bill right to ensure that we honour the promise to provide a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation—a promise that the Minister and many Government Members heralded at every opportunity, at least until the Bill disappeared back in March. It is so good to have it back.
That is why Her Majesty’s Opposition have tabled this amendment. We must not have a Bill that is made up of passive “mays” or “coulds”; we need “wills” and “musts”. Many in this House and across England, and those in the sector, have waited hundreds of days for the missing-in-action Bill. Now that it is back and we are here in Committee, we must not waste—I apologise for the pun—the opportunity to have the strongest possible legislation, so we have tabled the amendment.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for proposing the amendment. I also welcome her taking up the cudgels—perhaps I should say something less aggressive.
Rebecca Pow
Yes, taking up the baton on behalf of the Opposition. May I assure the hon. Member for Newport West that the Government have every intention of making regulations using schedule 4? The Bill creates producer responsibility obligations in respect of specified products or materials. That is one of a number of provisions that will enable us to take action significantly to improve the environmental performance of products across their entire life cycle—from the raw material used, to end-of-life management. Other powers in the Bill include our ability in schedule 5 to require producers to pay disposal costs for their products; our powers in schedule 6 to introduce deposit return schemes; and the powers in schedule 7 to set resource efficiency standards in relation to the design and lifetime of products.
The Government need the flexibility to decide what measures will best deliver the outcomes that we want. Imposing producer responsibility obligations in all cases may not be appropriate. The power is drafted in a way that gives us the flexibility to choose the appropriate measure or combination of measures for any product, and to decide which producers are obligated, the obligations on them, and the steps that they need to take to demonstrate that they have met their obligations.
In this instance, we will use these powers to introduce new regulations for producer packaging responsibility. That will increase the reuse and recycling of packaging and reduce the use of unnecessary and avoidable packaging. In 2019, we consulted with the devolved Administrations on proposals to reform the regulations, and we will consult again in 2021, so it is a lengthy process, but a lot of discussion has informed this. In the resources and waste strategy for England, we made commitments relating to updating our already up-and-running producer responsibility schemes on waste electricals, waste batteries and end-of-life vehicles; these powers are needed to implement those commitments. We also committed to taking action to address food waste.
Products vary. They have different supply chains, use different materials and have different impacts on the environment. That is why we need to be able to introduce product-specific regulations, using the appropriate powers. This power provides the flexibility to impose producer responsibility obligations where it is appropriate to do so, and that flexibility would be removed by the amendment. I therefore ask the hon. Member to kindly withdraw it.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her comments. I take the point about flexibility; in my previous job as a physiotherapist, however, we had both flexibility and control. Splints and corsets were very useful in ensuring flexibility in confined areas. That is why the “mays” should be turned into “musts”. The grammar is important to us. But I take the point, and this is a probing amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 158, in schedule 4, page 151, line 16, after “waste” insert
“, reducing the consumption of virgin materials,”.
This amendment is about taking strengthened measures on tackling waste. It refers to virgin materials, which the Minister mentioned previously. For the benefit of those outside these walls who are maybe not as knowledgeable as the Committee, these are materials like new paper or plastic.
This amendment, although specific and focused in its approach, seeks to ensure the Bill includes the strongest possible measures to tackle waste. The wider focus on the obligations and responsibilities of producers is important—not because the Bill will directly impact those parts of the world outside the UK, but because of the need to get our own house in order in the UK, and in England specifically. We need to do this because it is important to set an example to others, and the Minister alluded to this in discussions about COP26 next year.
We want a strong Bill. If colleagues support this amendment, we will help deliver a strong Environment Bill with a strengthened schedule 4. It would make clear to the producers of materials used in everyday life that they have responsibilities and we are going to hold them to account.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I welcome the intention behind the schedule, which is to shift the burden of disposal costs from local authorities and the taxpayer to producers; the burden on them has historically been too low. I also welcome the shift in this Bill towards tackling food waste. I have been campaigning on this in Wandsworth borough for many years, and to see that it will be in the legislation and has to be addressed by the council is very welcome. However, in some ways, the drafting is too loose; as often in this Bill, it needs some tightening up, and I hope that these Labour amendments will be useful in doing that.
In terms of virgin materials, it is not good enough to focus on the end-of-life solutions for materials. The schemes introduced under this schedule need to incentivise producers to make the right decisions at the start of the process, as well as ensuring that they fulfil environmental responsibilities at the end. As the UK Environmental Law Association recommends, the Government need to clearly signal that extended producer responsibility covers the full life cycle, not only waste disposal. Reducing virgin material use is key to this, and to the Bill being as ambitious as we want it to be. Amendment 158 adds some words to ensure this.
Virgin materials include timber, plastic resin derived from the petroleum refining process and mined materials. This amendment would ensure that the producer responsibility scheme considers upstream measures that tackle consumption and production as well as waste minimisation. Although waste minimisation is important, it is not sufficient by itself to guarantee a reduction in virgin material use. Without adding this amendment, we cannot be sure the outcome will be the reduction that we need to see.
Manufacturing products with virgin materials usually requires much more energy and depletes more natural resources than using recycled materials, so when we reduce their use, there is also an offset for other processes. Action to reduce usage of virgin materials is essential to tackle overall depletion.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for her interest in this provision and for this amendment. I reassure her and the Committee that the amendment is not needed.
Reducing the consumption of virgin materials is important; we all agree on that. In our 25-year environment plan, we stated our long-term ambition of doubling resource productivity by 2050. That is about maximising the value and benefits we get from our resources, and managing these resources more sustainably to reduce associated environmental impacts.
I can assure the hon. Member for Putney that we are tackling this issue in the Bill. We have powers in schedule 5 to require producers to pay the disposal costs of the products or materials they place on the market, and for these costs to be varied according to the design or consumption of the products. Through the costs that producers pay, they can be incentivised to design and manufacture products that use fewer materials, that include more recycled materials, and are much easier to recycle and break down, so that the parts can be reused elsewhere.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
In my constituency, as in many others, I suspect, there is often difficulty getting recycling plants put in. I completely agree with the Bill’s intention to shift the cost to producers. However, what proposals are there to get recycling plants and places to process the waste, paid for by the producers, put in the right places? One could spend all the money one likes, but if there is nowhere to get the waste recycled, it cannot be recycled.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend. He touches on the crux of the matter. This is all-encompassing. We are driving towards what we call a circular economy. That is the purpose of the measures on waste and resources. They will ensure consistent collections, though we have not got on to that yet, and require products to be more recyclable, but we will need them to be collected and recycled. That will drive the demand for those plants to be established in the right place. Things will join up much better than they do today. That is what the measures in the Bill are all about. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. This should make the whole procedure a more complete circle.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Do the Government intend to invest in some of those recycling centres, or is the intention to leave it to the private sector to fill that need? That is a topic I have been pursuing lately and I am interested to hear the Minister’s views.
Rebecca Pow
That topic is not referenced in the Bill. Those are issues relating to how the regulations will work when it comes to producer responsibility and deposit return. Local authorities will still play a huge role, but the great point is that they will not be responsible for all the costs any more. What is brilliant is that the costs will be shifted on to the businesses. They will then be forced to design products that are much easier to recycle. That brings us again to the circular economy. I thank the hon. Lady for raising another good point.
The measures will help us to tackle waste from the beginning of the life cycle, and complement measures elsewhere in the Bill that support the later stages of that cycle. There are also powers in schedule 7 that will allow resource efficiency requirements to be placed on specified products. Those requirements will relate to factors such as the materials from which the product is manufactured, and the resources consumed during its production. For instance, thinking off the top of my head, one could say that clothing or textiles must contain a certain amount of recycled fibre. There could be a requirement to use fewer virgin materials or more recycled materials in the manufacture of the product.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Putney welcomes the schedule. It is great to have that positivity, and I applaud her work on food waste. It is very exciting that it will become law for food waste to be collected. That will be an important part of the Bill, because while some local authorities, such as mine in Taunton Deane, do collect it, loads do not. Much of it ends up in landfill, giving off emissions. We could make so much better use of it, and could focus attention on how much food waste is produced, which is frankly shocking.
Dr Whitehead
Is the Minister’s example of requiring a certain proportion of textiles to include recycled materials now a policy?
Rebecca Pow
I was just giving a random example, off the top of my head. I do not see any policies written here. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to catch me out?
Rebecca Pow
The measures are the kind of thing that will open up the doors to all those opportunities.
The Chair
If it is any comfort to the Minister, she was deviating slightly from the content of the amendment.
Rebecca Pow
I was, and I thought the Chairman was going to interrupt me when I mentioned all the food.
Finally, schedule 4 allows us to set obligations on producers in relation to reuse, redistribution, recovery and recycling. All that will contribute to a more resource-efficient economy. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance, in which she stressed the importance of the cyclical nature of the production of goods. We must break the cycle of new, new, new. I am risking the wrath of the Chair, but when I sat on the Environmental Audit Committee, we had an investigation and report into the throwaway nature of the fashion industry; that is very relevant to the Bill.
I thank the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for mentioning the importance of recycling centres. There is no point in everyone sorting their recycling at home if there is nowhere to recycle things. That is an important part of the process, which is why we will press after the legislation is enacted to ensure that happens. Having received the Minister’s reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 159, in schedule 4, page 151, line 32, after “be” insert “prevented, reduced,”.
As you might notice, the amendment is very similar to others put before the Committee today. It focuses on the strength of the language that Ministers have chosen to use in the Bill. In recent days, my hon. Friends the Member for Southampton, Test and for Cambridge and I have said that we will hold Ministers to their promise to deliver a once-in-a-generation Bill. “Once in a generation” means it has to be big, bold and comprehensive. That is why we are calling on the Minister to use the strongest language in the Bill. I implore the Minister to be ambitious and bold in the text that is used.
I want to be helpful. I want the Minister to be able to sing from the rooftops about the Bill. I hope she will acknowledge the Opposition’s willingness to make it an even better Bill that really delivers for people across the whole UK. Let us not limit ourselves to moving things around, or shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic. Let us use this Bill to deliver real, long-term change.
The amendment would add “prevented” and “reduced” to the Bill, so that it does not just say “reused” and “redistributed”. We want the country to cut its reliance on plastics and paper, and to tackle waste in a meaningful way. Once again, the amendment will help deliver a strong Environment Bill with a strong schedule 4.
Fleur Anderson
As my hon. Friend has described so well, the amendment would widen the powers, so that producer responsibility regulations allowed targets for waste prevention and reduction, not just reusing and recycling. That is absolutely vital to achieving real carbon reduction and real waste reduction.
Waste prevention focuses on reducing the amount of waste generated from the source. It involves looking at manufacturing, processing, packaging, storage, recycling and disposal processes, to identify opportunities to manage waste and minimise the impact on the environment.
Although this looks like a minor amendment, the two words to be added would create another dimension to the powers of the Bill and the impacts it covers. activities would include mapping packaging and production waste to inform and develop good practice, and developing recommendations and strategies for prevention, recovery and reuse. The words “prevention” and “reduction” are essential for doing that. An example from real life is utensils. The measures would look not just at plastic utensils and how to deal with them when they are thrown away, but reusing utensils from the start, so there is no re-packaging to look at. I have been campaigning about nappies, which form a huge part of our landfill. Preventing the use of disposable nappies would incentivise producers. “Prevention” could be a game-changing additional word in the Bill. A home composting scheme run by my neighbouring borough of Lambeth looks at the prevention of waste right from the beginning, in the home.
This provision would enhance the Bill. I endorse the addition of the words “prevented” and “reduced” .
Dr Whitehead
I want to add a little bit of context to amendment 159. As my hon. Friends the Members for Putney and for Newport West have already mentioned, it increases the dimension within which these issues can be considered in terms of targets. It does so not by an accidental addition of words, but essentially by adding what is in the Government’s White Paper “Our waste, our resources: a strategy for England”, which was published in 2018.
In that White Paper, the Government fully embrace the notion of the waste hierarchy, and the document contains lots of good charts to illustrate it. At the bottom of the waste hierarchy are things such as landfill. Moving up the hierarchy, we find energy from waste, which is still pretty low in the hierarchy; after that, it is necessary to start recycling. From a policy point of view, measures should always drive waste as far up the hierarchy as possible. If it is possible to recycle waste, rather than putting it into an incinerator as an alternative to burying it in the land, that is what should be done. If, however, there is residual waste that cannot be incinerated or recycled—there is some of that in the waste stream—it should be put into landfill, but only on a residual basis. We would hope that over time, the amount of waste going into landfill will be virtually nil, because we have moved up the waste hierarchy in terms of how the system works.
In the waste hierarchy, there are two other categories above recycling: reducing and preventing. The best way to handle a waste stream is to make sure that there is less waste in it in the first place, and that it contains only things that cannot be reused or prevented from arising. At that point, we would be dealing, pretty much, with a residual waste stream when it came to volume and climate change energy considerations. In the whole waste stream, the only waste to be addressed would be residual waste from a largely circular economy, in which products are designed to come apart so that the parts can be put to other uses, and, through industrial symbiosis, products that one company views as waste are presented to other organisations as raw material.
That process is possible only if product design or articulation allows it to happen. For example, the expectation would be that a vehicle could be taken apart and all the components—even if they are made of different elements, and they are not all metal or plastic—would be sufficiently pure and reusable to be used as the raw material for something else straight away. As we will discuss later, that is particularly important with the coming upon us of electric vehicles. If electric vehicles cannot be taken apart—in particular, if their batteries cannot be taken apart to recover the rare earth elements, lithium and other materials for use in other batteries, so that they are not put into the waste stream in the first place—we are not very far down the line of recycling.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend speaks with passion and experience on this issue. This is not novel, so I have found myself wondering, exactly as he does, why those words have been excluded. Would he care to speculate on why the Government would choose not to have them in the Bill?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend, as always, makes an important point about what is and is not in the legislation. I would expect him to have similar views about other words. It seems plain to me that if the waste hierarchy is to be adopted, all the components of that hierarchy must be in the description. They are not there, and I cannot speculate on why not. It may be that those who drafted the Bill were not fully aware of the waste White Paper when they sat down late at night to write that passage. If they were not, they should have been. The amendment would offer an opportunity to rectify that omission. We are not suggesting that there was any malevolent intention; perhaps it is just an omission. I hope the Minister can oblige us by ensuring that the words sit proudly in the Bill, alongside Government policy.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Newport West for the proposed amendment. Although I recognise the intentions behind it, I must disagree with it. She pressed the Government to be as ambitious as possible, and I assure her that we are being ambitious. I am delighted that we think in the same way in wanting the highest ambition; I like to think that we are as one on that.
I do not believe we need the amendment. The power, as drafted, already allows us to place obligations, including targets, on producers to prevent waste or to reduce the amount of a product or material that becomes waste. Paragraph 2(2) gives examples of how targets may be set. They include, but are not limited to, the setting of targets to increase the proportion of a product or material that is reused, redistributed, recycled or recovered to prevent it from becoming waste. Those examples do not prevent the powers in schedule 4 from being used to set targets in relation to preventing waste from being produced, or reducing the amount of waste that is produced.
Producer responsibility obligations could be set as targets to incentivise producers to prevent or reduce waste, but they do not have to be set only as targets. We can all get a bit hung up on targets. Targets are important, but we could use the powers, for example, to require producers to take specific action to tackle waste, such as by requiring retailers to take back products. There is a lot of work in this space in the area of electronic waste, where department stores are expected to take back products. Another possibility could be single-use cups, once they have been used. Obligations such as this should create a strong incentive to create less waste in the first place: I think we are all agreed that that is what we are driving towards.
The hon. Member for Putney made a similar case about the circular economy. I applaud her work on nappies; I was one of those mothers. I have three children, and—this was a long time ago, when people were not talking about this sort of thing—with my first child, I used only washable nappies. Can you imagine, Mr Gray, how much work that was? Oh my goodness—not to mention the smell! I am not digressing, because this is all relevant. I was a news reporter at the time, and I interviewed a lady who had set up a business making these nappies, so I thought, “I am going to use those.” In fact, I think I used my child allowance support to pay for them. That was what I had decided I would do, but it was a labour of love.
The point is that through all these measures in the Bill, manufacturers of any product will be driven to think about what is in it. For example, are nappies made of recycled material? Do they have recycled content? Could they be reused? Are they washable? The Bill will drive everyone to think like that.
Rebecca Pow
Did he?
The hon. Member for Putney also raised an important point about garden waste. We have now legislated for garden waste to be collected: that is in clause 54.
I also wanted to give a quick résumé about the life cycle issue that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test touched on. He mentioned the waste hierarchy, which is basically driving towards a circular economy. That is the driving force of the resources and waste strategy, and it is the intention behind the Bill. I will whizz through the related measures in the Bill, which are about raw material, extraction and manufacturing.
The resource efficiency requirement power enables standards to be set that relate to the materials and techniques used by manufacturers, such as specifying the minimum amount of recycled fibre in clothing, as we mentioned earlier. The resource efficiency information power will drive the market by providing consumers and businesses with the information they need to make sustainable choices. I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester looking at me; in order for him to be able to make the right choices, he wants to know how sustainable a product is, so that he can buy that one as opposed to another one. There will be more information and more labelling.
On end of life, the resource efficiency powers can be used to specify that products are designed so that when they reach end of life, they can easily be dismantled—exactly as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test has outlined—and the materials can be recovered and recycled. Our powers for deposit return, extended producer responsibility and recycling collections would enable better management of products and materials at the end of life. That will increase reuse and recycling, and it will reduce the amount of material that is incinerated or landfilled.
Preventing waste from being created in the first place and reducing the amount of waste that is produced is a priority for the Government. That is why we have stated our ambition to achieve zero avoidable waste by 2050. We will do this though the measures set out in the resources and waste strategy—we seek the powers for some of those in this Bill—and through other initiatives such as the new waste prevention programme, which we hope to publish and consult on in the near future. On all those grounds, I ask the hon. Member for Newport West if she might withdraw her amendment.
Ruth Jones
What an enlightening debate we have had. In terms of one-upmanship, dare I say it, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has managed reusable nappies for four children. This debate has been useful, and it is good to have all the ideas, because only by putting all our heads together can we make this Environment Bill ground-breaking. We want it to work, and that is why our amendments are designed to help, not to hinder.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test made the important point that as well as recycling, the reusing of goods, parts and components is crucial. People want to do the right thing. Since programmes such as “Blue Planet” have come along, people are much more aware of pollution and how they can play their part. They want to do the right thing, and this Bill must make it easy for them to do so.
The Minister mentioned garden waste. At the risk of blowing Wales’s trumpet, Wales already has a successful garden waste scheme—in fact, recycling rates in Wales are very high—so perhaps she can look across the border. She also mentioned targets. If we do not have targets, how do we know if we are getting to the end of the road? How will we know if we are improving unless we set targets in the first place? We should set targets not to be punitive, but to help us to assess our progress; that is why they are important. We believe that the amendment is also important, so we will press it to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 160, in schedule 4, page 154, line 38, leave out “any” and insert “specified”.
This amendment is very similar to others that have been tabled. It focuses not on the strength of language, but rather on the choice of language that Ministers have opted for in this Bill. By leaving out “any” and inserting the word “specified”, we are looking to ensure that we deliver results, rather than a scattergun or “we hope” approach. The amendment is relatively straightforward, so the Chair will be pleased to know that I will not go on when I do not need to. I hope that Ministers will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended, because we want the Bill to have teeth and to be effective. Above all, we want it to be useful and to deliver, so this amendment seeks to ensure we are focused on results, not just on good intentions and misplaced hope. As I have said, “once in a generation” means that the Bill has to be bold, big and comprehensive, so we call on the Minister to use the right language. We believe that the amendment will help to deliver a stronger Environment Bill, with a strengthened schedule 4.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for the amendment, but I reassure her and the Committee that it is not needed. Paragraph 11(2) provides the ability to specify in regulations the activities that count as recovery. That means that the way in which energy is to be obtained from a product or material can be specified in regulations. The power is designed to be flexible, given the broad range of possible products on which we may decide to impose producer responsibility obligations. I reassure her that in making any regulations, it would be our intention to impose regulations on producers in relation to options higher up the waste hierarchy, such as prevention, reuse and recycling—all the things that we discussed earlier—as a first priority. In simple terms, it means that we will be encouraging the prevention, reuse and recycling of waste over energy recovery. I therefore ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
Having heard the Minister’s words, I am somewhat reassured, but not entirely. We will therefore not press for a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Producer responsibility for disposal costs
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 17, in schedule 5, page 157, line 9, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Earlier this afternoon, I noted how important the Bill is and how we need to ensure that it receives thorough scrutiny, so that it is as strong and coherent as it can be. With that in mind, we need to do what I urged the Committee to do earlier: get the Bill right, so that we honour and meet the promise of a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation. I remind the Minister that she and her colleagues heralded that promise at every opportunity, until the Bill disappeared in March, only to return now.
That is why we are proposing the amendment. As I noted with amendment 16 to schedule 4, we must not rest on our laurels. We cannot have a Bill that is simply made up of passive and weak “mays” and “coulds”; we need the “wills” and “musts”. The fact that we have waited so long, listening to campaigners and those active in the sector, means that we cannot waste the opportunity to deliver a strong, wide-ranging and competent piece of legislation.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for her amendment, but I reassure her that we feel it is not needed. The Government need the flexibility—I have mentioned this before—to decide what measures will best deliver the outcomes we want to see achieved. Requiring producers to pay disposal costs in all cases might not be the appropriate option.
The power is drafted to give flexibility to choose the appropriate measure, or combination of measures, for any product. It also gives us the flexibility to decide for which products or materials producers must pay disposal costs, the producers who must pay the disposal costs, the costs that they must pay and what those costs should be.
At this point, I will take a step back to reflect on what the measures will actually mean. The powers will allow us to create a strong financial incentive for businesses to do the right thing. I have spoken with businesses, and of course they want strong signals, because without them they will not be inclined to invest, innovate or go in the direction that we want them to go. That is so important.
The measures will encourage producers such as supermarkets to reduce the packaging they use in their products, so that less waste is produced. Everybody will start thinking about their products and their packaging, because they have to be responsible for what happens to it at the end of the day. It would be in the best interests of manufacturers to make products that are more reusable and recyclable. Thinking back to nappies, if they are to be reusable or rewashable, they could contain recycled fabric—in fact, that is a jolly good idea, and someone is probably already doing it. That is just an example. Such decisions should all have sustainability in mind, and the customers will see that—with the new labelling and all the information—in the products that they buy.
I can therefore reassure the hon. Member for Newport West that the Government have every intention of making regulations using schedule 5. The resources and waste strategy also commits us to reviewing and consulting on measures, including extended producer responsibility for five other waste streams by the end of 2025. Those five include textiles, construction materials and fishing gear. Along with the other products in that list, they have all been highlighted as urgent areas that could do with this kind of focus.
We need to retain the flexibility to introduce product-specific regulations using the appropriate powers, and as drafted, this power provides the flexibility to impose extended producer responsibility obligations where it is appropriate to do so. I hope that is helpful, and I therefore ask the hon. Lady whether she might withdraw her amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her words, and respectfully say that strong signals sometimes need to be backed up with strong words, which is why we wanted to amend the wording of the schedule to “must”, not “may”. However, that point having been made again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 161, in schedule 5, page 157, line 13, leave out from first “the” to end of sub-paragraph (2) and insert
“social costs incurred throughout the lifecycle of the products or materials.”
As the Committee will know, schedule 5 allows the relevant authority to make regulations that require
“those involved in manufacturing, processing, distributing or supplying products or materials”
to
“meet, or contribute to, the disposal costs”
of those products. This is all about the journey, from start to finish, of the materials that we all rely on every day, even when we do not think about it. We have already had ample examples of the kinds of recyclable things we need to consider. I have to say to the Minister and her colleagues that the issues covered by this amendment will be mentioned both now and in coming days, because the Bill lacks foresight in a number of areas, but particularly when it comes to assessing the whole life cycle. That is particularly important, and it should be part of this Bill.
Thinking through this amendment and the background to it reminded me of recent events in Sri Lanka. That reminder was further reinforced when I received the answer to a written parliamentary question that I tabled to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—for those who may be interested, it was question 109651. I asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
“what discussions he has had with his Sri Lankan counterpart on the 21 containers of waste returned to the UK from that country in September 2020.”
The answer I received from the hon. Member for Taunton Deane was as follows:
“The Environment Agency (EA), as the competent authority for waste shipments for England, is proactively engaging with the authorities in Sri Lanka on these containers and is leading the response on this matter.
The 21 containers arrived back in England on Wednesday 28 October. The containers, which were shipped to Sri Lanka in 2017, were found by Sri Lankan authorities to contain illegal materials described as mattresses and carpets which had been exported for recycling. With the shipment now back on English soil, EA”—
that is, the Environment Agency—
“enforcement officers will seek to confirm the types of waste shipped, who exported it and the producer of the waste. Those responsible could face a custodial sentence of up to two years, an unlimited fine, and the recovery of money and assets gained through the course of their criminal activity.”
That was the answer I received from the Minister, and the issues it covers show why this amendment is so necessary. There are some parts that I will be following up on outside this Committee, but its arrival in my inbox was timely for today’s debate.
The Minister’s answer to the question demonstrates that waste and the issues that go with it simply do not disappear. Containers that left the United Kingdom in 2017 and travelled across the world are now coming back to cause trouble. This Bill can design out some of those issues if Ministers want it to, and this amendment would help to ensure that it does. We need to ensure that the life journey of the materials used is followed through by their producers from start to finish, focusing not just on the waste element but on the production and useful lifetime element of these issues. I urge the Minister to think about the social costs of the issues we are discussing, not just the environmental costs. Many of these issues require a cohesive and coherent approach that deals with a number of different factors, and I hope the Minister will give proper consideration to this.
As the Committee will know from the papers, this amendment is relatively self-explanatory, but it is important, and I hope the Minister will give it serious consideration. Once again, our amendment will help to deliver a strong Environment Bill with a strengthened and more comprehensive schedule 5.
Fleur Anderson
We moved this amendment to urge the Government to go that bit further in their ambition for this Bill. We have gone this far—we have set up the office, and have put in place all of these schedules and provisions—and by going just a little bit further, we could achieve so much more. Including
“social costs incurred throughout the lifecycle of the products or materials”
in schedule 5 would make a great difference.
The Local Government Association also believes that this schedule does not go quite far enough. It is concerned that litter and fly-tipping of discarded packaging is not included in the schedule, and that greater clarity on what producer responsibility will cover is needed. It also questions why the Bill does not currently include the term “full net cost”. There is a commitment to pay local authorities, but it should set out clearly that producers will be required to pay the full net cost to councils. To achieve that, the schemes should seek to reduce consumption of materials in the first instance, reducing the full life cycle impacts arising from sectors and product groups.
That is why I urge the Minister and her Government colleagues to consider supporting amendment 161, which would address this omission by factoring social costs into the fees, alongside environmental effects. It would also ensure that fees are implemented across the full life cycle of products and packaging, rather than just, as we have said in previous amendments, the end of life impact. Such a change would incentivise responsible and sustainable design to minimise these costs in the first place and enhance the environment for us all.
Dr Whitehead
Just to add to my colleagues’ excellent expositions, I draw the Committee’s attention to the wording of the schedule. It is headed “Producer responsibility for disposal costs”—fair enough. Paragraph 1(2) talks about
“the disposal costs of the products or materials”.
It is then as if the framers of the schedule thought, “Hang on a minute, is that what we really want to do?”, because paragraph 2(2) says:
“In this Schedule the ‘disposal’ of products or materials includes their re-use, redistribution, recovery or recycling.”
In order to continue with the way that the schedule is set out, the framers have had to mangle the English language to such an extent as to make it unrecognisable. A reasonable dictionary definition of “disposal” is “the action or process of getting rid of something”. The whole point about the circular economy and the waste hierarchy is to avoid doing that as much as possible in processing waste. Rather, one should try to recycle it, reuse it and keep it in life. It should go round the circular economy for as long as possible.
This schedule therefore looks like it is facing the wrong way in its whole outlook. The amendment goes some way to putting that right by emphasising that it is about the whole life of the product: what happens after it has been used the first time and how it can best fit into the circular economy definition of continuing with its use in the economy, so that new materials do not have to be brought in because the previous materials have been disposed of.
I suggest that the amendment is tremendously helpful, because it puts right the mangling that has gone on to get the schedule into existence in the first place. While paragraph 2(2) goes some way to un-mangle the phrase, the amendment completely un-mangles it. It emphasises what we should all emphasise—indeed, it is policy to emphasise—namely the whole life; the circular life of products that go round and round in the economy.
I hope the Minister will accept the amendment in the positive spirit in which it is intended. Among other things, it will restore to the Bill what most members of the public would consider to be the meaning of the word “disposal”. It is quite important that we ensure that legislation is not just intelligible to the general public, but can be received by them in the spirit in which it was put forward—that is, that they understand a particular phrase to mean what they think it means, not what someone somewhere in a building far away has invented it to mean because they could not get it right in the first place.
Rebecca Pow
First, I thank the hon. Member for Newport West for withdrawing her previous amendment and not pushing it to a vote. I thank her for her consideration of this particular amendment, but I would like to reassure her and the Committee that I do not believe it is necessary.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: it is important that as a society we monitor and address social issues relating to the manufacture of products and materials. In the UK, we address them through legislation, such as the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Human Rights Act 1998. Other initiatives, such as the United Nations’ International Labour Organisation and the Forest Stewardship Council, look to tackle those issues on a global scale.
However, the core focus of extended producer responsibility is to encourage producers to take actions that will help to protect and improve the environment, including paying the costs of managing products at the end of their life and improving the design of products to make them recyclable or increase the amount of recycled material that they contain—all the things that we have mentioned previously. Recycling rates will then increase and the supply of secondary material will increase.
I will quickly address the issue that the hon. Lady touched on about Sri Lanka. I just want to highlight that it is a manifesto commitment, which we will implement through this Bill, to ban all exports of plastic waste to non-OECD countries. That is in clause 59, I think—I cannot read my writing. I have terrible writing.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister, because this is very important and the hon. Member for Newport West was right to raise it. Those of us who have responsibilities as trade envoys are very conscious of some of the damage done to relationships with overseas countries, particularly Commonwealth countries, where waste has effectively been dumped by local councils. That is partly due to the supply chain for waste disposal. Does the Minister agree that this Bill will make real steps forward in tackling that problem?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The hon. Member for Putney touched on litter, and I was going to say that this is a very wide subject—waste, hazardous waste, export of waste, litter—and clauses 60 to 68 deal with a whole lot of those issues, so we will discuss them at length when we get to them. However, we are mindful of what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester says, and there are measures in the Bill to really get to grips with some of those things, which are rightly important, especially for our global standing, as he says with his trade envoy hat on. I know he does such great work representing us, so I thank him for that.
I must disagree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test about words being mangled. The only thing that we want mangled is the waste, so that we can take it apart and turn it into something else. I completely disagree that the words have been mangled by those who have so carefully drafted the legislation. I will highlight the fact that the extended producer responsibility scheme and the requirements to cover the full net disposal costs of their products and materials when they become waste will encourage producers to make these changes that we all want to the design and the materials that will have an impact on the whole supply chain. That is the purpose of all this. That will then increase the supply of materials for recycling and the quality of material for recycling, by reducing contamination and the use of hard-to-recycle products and materials. The whole circular system will be dealt with, so I take issue with his mangling suggestion.
At the end of the day, our supply chains will be strengthened in secondary materials, which is so important that we will then give investors the signal and the confidence they need to invest in our UK recycling industry, so we can put the recycling units that my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden mentioned everywhere they are required and companies such as Coca-Cola can have all the PET plastic they want to make all the bottles they would like to make from good-quality recycled plastic. It is difficult to get hold of enough of many those things now, but when we get these measures in place, the idea is that it will all be sorted out. I can see the hon. Member for Cambridge smiling at me, but I know he knows that I am on the right track.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend the Minister made a good point about making sure that the costs to the private sector involved in helping us recycle more come to a level at which it is important for them to invest. The fringe benefits from that are massive. Many of the recycling centres that previously sent waste to landfill are now available for all sorts of green energy projects including solar, hydrogen and onshore wind. It will make a huge difference in my constituency of Gloucester, so I am grateful for what she says about how the Bill will help that.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning his constituency and for raising that important point about how we need to get business on board, and how we need to give the right signals and get the right things to happen to move us to the circular economy. At the end of the day, we want less waste landfilled or incinerated, less litter and a decrease in the use of virgin raw materials. These outcomes bring wider social benefits —touching on amendment 17—as they improve the environment for the public and for wildlife. They also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For all of these reasons, the measures in the Environment Bill are strong enough as they stand, and it follows that social issues such as poor conditions for workers are considered outside the scope of extended producer responsibility. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her explanation and I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for highlighting the issues of litter and fly-tipping, which really vex people. My inbox is full of complaints about such issues as are, I am sure, those of most Members here if their constituency is anything like mine. It is important that the quality of people’s environment is enhanced and made as good as possible. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test: as he points out, the wording is important. People outside these walls do not fully understand what the Bill is trying to say: the word “disposal”—as he says—is in the dictionary and it means getting rid of something, but we want to make sure that we have a cyclical economy. We come back to making sure that words matter.
I was pleased to hear the Minister highlight the manifesto pledge not to dump rubbish in non-OECD countries. It raises the issue of whether it will go to OECD countries, but that is obviously important. I was also pleased to hear COP26 raised. It is important that the UK sets a shining example to the rest of the world on that, and that is why we are pushing amendment 17: it is so important that we make sure we get it right at this stage so that, as has been mentioned, future generations look back on the Environment Bill with pride. We will be seeking to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 18, in schedule 6, page 161, line 21, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This is another “may” and “must” amendment. Hon. Members are familiar with the arguments, so I will not rehearse them at this late hour of the day. In moving the amendment, I am adding to the pile on the Minister’s desk. I ask her to consider whether, even at this late hour, it might be a good idea to start putting in a few more “musts” than was the case previously. I hope the Minister will look at that favourably in the future. I do not wish to push the amendment to a vote.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for his amendment. He is trying at every opportunity to sneak in a “must”, but we share the sentiment and recognise the importance of taking action to improve the design of products—that is what this is all about—including by mandating the provision of information relating to resource efficiency on products. Given the pace of change and the need for flexibility in deciding where regulation is necessary, however, it is not appropriate to insert a requirement that we must take such action across the board for all products, nor to specify a list in advance. Our intention is to use this power to set resource efficiency information requirements where they will give the greatest impact. I can reassure the hon. Member that we are committed to doing that.
I am pleased that the first anticipated use of the information power will mandate labelling to show the recyclability of packaging, which I know is a source of stress for many households, including my own. In fact, I go absolutely berserk if I get home and find that my children have gone to a shop where everything is in packets, instead of buying it loose. Labelling and clear messaging about the damage that some packaging can do would get the message through.
The Government are considering how we should implement these measures beyond packaging, and we want to ensure that, where requirements for more information are introduced, it will have significant positive impacts on the environment. We expect that some industries will be motivated to proactively settle or improve their standards for products. Where industry does not, however, these powers will enable us to set mandatory requirements in future. It has to be said that lots of supermarkets are already looking at what they can do to reduce their packaging, which is to be welcomed.
For those reasons, it is appropriate to take regulation-making powers, rather than impose a duty on the Government to set standards. Primary legislation consistently takes such an approach to the balance of powers—what may be done; a duty is what must be done—and this power is no different. This approach will provide sufficient flexibility to implement or modify requirements at different times for different products, and within a reasonable timespan. Additionally, it will facilitate the making of separate provisions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should the devolved Administrations wish to exercise this power.
On those grounds, I ask the hon. Member whether she would kindly withdraw the amendment.
Rebecca Pow
I am sorry. I ask the hon. Gentleman to kindly withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
We now come to amendment 226, which the sharp-eyed will have seen is not on the selection list. That is because it is what is known in the trade as a starred amendment, which means that it was tabled after the cut-off date last Thursday. I have nevertheless taken the view that it is appropriate to debate it under schedule 6, which we have now reached. I call Alan Whitehead to move the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I have no idea what amendment 226 is about—or at least I have not got it in front of me.
The Chair
While he is finding his feet, it may help the hon. Gentleman if he looks at page 8 of the amendment paper, where he will see that amendment 226 amends schedule 6, line 7.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 226, page 162, line 7, schedule 6, after “product” insert
“and the expected total environmental impact the product will have throughout its life”.
This amendment requires manufacturers or sellers to evaluate the environmental impact of a product throughout its life cycle, alongside the expected life of the product.
The amendment speaks for itself. As the Chair has kindly reminded us, it concerns the overall life of the product, not specific moments in the life of that product. As hon. Members know from stories such as the 5,000-mile yoghurt pot, the overall life of a product includes a range of travel, processing and other activities before it gets on to the shelf. Modern arrangements mean that something that looks very simple will have been fabricated in one country, exported to another and further processed there, exported back to the original country and filled with another product, while the lid is added somewhere else during the refrigeration process and then it is back to where it started from. In my constituency, there are many instances of stuff leaving the port in a container, going to the other side of the world for processing and coming back for sale in roughly the place it started out from.
The lifetime of the product is about all the things that happen to it on its journey. The amendment recognises that that is the case and that, in moving towards a circular economy, we need to be mindful that the lifetime of the product is a theme that needs to be seriously taken into account so that we can ensure that it is as efficient, economical, low-carbon and resource-efficient as it can be. That is why we have tabled the amendment.
Rebecca Pow
I am very happy to discuss the amendment in the circumstances outlined by the Chair, and I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for tabling it. The Government recognise the value of providing consumers with information on the expected lifecycle and environmental impact of products. The amendment is not necessary, because the powers in the Bill already allow for that. Indeed, I hope that it is clear from everything we have been talking about that it is the whole lifecycle of the product that will be the key thing once the measures in the Bill are in place.
The resource efficiency powers set out in the Bill enable us to achieve the amendment’s goal. However, the current drafting allows us to provide greater clarity on the aspects of a product’s lifecycle that can be covered, in recognition of what it is practicable and feasible to require. The schedule covers the scope of the powers in relation to lifecycle impacts, including production processes, pollution impact during production, use and disposal, product lifetime and related aspects such as recyclability. There is a broad and comprehensive list of what consumer information could be about. It provides the scope for meaningful and specific provisions relevant to a product’s impact on the natural environment without placing overly complex or impractical requirements on manufacturers.
We want this to be simple for manufacturers and to help consumers make the right choices. It is a two-pronged attack: we want manufacturers to do the right thing, but they need to be able to do it, and we want to give the consumers the information to make the right choices. For example, we could require that items of clothing are sold with information about the resources used to make them, as well as about the pollution—for example, greenhouse gas emissions—arising from a garment’s production, use and disposal. All of those things could be possible. Customers, should they wish, could then use that information to choose products that have less impact on the environment across their life cycle.
I know from talking to people who watch the Attenborough documentaries, and others, that they know about the horrific impacts and consequences of the products they buy. They do not want that to happen, so the information and labelling will really help, as will the whole new life cycle approach that this Bill will introduce. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw the amendment, given that the current provisions already do what it suggests.
Dr Whitehead
I am encouraged by the Minister’s response, although I am not sure that the wording is exactly as it should be. I, like, I suspect, her, am very taken by the idea of a backpack on a product. For example, if a pen has a gold nib—unfortunately, my pen has a steel nib, but there we are—it would have a substantial backpack outlining the cost of mining that gold and the amount of resources used, such as oil, in getting the gold out. Everything would have a backpack: some products would have huge backpacks, while others would have smaller ones. I take on board the Minister’s comments. The aim is to start talking about those backpacks and how we relate to products. The life cycle information relates to not just what is in the backpack but how far the backpack has travelled.
Rebecca Pow
This whole subject is interesting. “Product passport” is another term that could cover all that detail. The Bill will also allow us to introduce labelling requirements relating to water use and carbon footprint, so it will open up a wealth of opportunities in the space that the shadow Minister is talking about.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed. That is absolutely right: “passport” is another good way to describe it, although only a limited number of things can be jammed in a passport, whereas rather more things can be jammed in a backpack. The principle, however, is exactly the same, and I am encouraged to hear the Minister speaking of it in that particular way. I do not, therefore, wish to push the amendment to a vote and hope that what the Minister has said is how the schedule will be interpreted in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)
Environment Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Thursday 12th November 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 November 2020 - (12 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members about social distancing. Spaces available to Members are clearly marked. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if you could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I also remind Members, please, to switch electronic devices off or to silent. Teas and coffees are not allowed during sittings.
We will now continue with line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated, but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
Clause 50
Resource efficiency requirements
Amendments made: 39, in clause 50, page 30, line 20, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.
Amendment 40, in clause 50, page 30, line 21, leave out “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7
Resource efficiency requirements
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 19 in schedule 7, page 165, line 30, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Sir George, and to serve under your chairmanship. The amendment is in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test, for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for Cambridge and, my neighbour back home, for Newport East (Jessica Morden).
The schedule gives the relevant national authority the power to make the regulations that set the resource efficiency requirements that products are required to meet. As a Member representing a Welsh constituency, it is a real pleasure to be able to speak to a part of the Bill that applies to all parts of the UK—to all countries. Once again, it is appropriate to remind colleagues that the Bill is important for all our futures. That is why we need to ensure that it is fit for purpose and effective in its measure and scope.
Our amendment to schedule 7 once again looks to the power of language and the subsequent ambition and drive of the Minister and her colleagues. I have never doubted her willingness or commitment to action, but that is why we wanted the Bill to come back sooner, so that all Members could give it the attention and focus that it deserves. For all the commitment and focus, however, we need to see results and actions, not just empty rhetoric that lands up simply being nothing more than words. That is why the amendment proposes to leave out “may” and to insert “must”.
All those of us privileged to be elected to this House, from all parts of the country, come with the support of our constituents behind us. We also come with our party political views and commitments, too. Those views and commitments will, as we all know, change depending on the contemporary political issues of the day, which is why it is so important that we get the wording of the Bill correct now, to ensure that what we mean is enshrined in law for, and clearly understood by, future generations.
The schedule is applicable to all parts of the United Kingdom, so it is vital that we make it as strong as possible. We do not need any more “mays”; we need more “musts”. Language, as has been said in previous sittings, is something that we need to get right. We need to ensure that the language used in the final iteration of the Bill is as strong and ambitious as it can be. As this part of the Bill looks at the general powers exercised, we need to ensure that the relevant authorities are empowered to do what is necessary, and are obligated to do so. The amendment will help to do that, and I hope that the Minister will take it in the spirit in which it is intended.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I thank the hon. Member for the amendment. As with amendment 18 on the resource efficiency information power, it is not appropriate to have a duty to take action on all products or to specify particular products in advance. Our intention is to use the power to set resource efficiency eco-design requirements for products where the greatest benefit can be realised. As I did in respect of amendment 18, I reassure the hon. Member that we are committed to approaching the making of any regulations in that way.
It is really important that we have flexibility on setting standards on products that come to light as critical. It is not possible right now to identify products in advance, as it very much depends on industry practice, the environmental impact that the particular group of products being considered might have on the environment, and the feasibility of setting minimum eco-design requirements.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to continue with you in the Chair, Sir George. The Minister is making a fine speech, but on all the “may” and “must” issues I find myself casting my mind back to children on the streets on Fridays, as they left their schools, to demand climate justice, and huge numbers of people expressing concern about the urgency of it. Would she really feel comfortable standing in front of those groups of people and dithering in this way on issues that need to be dealt with urgently?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for his slightly cheeky intervention. We are talking about the Environment Bill. I have outlined the difference between “may” and “must” in great detail. Importantly, we are not stopping it happening, but it has to happen in the right way and on the right products. A great deal of stakeholder engagement has already happened with industry and will continue, because industry has to be able to do such things, and we have to bring industry along with us.
I will give a good example of where we might soon need to use the measures. Evidence has suggested that absorbent hygiene products might be a good place to start. Similarly, we have identified some other waste streams. The powers might be useful on textiles, furniture, electronics and construction materials, so the provision will genuinely be used and it will genuinely be useful.
I believe that the prioritisation approach will also provide sufficient flexibility to implement or modify requirements at different times for different products, and within a reasonable time span. It will also facilitate the making of separate provisions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, should the devolved Administrations wish to exercise the powers, as the hon. Member for Newport West recognised. For those reasons, I believe it is appropriate to take regulation-making powers, rather than a duty on the Government to set standards, and I therefore ask her to kindly withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her comments. I think she has made the case for me, because I would hope that the devolved Administrations would insist on taking up the powers. The schedule addresses future circumstances very well with the word “specified”. It is future-proofing the Bill, but the word “must” strengthens it at the beginning. That is why we are pushing for it.
We will not divide the Committee on this matter today; we are content that the wording has been recorded in Hansard. But it is really important that we strengthen the Bill and make sure that people can take the powers when they should do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 162, in schedule 7, page 165, line 35, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (a).
As with a number of other important amendments, I move the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test, for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for Cambridge and, my constituency neighbour back home, for Newport East (Jessica Morden) —that was a memory test.
As Government and Labour colleagues will know from their preparation for this sitting of the Committee, this is very much a technical amendment. Having done that reading, I know that all Members will agree that amendment 162 essentially speaks for itself. [Laughter.] As a consequence, I will not detain the Committee for longer than is necessary, but I will touch on a couple of important points.
First, our amendment proposes to remove sub-sub-paragraph (a). We tabled the amendment because Labour Members are conscious of the need to use the Bill both now and in the future. We do not want to reduce the scope and reach of the Bill before we know where the challenges facing our environment are, what action may be required and when. Once again, I reiterate the point about language: it is vital that every word, every full stop and every sub-sub-paragraph enhances our ability to protect the natural world and preserve our environment. This amendment will help to do that and I hope that the Minister will accept it in the spirit that is intended.
Rebecca Pow
Again, I thank the hon. Member for tabling the amendment, but I also reassure her that the Government recognise the importance of measures to improve the durability, repairability and recyclability of both energy-related products and products that are not energy-related. The amendment is therefore not necessary, because at the end of the transition period the Government will have powers to set resource-efficiency requirements for energy-related products under the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products Regulations 2010. Also, DEFRA is working closely with the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in this regard.
In combination with the information power detailed in schedule 6, we could, for example, require that information be provided with electronic devices explaining their expected lifetime, and how to carry out repairs or upgrades. The retained eco-design legislation could be used in tandem to set requirements for the availability of spare parts and upgradeable design.
Lots of us who have our own washing machines, dishwashers and all of those sorts of equipment would probably be pretty much in favour of some of those ideas, so having two sets of powers covering resource efficiency for the same products risks being confusing for businesses and other stakeholders. Therefore, I ask that the hon. Member withdraw her amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her words there, including her explanation, and also for setting out the scenarios that could be useful in the future. It is always useful to have practical examples to be able to think about how these measures will be applied in the future.
Obviously, while we are sad that the Minister is not going to take our amendment on board, we nevertheless now have it on the record. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 163, in schedule 7, page 166, line 13, at end insert
“taking into account social dimensions such as human rights, public health and fair working conditions”.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment 164, in schedule 7, page 166, line 26, leave out lines 28 to 32 and insert—
“(b) the techniques and working conditions used in its manufacture and sourcing of resources;
(c) the resources consumed during its production or use;
(d) the pollutants (including greenhouse gases within the meaning of section 92 of the Climate Change Act 2008) released or emitted at any stage of the product’s production, use or disposal; with consideration of the social impacts these may result in, for example, public health concerns.”
Amendment 165, in schedule 7, page 167, line 22, after “environment” insert “workers or communities”.
Amendment 166, in schedule 7, page 167, line 25, after “environment” insert “workers or communities”.
Amendment 167, in schedule 7, page 167, line 29, after “environment” insert “workers or communities”.
Ruth Jones
This amendment has also been tabled in the names of the hon. Members I mentioned in relation to the previous two amendments.
Amendment 163 looks at the wider impact of how things are done, so it is not just a case of looking solely at what is produced and manufactured and its impact on the environment. It looks at the full package, which is why it seeks to insert into schedule 7
“taking into account social dimensions such as human rights, public health and fair working conditions”.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling these amendments. I share her view that human rights, working conditions, public health and the impact of product manufacture, use and disposal on workers and wider communities—I think those are the things that she was she was getting at—are of the utmost importance. However, the primary focus of the Bill, and the resource efficiency powers that we are currently debating, is improving the natural environment. That will benefit workers and communities who depend on their natural environment for clean air, clean water and a stable climate, as well as improving the durability and reparability of products so that they last longer and provide better value. Going beyond matters of the environment to incorporate social factors—such as labour conditions, as the amendments suggest—and other benefits to communities would be going beyond the scope of this legislative instrument.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the suggested amendment looks like a cocktail of impractical virtue signalling?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that incredibly concise intervention. Indeed, the amendment is not necessary, which is the point I am trying to make and what I think he is getting at, because it would be really complicated, if not impossible, to lay down requirements on a product basis that cover these considerations for all exporting countries. Some difference in standards is obviously inevitable, and because of this complexity, such matters are much better dealt with—as I think my hon. Friend is getting at—by other legal mechanisms. That is the remit of the International Labour Organisation’s conventions.
Amendment 164 would remove reference to the material composition of products. This wording is essential to the objectives of the power, as the materials in a product will determine how easily the product can be to be taken apart, recycled and manufactured. Material composition may also determine the amount of pollution associated with these activities.
Finally, I must emphasise the importance of having a carefully defined power within the scope of the Bill. The detriment of seeking to cover too many considerations within these provisions is the risk of making it overly complicated to actually use the powers. On those grounds, I ask the hon. Lady if she will kindly withdraw her amendment.
Ruth Jones
I am glad that the Minister shares our concerns about human rights, public health and fair working conditions. As the hon. Member for Gloucester said, it is a cocktail, but to be honest it is a good cocktail, and it is useful, and it will actually assist us as we go forward with this Bill. It will enhance the Bill, because we think that the Bill should cover these important aspects.
Rebecca Pow
May I very quickly intervene on the hon. Lady, if that is all right, Mr Chairman?
The Chair
Provided that the hon. Member is prepared to accept the intervention, yes, it is all right.
Rebecca Pow
I want to highlight that we do not consider that goals such as labour rights are best delivered through setting requirements relating to product standards and information. To add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, action is already under way on those fronts through a number of other routes, including the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which requires corporate reporting on supply chains and multi-stakeholder working groups and encourages companies to sign up to the International Labour Organisation’s call for action, which I referred to before.
Ruth Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for augmenting her comments. I agree it is good that we have the Modern Slavery Act and that is important, but there is no harm in putting an additional belt and braces on this Bill to ensure that human rights are taken into consideration, as are public health and fair working conditions. We have pushed for the minimum wage and the living wage, and it is important that those things are taken into consideration. There is no harm in our having integrated objectives across a number of Bills, because it shows that the Government are joined up and thinking across the piece. That is why we will push this amendment to a Division, because it is such an important one and we think it should be enshrined in law.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I have a few things to say about the schedule, including some questions for the Minister about how it might best be implemented.
As I am sure all hon. Members know, how waste becomes a resource is set out substantially in the 2008 EU waste framework directive, which gives guidance to member states—to be placed into law—about how that process should be carried out. The Committee will also be aware that resource efficiency is a very real issue.
A big question is precisely when something in a stream should be defined as waste or as a resource. The waste framework directive contains a number of criteria about that end-of-waste transition, but the framework and the subsequent UK legislation have been fraught with difficulties and problems, because they have required waste to be categorised: as hazardous waste, as inert waste—waste that can be put in golf courses and so on—or as waste that must undergo various treatments, for example. The waste hierarchy, which the Committee has discussed, derives from a number of considerations not only about what waste is, but about what should be done with various waste streams.
Ruth Jones
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Would he agree that a good example of this is the supermarkets? In the past, food that had gone beyond its use-by date went to waste, but nowadays, thanks to important communication between supermarkets and homeless people, for example, the latter can utilise this food for their evening meals. One man’s waste is another man’s supper.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is right. We have made considerable progress on food waste, and we will come to discuss some wider aspects of food waste later in the proceedings. Nevertheless, she rightly states the principle: if a piece of waste which would otherwise be taken out and processed in certain ways is stewarded through that process, knowing that the outcome of that process is a good outcome, that process can be much more easily streamlined to ensure that what was waste becomes a resource.
For years, the Environment Agency has been trying to tackle the many instances where something that goes into a waste stream, such as bones residual to animal rendering, carcases and various other things, may well be treated as hazardous and have particular measures apply to them. However, if those bones can be transferred for the making of bone china, that industry can take the bones and steward them through the process of becoming a resource for undertaking what the industry wants to do. That allows what looked like a problem to become a solution. That is just one example—perhaps, not a terribly good example—but there are many examples of that in industry, where one industry’s waste, which may be classified in particular ways, is desperately needed as a resource for another industry, which cannot unlock that resource from it being waste. We have never properly gotten to grips with that in this country.
The concept of stewardship, whereby what is a piece of waste can be certified as being stewarded, ready for the purpose of becoming a resource, has never properly been defined in regulations or in law. Hence, often by the time we have gotten around to thinking that something is a particular resource, it has already been disposed of down a particular waste stream and is lost for that resource purpose.
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, my hon. Friend is making a thoughtful and interesting speech. As he spoke, I thought of some of the examples that came up in the covid-19 crisis in the food chains, where we were at risk because one part of the system relied on another in exactly the ways he is describing. What struck me is that the economies of scale are critical. Are we not much better being part of a wider, bigger system that allows us to use things that are potentially regarded as waste? With a small, narrow system, they cannot be reused, but they can be if we are part of a bigger system.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The concept of a larger system through which all of this works is key to this whole discussion. Indeed, what we have been talking about, and what the waste strategy document says about the circular economy, means that putting this into a wider frame of how we circulate products through the economy, so that we do not pull virgin materials in and that everything we are using as it goes through the economy is reusable, recyclable or replaceable in one way or another, is essential to a resource-efficient and low-carbon waste and resource economy.
In this part of the Bill, we are essentially replacing elements of the waste framework directive with UK law, but does not seem to me that what we have done allows the sort of processes that I have described to be properly incorporated in regulations so that the circular economy arrangement can be expedited. Does the Minister consider that the regulations that will be associated with schedule 7 are capable of allowing those sorts of changes to be made, to the benefit of the recycled and reclaimed resources industry in the UK; or does she consider that we have missed an opportunity here, and that further legislation and/or regulations may be necessary to ensure that that can be done?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for his thoughts. I shall stick to the detail of what the schedule is actually about in my answers, but I want to touch on his general points. Of course, the whole purpose of the waste and resources section of the Bill is to reduce all waste with a range of measures, and to make everything we produce recyclable, repairable and more durable. That is why we are focusing particularly on eco-design.
The hon. Gentleman touched on some issues relating to bones and various things like that. This is a slightly more general comment, but there are many health-related issues that would have to be taken into account. It takes me back to the time of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, when any food waste was banned from being fed to pigs. There were masses of knock-on effects, but as a pig keeper, I was mortified about that. He will know that such things are complicated, so one cannot go down that burrow without discussing a lot of other issues.
I want to get back to the purposes of the schedule, but I will touch on the point made by the hon. Member for Newport West about food waste. I am sure she is pleased that food waste is dealt with in the Bill—that is one of the really positive and exciting things about it. Food waste will now have to be collected from local authorities in the waste collections. Some local authorities already do it, but every one will have to do it. Clause 47 and schedule 4 will require producers that are responsible for food surplus and food waste to take action, and that includes redistributing it. Great work is already done by many people, but that will be a requirement for surplus food.
On the schedule, by applying the principle of eco-design to non-energy-related products, we can drive up resource efficiency by gradually removing the least resource efficient products from the market. That is the very point that the hon. Lady was getting at. Those requirements might relate to durability, recyclability, repairability or the sustainability of products for dismantling and remanufacture. I think the hon. Member for Southampton, Test was getting at that point; products can be taken apart and then the component parts could be reused.
The requirements might also concern the material composition of products and the way in which products are manufactured, and the pollutants emitted or produced by products throughout the full lifecycle. For example—the hon. Member for Newport West said she likes examples—that might include moving and load-bearing parts such as wheels and hinges from items of furniture, because they might wear out first. Making them removable and replaceable could be part of the design. Where that is not the case, the regulations might require that parts can be removed without damage to the rest of the product, and other wheels can be screwed back on, for example. That is the kind of thing we are discussing.
As has been explained in relation to the resource efficiency information power, we have identified priority areas for action, including clothing, furniture and electronic equipment, where we believe requirements such as this are likely to have the greatest impact.
Rebecca Pow
I am about to conclude, but I see that the hon. Gentleman is trying to intervene.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am not particularly criticising or wishing to take away from any of the excellent things the Minister has been saying about the purpose of these provisions. What I am trying to get at is what actually happens now—the way in which things are classified while they are going through the waste stream and before they turn into a resource, and the extent to which the classification under existing legislation hinders the process by which they may be liberated as a resource in exactly the way the Minister has described in her comments. That is what I am concerned about—whether those classifications can be substituted by a system of stewardship, which would enable that passage to be much more straightforward, good intentions notwithstanding concerning how that passage can result in a successful outcome.
Rebecca Pow
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think he is overcomplicating the issue. Through the measures in the Bill, every single person who makes something will have to think about what it contains, what it is made of, what is going to happen to it, where it is going to go, who is going to reuse it and how long it will last. I think the issues he is worried about will solve themselves, in a way. If he wants more detail on that, I am sure we can write to him.
Rebecca Pow
I am going to plough on. The schedule considers eco-design. Clauses 49 and 50 and schedules 6 and 7 describe resource efficiency powers, which complement various other powers in the Bill, including the extended producer responsibility—that very much touches on what I have just said. They aim, as a minimum, to ensure that we can be ahead of the curve internationally and, ideally, to enable us to lead the way. Acquiring resource efficiency powers is an essential step towards delivering against the goals of the 25-year environment plan and the resources and waste strategy, and achieving net zero by 2050. I believe that all the things in the schedule will help that work.
We are ahead of the curve even compared with the EU on this matter. Once we have acquired the powers, it will be possible to set requirements for all products, whether they are energy related or not. That is not yet possible for the EU. At present, its eco legislation extends only to energy-related products. On those grounds alone, we are ahead, which I hope my hon. Friends and hon. Members will be pleased about.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 7 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 51
Deposit schemes
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 20 in schedule 8, page 170, line 9, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
The amendment appears in my name and those of my hon. Friends. The schedule seeks to enable the national authority, namely the Secretary of State in relation to England, Ministers in the Welsh Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to make regulations establishing deposit schemes.
I thank those out there in the real world who are working on these important issues. For example, Greener UK is working tremendously hard to ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose. I hope that Ministers will take the same approach.
With the powers in place, it will be imperative that the Government promise to deliver the model that will best achieve their aims, as detailed in the resources and waste strategy. Those include changing behaviour to reduce littering on land, in rivers and at sea, and to improve recycling rates. Members of the Committee will remember —I only just remember—the pop bottle schemes, when people would go around with bottles and get 5p. For young people, it was a useful income—for those of us old enough to remember.
All-in deposit schemes—by that, I mean drinks containers of all sizes and materials—offer the best financial return. They achieve the best recycling return, and constitute the clearest system for the public to use. That was confirmed by a series of impact assessments undertaken by the Government in 2019, which found that an all-in deposit return scheme would offer substantial financial benefit and collect a greater proportion of containers when compared with a more limited system that only covered so-called “on the go” drinks containers. An all-in scheme is the most likely to offer opportunities for scaling up to a refill system in future.
Further to that, an all-in deposit return scheme would ensure compatibility right across the UK, by setting out a system for England that would work in harmony with Scotland’s plans. We all have our views on whether the Government are committed to the Union, but as a Welsh MP the lack of respect for devolution and the devolved Government in Wales in recent months has been a matter of huge concern to me and many of my constituents. If the Government are to show that they are serious, they need to show it in letter as well as in voice.
The amendment would allow the Government to do just that. A system that works for and with all nations of the UK would especially benefit those who live near the border between, say, England and Scotland and anyone travelling between the two nations. My Scottish colleagues have highlighted the matter in the House on previous occasions. We want to ensure that the systems are compatible, if not all encompassing, while ensuring that they do not undermine one another financially or environmentally. Likewise, that approach would facilitate a simple roll-out to Wales and Northern Ireland, and so would be a win-win for us all.
The Bill only states that the Secretary of State “may” establish a scheme. The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State, whoever he or she might be, would actually deliver. Our amendment follows many others tabled to the Bill and moved in Committee. It is all about delivery, action and getting it right by writing it into the Bill.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for her amendment. We obviously recognise the importance of reducing littering and increasing recycling rates as part of our commitment to leave the environment in a better state for the next generation. Our 2019 manifesto pledged to introduce a deposit return scheme to incentivise people to recycle plastic and glass.
This power we enable us to establish deposit return schemes for different items, particularly those which are littered—it is important to try to cut those down—where we want to increase recycling, as well as the quality and value of recycled material. That is all part of that drive that this section is about.
A deposit return scheme will allow us to take plastic from drinks bottles and ensure it gets recycled back into a new bottle, reducing our reliance on virgin plastic material. We touched on that yesterday. So many companies would like a regular, consistent supply of the right kind of plastic to turn into other bottles. We are working on developing an evidence base that will include further consultation before finalising the design and scope of a DRS for drinks containers that will be set down in regulations made using this power.
We know that UK consumers go through a shocking 14 billion plastic drinks bottles, 9 billion drinks cans and 5 billion glass bottles a year. Although plastic bottles are fully recyclable, recent packaging recycling rates of 65% demonstrates that there is room for improvement. We consider that a well-designed deposit return scheme for drinks and containers could achieve something like 90% and higher, as countries that have already introduced the scheme are achieving.
This power gives the relevant national authority the flexibility to make regulations to establish deposit return schemes in relation to specific products or materials. It also gives the flexibility to decide which items are to be included in the DRS, to secure an increase in recycling and reuse of materials and to reduce the incidence of littering and fly-tipping.
It is entirely appropriate to be flexible here. It would not be appropriate for this power to be exercised in some circumstances. The discretionary element allows it to be used in a targeted manner for things that are, for example, the most littered items, such as drinks containers, that are often consumed away from the home. This comes out as one of the top lists on the “Keep Britain Tidy” surveys that are constantly conducted.
We need to have a system that allows us to add and adjust as we learn more about how a deposit return scheme works in practice. I have talked to lots of people involved in these types of schemes. Getting the system right is crucial. I ask the hon. Lady, therefore, to withdraw her amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her comments. I am slightly anxious that she is talking about further consultation here, because the public just want us to get on with this. They are fed up with being consulted. They have given their views and they want it to happen now. As Greta Thunberg and all the young people, certainly in my constituency, are telling me, “Get on with it. We cannot afford to wait for you. This planet has to be there for us tomorrow.”
Daniel Zeichner
That is exactly the point. I was tempted to intervene on the Minister, but she seemed reluctant. The call from people out there is that this needs to be got on with. I do not understand why the Government persistently delay. There is a danger that the Government could be accused of virtue signalling.
Ruth Jones
That is an interesting point. As my hon. Friend said, if the Government are serious about this, they need to get on with it and they need to be seen to be getting on with it.
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Member for Cambridge has fired me up now. The point is that this scheme must also fit with other schemes, so it also must fit with the consistent collection of items by the local authorities. A great deal of work must be done to ensure that they all fit together. Even the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned that one system must not undermine another; they must fit together. If we could get consistent systems across all the devolved Administrations, that would be useful. We are watching Scotland closely, because it is a little bit ahead, to see how that works. It is important that we bring all those things together.
Ruth Jones
Yes, of course we agree with her that these things have to be communicated clearly. We need to make sure that no one scheme undermines another. We do not want people crossing borders with lorryloads of plastic waste or whatever. That is not the intention. We understand that. However, it is important that we have clear communication across all four nations to make sure that that does not happen. The Minister outlined the regulations that will come through—
Rebecca Pow
I am sure the hon. Lady will agree and applaud the fact that we consulted closely with the Welsh Assembly Government, and on behalf of Northern Ireland. We are working closely with them on the proposals on exactly the grounds that she proposes.
Ruth Jones
I agree that it is important that we continue to make that point and communicate clearly across all four nations, but the Minister mentioned further regulations down the line. How will those be enforced? We want to know the how, the what and the where. How will it all come together? I am still not clear on exactly what will happen, so perhaps in future debates the Minister will outline those regulations.
The Minister talked about flexibility. Again, I hark back to my physiotherapy days: we do not want to be so flexible that we fall over. We need some constraints and guidelines to help us to walk in the right path. We are all in favour of getting this done. It is just a question of how soon, how quickly and how best we can do it. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rebecca Pow
I beg to move amendment 68, in schedule 8, page 172, line 39, leave out from “scheme” to end of line 40 and insert
“in relation to which the Scottish deposit administrator is exercising functions”.
This amendment modifies the way in which the scheme administrator of a Scottish deposit and return scheme is described, by referring to the administrator “exercising functions” rather than being “designated”. This is consistent with the terminology used in the relevant Scottish legislation. A similar change is made by Amendment 69.
Rebecca Pow
Amendments 68 to 70 seek to correct a technical error concerning a reference to how a scheme administrator would be established in Scotland. The amendment will enable a scheme administrator to interact, engage and make payments to a scheme administrator established through a deposit and return scheme in Scotland. It was always our intention for schemes within the UK to be able to work together, as I have already highlighted, including being able to make payments between schemes. I think the hon. Member for Newport West asked about that. The measure will help ensure that schemes are easier for consumers to use, will help to reduce the risk of fraud between schemes, and provide coherence for producers and retailers. I hope the Committee will agree to the amendment.
Amendment 68 agreed to.
Amendments made: 69, in schedule 8, page 174, line 20, leave out from “person” to end of line 22 and insert
“exercising the functions of a scheme administrator in relation to a Scottish deposit and return scheme”.
See Amendment 68.
Amendment 70, in schedule 8, page 174, line 24, leave out “that Act” and insert
“the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 12)”—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 69 and inserts the full name of the Act being referred to.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
I welcome the opportunity to have a brief debate on the schedule, which is all about deposit schemes. As the Minister has set out admirably, the deposit schemes can target things that cause particular problems, including litter, fly-tipping and various other activities. I want to ask the Minister what the deposit schemes might consist of and the extent to which the schedule would facilitate that extent being realised.
When talking about deposit schemes, we usually think about precisely the sort of things that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge talked about, with memories of kids hanging around lidos and swimming pools, nicking Coke and pop bottles from sunbathers to take them back to the shop and get thruppence on them—not that I did that, obviously.
Dr Whitehead
What occurred then, and what is occurring now—or what I hope will occur now—is that the motivation to recycle, return and sort out particular items comes from a value being given to the residual function of those items after their primary function has been carried out. In the previous example, the Coke bottle has been emptied, but it still has value because the child can get some money by returning it to the shop.
We have seen that process in operation in various parts of Europe. In France, a number of supermarkets have reverse vending machines, where bottles can be inserted into the machine in exchange for a credit. The value has been secured and the product has been safely restored for recycling. The consequence of a lack of such schemes is that people dump things in the street or, in more serious instances, engage in serious fly-tipping.
On deposit schemes for larger items, some really large items have effectively got themselves into that value chain by different means. Hon. Members who were local authority councillors for any long period may remember that there was a particular passage of time when many estates and other places were plagued with burnt-out cars. People had decided that their car had no value because it was an old banger or had broken down, and that the easiest thing to do was to go and dump it somewhere and/or burn it.
That was substantially resolved by the end-of-life vehicles directive and the beginnings of the idea that even an old banger had some value for recycling purposes. The person who might otherwise have put that car into a hedge or burnt it in a car park would be incentivised to drive it on its last lap—or push it if it did not work —down to the breaker’s yard, where they would get a couple of hundred pounds for it, because it had increased value that way.
In the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, we have a sort-of attempt to give that value to white goods and various large items. The producer responsibility elements of WEEE required that the producer have a responsibility to get those products back. The process is very indirect. At the end of the life of a particular product, the producer is not necessarily in the same state as when the product was first produced, so you may have orphan products that require producer responsibility but are without a producer responsible for them. That producer responsibility is also a mediated process because someone else has to collect the product and establish what the responsibility should be.
Ruth Jones
Again, my hon. Friend is making a powerful and practical point. When ordering a new washing machine or dishwasher, for example, people have to pay if they want the person coming to fit the new one to take the old one away. That is almost a disincentive to recycle and reuse things. It is similar with mattresses. Does he agree that mattresses are the bane of local councils’ lives? They are dumped on the side of the road. We should make sure that they are recycled properly.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend raises the issue of mattresses, which absolutely are the most difficult thing to properly dispose of. I was going to restrict my point to white goods, but it is absolutely true of mattresses. Even with better regulations in place than previously, we still find substantial fly-tipping, quite often of mattresses, old furniture and white goods—old fridges or whatever. It is not so much the fridges and white goods that could have been taken away when a new item is purchased. If that item has a second life and is reused after it has been taken away, at the end of its life it has no value, and we are lucky if it goes down to the council tip or whatever and back into the producer responsibility cycle.
We still have a considerable problem with fly-tipping of these particular products. One way to deal with that would be to give those items a residual value, like the pop bottles. There is no reason whatever why any hon. Member should remember this, but I put forward a ten-minute rule Bill, in about 2001, I think, to introduce a deposit scheme for white goods. That would have meant that, for a small additional outlay, the product would throughout its life have a value attached to it, even when not being used. It would be a tiny proportion of the original cost of the white good—let us say a refrigerator—and as that reduced in value over time, the proportion of the value represented by the deposit would increase. Therefore, by the end of that particular product’s life, even if it had gone through several owners, it would have a value attached to it, which might well impel someone to turn it in rather than put it in a hedge. That is the same principle as the value that was added to vehicles at the end of life.
I am not clear about whether the regulations in schedule 8 are actually generic, or whether they will actually enable that sort of thing to happen in addition to the things that we normally talk about, such as the easier recycling of small items. I think the Minister will agree that it is not just about littering, it is about these large items. We could do the same thing with mattresses. We could require a deposit on a mattress, and provided someone had a certification of the deposit, they could receive the value of the mattress at the end of its life. Mattresses actually have quite long lives in various iterations. Does the Minister think that these regulations could accommodate that sort of arrangement? Although she has said that these regulations should be targeted, does she consider that in the fullness of time, perhaps they could be expanded in ambition and scope to accommodate those sorts of arrangements for the future? Does she think that within the schedule as it stands, regulations can be made that allow that to happen, or does she consider that further work may be necessary to bring it about?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I am pleased he raised those points, because it gives me a chance to expand a bit on a genuinely interesting subject by which most of the population are fascinated. As has been mentioned, people do want the schemes. In fact, I am old enough to remember those glass Tizer bottles that could be taken back.
To reiterate, we are talking about schedule 8, which deals with deposit return schemes and the issue of how many plastic drinks bottles we use—14 billion a year, as well as 9 billion cans and 5 billion glass bottles. A lot of them are recycled, but it is still only 65%, so we have a long way to go. That is why the schemes will be important.
We have had a consultation and we are in the process of developing proposals using further evidence and ongoing stakeholder engagement, which is important because we have to involve the industry and local authorities—all the people involved in that whole space. The final scope and model of the schemes for drinks containers, including whether it is all-in or on-the-go, will be presented in a second consultation. We are considering cans and plastic and glass bottles.
In the previous consultation, we also consulted on coffee cups, cartons and pouches, which are one of my bugbears. We seem to be forced to buy our cat food in pouches whereas most of it used to be in tins, which I can hardly find now. That is an interesting subject that we need to go into at some point.
The opportunity will be provided by the schedule, which sets out the framework for deposit return schemes, including what items would be subject to a deposit return scheme, how the deposit amount is set, the requirements that can be placed on scheme participants, and the enforcement requirements under a deposit return scheme. The crucial thing is that a scheme has to be well functioning to make it easy for consumers to use. That is incredibly important, otherwise they will not use it and it will not work.
Ruth Jones
The Minister raises an interesting point about cat food pouches that I will take away. Obviously it is importantly to address those things, so can she outline the timescale for that?
Rebecca Pow
I was going on to say, touching on the important point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, that the powers will allow us and future Governments to introduce deposit return schemes for other items in future. That is the purpose of them, so they can be expanded in scope, exactly as he hopes. He makes a good point on those grounds.
For example, those schemes could be for batteries, electrical and electronic equipment, and bulky items, including mattresses. The point about mattresses is absolutely right. My family are farmers and they find many mattresses dumped in their gateways on the outskirts of Bath. I know other Committee members’ families are involved in recycling and waste, and they could probably tell similar stories. The schedule will give us that opportunity.
The schemes will work hand in hand with the extended producer responsibility schemes, which will also help to reduce the amount of waste being dumped. Takeaway cups are classed as packaging, so they will come under the extended producer responsibility schemes for packaging. We are committed, as I think I said on a previous day, to consulting on EPR for textiles and bulky household items, so mattresses could come under that category of extended producer responsibility. Thus, exactly as I think the hon. Member was suggesting, it will all be factored into the costs of the mattress, but the manufacturer will have to abide by the EPR system for the mattresses. Other items that we have committed to consulting on for that EPR scheme are construction materials, tyres and fishing gear, so they should all work together.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 21 to schedule 9, page 174, line 28, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment is another case of “may” and “must”; at the risk of harping on about these things, it is important that we get our language correct. For the benefit of colleagues, I refer them to page 174, line 28 of the Bill, where we want to leave out “may” and insert the word “must”. The reason is that we want Ministers to take to keep their promises and be honest and bold in their promises. Once again, we are looking to strengthen the Bill and make it fit for purpose, and that is why I am asking the Minister to accept this objective and balanced amendment.
This schedule allows for the making of regulations about charges for single-use plastic items. These charges, which we have seen right across the country, with a charge on plastic bags in supermarkets and large stores such as John Lewis and the Link, aim to deliver a reduction in the consumption of single-use plastic items. Our amendment follows on from many others tabled to this Bill and moved in Committee. It is about delivery, it is about action and it is about getting this right.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for her amendment. However, it is appropriate to provide the relevant national authority with flexibility regarding when and how this provision relating to littered plastics is given effect. We have seen similar amendments across the Bill, balancing powers, what “may” be done, with duties or what “must” be done. This amendment is no different.
It will not be appropriate for this power to be exercised in all circumstances: for instance, our extended producer responsibility reforms to the packaging waste regulations should make significant strides towards addressing unnecessary plastic waste in packaging. Adding an additional charge would be unnecessary and unfair to those producers, as they would face an overlap of multiple charges and fees. To avoid that, we must take care when deciding which policy instrument to use in order to bring about the most effective change.
We need to take a measured approach and introduce the charge for items where there is a clear, considered and evidenced need for us to intervene. Imposing a duty for the Government to do so without thorough investigation into which products we should charge for could, for instance, lead to the unintended consequences of driving the market away from a single-use plastic product because a suitable alternative is available. That could risk causing even more serious effects, such as increasing greenhouse gas emissions through poor material switches.
The UK is consistently and rightly seen as a world leader in the area of tackling plastic pollution. I recently met a group called Oceana, a global organisation, thinking we were going to pick up lots of tips from them about how they are dealing with it, but they said, “Oh, no, we are watching you, Minister!” That was interesting—we are very much being watched on what measures we are putting in place.
We want to continue to lead by example to ensure that we reduce the plastic pollution entering the environment in the right way to prevent greater issues further down the line. This power will allow us and the devolved Governments of Wales and Northern Ireland to intervene as and when there is a clear need for change. I therefore ask the hon. Lady whether she might withdraw her amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her explanation. It is always helpful to hear her expand on matters. It is also good to hear that, yes, the Government are being scrutinised by non-governmental organisations out there. It is good to see that they are being held accountable by such people, who are, let us be honest, the watchdogs. They, too, want to ensure that we have action.
The argument about flexibility—that the danger with too much flexibility is that we cannot actually achieve anything—has been made many times, so I will not repeat it, but I am happy to hear about the progress being made in moving matters forward. Again, I press the Minister on timescales. If we are to consult, then how long for and when will action come through? However, I am sure we will discuss that later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 182 in schedule 9, page 174, line 32, leave out paragraph 1(2)(b) and insert—
“(b) are made of plastic or any other single use material, and”.
The schedule seeks to reduce the consumption of single-use plastic by allowing charges to be imposed. However, the provision for charges to apply only to single-use plastics risks merely shifting the environmental burden, as alternative materials may be used with equal environmental recklessness. The risks of material substitution are plentiful and well documented by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), a Conservative Member. They have also been covered in comprehensive reports from Greenpeace and the Green Alliance, and I thank both organisations for their work on this important area.
The deeper problem lies with the single-use, throwaway culture, not with plastic per se. We need to look at changing hearts and minds, as well as legislation. I am well aware that during the pandemic our progress on getting rid of single-use plastics has been set back, but I hope the Minister will take this serious and urgent issue forward.
To take fly-tipping, for example, one north London borough—I am sure that this is similar elsewhere—spends millions on collecting fly-tipping, because it has an obligation to keep streets clean, and residents complain when it does not. I am sure all hon. Members in the Committee have similar stories about the amounts their local councils have to fork out to ensure that their streets are kept clear of litter and fly-tipping.
It is not the council dumping mattresses, furniture, unwanted goods and so on; it is residents, businesses and the like, and we had a discussion about that, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. To tackle the problem, therefore, we need to get it into people’s heads that enough is enough. It is simply not acceptable to attack, damage and contaminate our environment like that. Similarly, with this amendment, we want to tackle the throwaway culture once and for all, and we can use the Bill to do just that.
The amendment would address that increasing challenge. We need to ensure that charges are possible for all single-use materials, not just the plastic ones. In simpler terms, our amendment would ensure that the Government can successfully tackle our throwaway culture at the same time as tackling plastic pollution. Treating plastic in a policy vacuum is a short-sighted approach that risks changes that could, for example, increase carbon emissions or result in more waste generation.
The amendment follows on from many others tabled to the Bill and moved in Committee. It is all about delivery, action and getting the Bill right.
Rebecca Pow
I appreciate the focus on this issue. However, I fear that the amendment has not taken enough account of the bespoke issue of plastics or of how much of the Bill is aimed at tackling our single-use culture. Applying charges to single-use plastic items will be an effective way of reducing the impact on the natural world. The measures are designed to focus specifically on single-use, hard-to-recycle plastics.
In 2019, the Marine Conservation Society recorded that, on average, per 100 metres of beach, more than 150 pieces of plastic were found, which is a shocking revelation. That is more than triple the second most commonly listed item, which is cigarette stubs, which also contain plastic. I do not know whether hon. Members have been to the Keep Britain Tidy events, but that organisation has a big drive on cigarette butts at the moment. They contain a horrifying amount of plastic, not to mention the other toxic chemicals.
The MCS’s work showcases the prevalence of plastics in our environment and explains why this material needs a focused clause in the Bill. As we saw with our ban on plastic straws, plastics still have an important role to play in certain applications, but Government intervention is necessary to tackle unnecessary plastic. Many of our mailbags are full of messages about these items. Public opinion was demonstrated in HMT’s call for evidence on tackling the plastic problem in March 2018, which received an incredible 162,000 responses, with strong support for the use of taxes and charges to tackle single-use plastic waste.
A lot is already being done on single-use plastics. Great work is being done on microbeads and microplastics, which the hon. Member for Cambridge referred to. When I was a Back Bencher, I asked the Speaker whether he had had a shower that morning, with the intention to point out how many microbeads were in the shower gel that would have been used. We have brought in one of the toughest bans in the world. There is also the 5p single-use carrier bag charge, which has had a dramatic impact on the number of bags used. A lot of good work has already been done.
The Bill already provides a robust approach towards achieving a more circular economy. Our new powers to reform the packaging waste regulations will enable us to adapt the system to incentivise all packaging, not just plastic, to be more carefully designed and manufactured, with recyclability in mind. The eco-design measures and consumer information powers will enable regulations to be made that set basic standards with sustainability in mind and that require information provision to consumers, to drive the market towards products that are designed to last longer, perhaps through multiple uses, instead of being thrown away after first use. The House of Commons shop is selling some excellent cutlery packs, which are made of bamboo. My hon. Friends and hon. Members should all carry a pack in their pockets or bags, to cut down on single-use items.
Meanwhile, our powers to enable the implementation of a deposit return scheme and introduce consistency in household and business recycling collections will drive the capture of more material and all types of single-use items for recycling.
Dr Whitehead
I am slightly concerned that the Minister is not responding to exactly what we said in the amendment. We need to make a decision on what this is about. Is it about single-use items, or is it about plastic items? In this instance, the two have been elided for the purpose of a concentration on plastic single-use items.
Schedule 9 defines single-use items in paragraph 1(3). It does not define them as a plastic single-use item, but simply as a “single use item”. The schedule enables the Government to make specific regulations. Indeed, the regulations “may specify”—that is the correct use of a “may”—single-use items, but only those that
“are made wholly or partly of plastic”,
which narrows down the range of single-use items.
The Chair
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has made his points—[Interruption.] I cannot bring in any other Members until the Minister has resumed.
Rebecca Pow
I was literally on my last paragraph. The ability to place a charge on single-use plastic items will be a powerful tool in our efforts to tackle the issues arising from our use of single-use plastic, while still allowing for their continued use by people who need them. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test has said, we are not talking about plastics; we are talking about single-use items.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
There is a specific issue in terms of plastic and why there is a need to focus on it: it is not biodegradable. It stays permanently in the oceans and is often very difficult to recycle. That is why there are so many tonnes of plastic floating around in the oceans, but not tonnes of other materials. We cannot start saying, “We’ve got to clamp down on everything that is single use.”
I suspect that the hon. Lady tends to buy The Guardian, which she uses only once. Would she put a special charge on buying all paper that is single use? Pieces of paper are single use, as are many other products. The trouble is that if we introduce charges on them, we actually discourage companies from moving from something like plastic, which is environmentally damaging, to something that is more sustainable. For example, I am a subscriber to The Times newspaper. It used to come wrapped in single-use plastic, which was terrible. It now comes wrapped in something that is completely bio- degradable, which can be put in the compost. If we introduce charges, we discourage companies from doing stuff that is more environmentally sustainable.
Ruth Jones
I am disturbed to hear that the hon. Member does not recycle The Guardian, because that is what we are doing.
Anthony Browne
I do. Well, I do not subscribe to The Guardian, but I recycle The Times.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his intervention. He cannot continue to make interventions from a sedentary position.
Ruth Jones
Thank you, Sir George. I am sure we can continue this debate at length at a later date.
I would suggest that we recycle everything that can be recycled, but the important thing is that we do not take our eye off the ball by talking just about plastics. The danger is that by talking just about plastics, we limit ourselves to being able to control only single-use plastic with this legislation in the future. Two years down the line, the problem might be some other material that is single use. Again, we have a problem with the definition of single use. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test said, the issue is the single-use sickness of it, rather than the actual product itself. That is why we think the amendment is so important, and we will push it to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Environment Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Thursday 12th November 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 November 2020 - (12 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
As hon. Members will recall, before we adjourned we discussed an amendment that sought to place a slightly different emphasis on elements of the schedule; we wanted to emphasise the question of single use in general, rather than just single-use plastic. The argument is that a lot of things other than plastic are single-use.
The idea is not what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire suggested in his intervention—that we would tax everything that was single-use, which would clearly be absurd. Indeed, one would not want to tax some plastic single-use items, given that they may be appropriate in a number of circumstances. That is why, on this occasion, the use of the word “may” is correct.
Schedule 9, it appears, has been drawn narrowly in respect of plastic and therefore narrowly also in terms of single use. To emphasise that, the schedule is actually headed “Charges for single use plastic items”, not “Charges for single use items that may be plastic”. That is unfortunate because the issue is not just about manufacturers seeking to get round a ban or restriction on single-use plastic items by making single-use items from different materials; it is that the whole throwaway culture is based on single-use items in general, which may or may not be plastic.
As those who have had the pleasure of dining under covid restrictions in this building, a couple of floors down, will know, a number of throwaway items are put forward for our use, including knife, fork and spoon sets. Interestingly, those sets are sometimes made of bamboo and sometimes of plastic; that seems to depend on which night people turn up for what meal. The principle is exactly the same: people are supposed to put the knife, fork and spoon set in the bin afterwards. In the particular instance of covid-19 restrictions, I fully understand why. However, although it is the norm in a number of catering establishments to supply a knife, fork and spoon set that cannot be washed and used again, those knife, fork and spoon sets are not necessarily only plastic. They can be made of all sorts of other things; the principle is that something is being made available that is supposed to be thrown away and not used again, when it could very easily be used again, with fairly minor alterations to the spec and how things are done, thereby saving a great deal of resource and upholding the principles of the circular economy.
That is what we were trying to get at in amendment 182. There are clearly various things that fit in that category and that we as a society could do a great deal to sort out, so as not to bring virgin materials into the economy when we do not need to and to circularise things so that they go round the economy. Making the best use of those items when we can is something that should be agreed to. Indeed, we had a debate a little while ago in which the Minister extolled the virtues of recyclable nappies. Of course, a recyclable nappy is what used to be known as a nappy. That is what people did, because Pampers and all the rest of it were not available in those days. However, we now have a culture where the default is to buy a bag of Pampers and get through those, rather than even thinking about using recyclable nappies. Indeed, they are quite difficult to get hold of.
Recyclable or non-recyclable nappies need not necessarily be made of plastic; they could be made of various things. However, the principle is about moving from nappies that are used in one way to those used by default in another way, with the result—which we know, and which I am sure comes across the Minister’s desk every day—that nappies are now a substantial part of the waste stream and potentially part of fatbergs and various other things in our sewers, because of the change over time from multiple to single use.
We do not oppose the schedule, but can the Minister see circumstances in which discouraging but not necessarily removing single use could be incorporated into the schedule or introduced in further regulations, or does she think that that is it for the debate on single-use items? I cannot believe that it is; we need to take it further than just plastic items. I seek suggestions or an understanding for how we can best advance the debate, if not through this schedule, then maybe somewhere else.
In conclusion, I know personally that a number of items—some of which apply to me—including certain medical things, such as sealed eye drops, absolutely need to continue to be plastic single-use items, and it would be inappropriate were it otherwise. My view is not that we should remove all plastic single-use items—or use only single-use items—but we all ought to be seeking to give ourselves the possibility of ensuring between us that the most circularity is achieved. I hope the Minister can give us some guidance and assurances on that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
The Government are committed to tackling plastic pollution and moving towards sustainable alternatives. The schedule outlines the various provisions that can be brought forward in secondary legislation to place new charges on single-use plastic items. That will provide the incentive needed for citizens to use reusable alternatives while ensuring that single-use options are still available to those who need them—examples such as those the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The success of the carrier bag charge, which has led to a 95% reduction in the use of plastic carrier bags in the main supermarkets since its introduction, demonstrates the difference that even a small incentive can make.
I want to wind up this debate by being clear that the power in schedule 9 is related to single-use plastic items, with the reason being that single-use plastic items, as I highlighted right at the beginning, are increasingly common in daily life. They are a significant and ongoing environmental problem, in use and disposal, and given that they are not valued, they are indeed disposed of via black bins or littering. They are not commonly recycled. The measure will address that.
Other single-use items will be addressed through the other myriad measures in the Bill, including deposit return and extended producer responsibility. The general ethos of this whole part of the Bill is to drive down waste from the very beginning, and I believe that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, has not fully taken all that into account. When he sits down tonight in bed with the Bill and goes over it and the explanatory notes, he will realise that the problem he is raising is dealt with. That has all been thought about. I am, however, grateful to him that he will not oppose the schedule.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 9 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Separation of waste
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
We do not seek to oppose the clause, but I want to ask about food waste, which we may come to when we debate later schedules.
Food waste is clearly an important issue. Indeed, it was highlighted in the resources and waste strategy for England, which came out a little while ago, in a chapter headed, “Enough is enough: cutting down on food waste”. At the time, the White Paper projected that total UK food waste was 10.2 million tonnes. Interestingly, that food waste was broken down by sector. It suggested that households produced 7.1 million tonnes of food waste, hospitality and food service 1 million tonnes, manufacturing 1.85 million tonnes and retail 0.25 million tonnes. The important thing about that particular distinction made in the White Paper is that, yes, there is a large amount of food waste, as we know, and we could have a long debate about the reasons for rising food waste, how we can suppress that rise in food waste and how we can do much better at ensuring that we use what we are producing.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important and detailed point. We do need to clarify this issue: what is written in law is written in law, and we must make sure that we fully understand it.
The Welsh Government currently have higher recycling rates than the English rates, because of the way that food waste is dealt with. Food waste is separated by the household; at kerbside, it is separated again by the collection authorities. There is food waste as well as recycling. There is an important point to be made about weekly collections. If food collections are less than weekly, all sorts of contaminations can occur, such as maggots, infestations and so on. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we clarify these points?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that clarity is important.
In clause 54(4), immediately after the conditions that are set out on recyclable and food waste, there is a separate amendment to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which talks about the
“separate collection of household waste from relevant nondomestic premises”.
The conditions in that proposed new section are different from those on household waste. We have an issue here about what it means to collect recyclable waste, which may be food waste, in the context of household collection; and what it means to collect food waste that is separate from recyclable waste, and appears to be collectable once a week.
Unless the join is properly made between the different provisions in legislation, it appears to me, the holes will not be completely filled. Can the Minister point me to other parts of the Bill where they are filled? Alternatively, will it be possible to fill those holes in different ways, by regulations? I would be delighted to hear from the Minister what she thinks about the idea in general and how far she thinks the clause has gone towards resolving the problems.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. In the 2018 resources and waste strategy, the Government set out their intention to achieve 65% recycling of municipal waste by 2035. Our current arrangements are insufficient to meet that, so clause 34 will make a big difference. It will make recycling simpler for everybody by requiring the same recyclable waste streams to be collected from all households, whatever their local authority. At the moment, as hon. Friends and Members know, we have myriad different systems across the country, which is clearly not the best way to get the most products collected, recycled and reused. That will include non-domestic premises such as schools, hospitals and businesses.
Through the Bill, no matter where people live in England, they will have their plastic, metal, glass, paper, card, food waste and garden waste all collected for recycling, with food waste being collected from households weekly. The unexpected consequences of leaving food waste longer than that were outlined by the hon. Member for Newport West.
Food waste should be collected separately unless absolutely not technically or economically practical, but there is a requirement for it to be collected every week. At the very least, householders will have a bin for what is called dry recycling, which are the first things I mentioned, and another bin for residual waste, as we do in Taunton Deane already; I do not know whether they have those in Southampton, Test.
Rebecca Pow
All the district councils in Somerset join together for that scheme. It works extremely well and it is very straightforward. All other local authorities will follow a similar model, so there will no longer be a postcode lottery with one place where they do collect it and another where they do not.
For the first time, there will also be a requirement, as was raised by the hon. Gentleman, for non-domestic premises and businesses to arrange to have the same recyclable waste streams as households, separately collected, with the exception of garden waste, and for them to present their waste in accordance with those arrangements. I honestly believe that the hon. Gentleman is getting a bit muddled in his interpretation of what he is reading, because what is envisaged is clear.
Daniel Zeichner
I do not mean to usurp my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, who I am sure will follow immediately afterwards, but I think much of that is to be welcomed—certainly weekly collections. As I am sure the Minister is aware, the Local Government Association has caveated its support with a request for funding to be made available to carry those out. Can she point to where in the Bill that guarantee is given?
Rebecca Pow
We have made it very clear from the beginning that burdens to local authorities will be covered. If the hon. Gentleman wants us to write to him in more detail about that, we can, but that has been made quite clear.
Dr Whitehead
If I am being misled, I look to the Minister to provide clarification, which I hope she is beginning to do—indeed, that is what I want, to inform my understanding of how the clause will work. There are some things that I cannot quite get to the bottom of, however, so perhaps she can point me to exactly how they join together.
I very much welcome the advances on food waste and it is essential that we take action on that, but I remain unconvinced that the clause states exactly that every local collection authority has to provide a food waste collection. If they do provide a food waste collection, it has to be collected once a week, but does the clause mean that every local authority has to provide an unmingled food waste collection arrangement and that that arrangement is not to be mingled with more general recyclable collections?
I am sure that the Minister can appreciate the distinction between putting a whole pile of food waste in a general recycling bin and separating food waste out so that it can be used for specific purposes. If food waste is mingled in with recycling, it is difficult to take it out subsequently, and it cannot be used entirely for the purposes for which we want food waste to be used: anaerobic digestion and various other things.
The Chair
Order. Before I bring the Minister back in, I should say that I have allowed lengthy interventions on the basis that I think it is for the good conduct of the Committee that people have the opportunity to make these points, so no criticism is implied. However, I do hope people will try to be a bit briefer with their interventions as the Committee proceeds.
Rebecca Pow
I think the hon. Gentleman has made his own point, really. He has outlined why we do not want food waste mingled up with all the rest of the waste. That is why through this Bill, no matter where in England a person lives, they will see dry waste—plastic, metal, glass, paper and card—collected, and food, which is not dry waste, in a separate bin. That is all in the Bill. Food waste will be collected from households on a weekly basis—I do not know how much clearer I can be. That will make recycling more straightforward and, with all the other measures in the Bill, will help us to increase overall recycling rates to 65%.
These recyclable waste streams must be collected separately from other waste and separately from each other, except when it is technically or economically impractical to do so or there is no significant environmental benefit. That will lead to higher quality, driving up the value of all recycled materials and, in turn, encouraging more recycling through increased demand. The clause allows us to add additional recyclable waste streams in future, subject to certain conditions. It will provide consistency of recycling for the first time, and help us meet future recycling targets. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 55
Electronic waste tracking: Great Britain
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 128, in clause 55, page 41, line 33, leave out “including” and insert “excluding”.
Clause 55 adds new text to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and seeks to set up a new system of electronic tracking for waste. Our amendment, which stands in my name and that of my hon. colleagues, seeks to secure that new system. I say to the Minister that the proposed new system is very welcome, but although we welcome the proposal, we and many campaigners and experts want to go further. The new system needs to be expanded to track all materials in line with the National Materials Datahub—the same data hub that the Government have previously supported. I hope the Minister will understand the background and motivation behind what we are trying to do here, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for the amendment. I would point out that in the resources and waste strategy, the Government committed to modernising, simplifying and harmonising current regulations relating to the transport, management and description of waste, which have been introduced in a very piecemeal fashion over the past 30 years or so. She will probably agree with me that the current system is in urgent need of an update, and I welcome the fact that she is supporting these general measures.
Waste tracking is still largely carried out using paper-based record keeping, which makes it very difficult to track waste effectively, as it provides organised criminals with the opportunity to hide evidence of the systematic mishandling of waste. In 2018, the independent review into serious and organised waste crime recommended that mandatory electronic tracking of waste should be introduced at the earliest opportunity to address the problems of illegality in the waste sector. In the current system, waste can be fraudulently re-classified and transferred on, or simply illegally dumped, and the paper trail then disappears. That makes it difficult to identify and deal with waste crime, including cases of fly-tipping, which concerns rural and urban areas.
To make essential improvements and create a digital waste-tracking system, amendments may be required to primary legislation or retained direct EU legislation. That does not mean that we are falling behind the EU on standards of waste management—far from it. Instead, we will amend the current legislation to develop a comprehensive system, to ensure that waste can be tracked and regulated more effectively.
The practical effect of the amendment, therefore, would be to undermine and restrict our ability to introduce mandatory electronic waste tracking in a way that works best for our environment, now and in the future, although I know that is not the hon. Member’s intention. I ask her, therefore, to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for her expansion on the situation. We are singing from the same hymn sheet, because electronic tracking is so important, as the Minister said; the paperwork trail is not as accurate as the electronic one. We all want the same thing. I am pleased she has mentioned the EU, because we do not want to fall behind the EU either. That is paramount as we move forward from 1 January. With that in mind, we will not push the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 43, in clause 55, page 41, line 44, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56
Electronic waste tracking: Northern Ireland
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 56, page 43, line 4, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment, again, is focused on language and the strength of the legislation. We want to replace “may” with “must”. I suspect the Minister is getting tired of hearing these amendments, but we are trying to be helpful and ensure that the Bill is as strong and effective as possible. I will not repeat the benefits of “must” over “may”.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for the amendment. The introduction of a mandatory electronic waste tracking system will increase transparency in the waste industry, as I outlined earlier, and pose a barrier to organised criminals operating in the sector.
Clause 56 provides the regulation-making powers needed to legislate on how the system is set up and administered in Northern Ireland. It is entirely appropriate to provide the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland with the flexibility as to when and how the provision is given effect. Primary legislation consistently takes that approach to the balance between powers and duties. This enabling power should not be converted into a duty.
It should be for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to decide how and when to use the enabling power to bring forward legislation and, in turn, for the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide whether to approve this legislation. The Assembly must be given its proper place in terms of scrutiny when it comes to the commencement and implementation of the powers. The proposed amendment to place an absolute duty on the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs goes against the spirit of that. If the amendment is made, the Department could be subject to a duty to make regulations on waste tracking that it would then be unable to comply with if the Assembly did not approve the legislation. It would also not be appropriate for Northern Ireland to be subject to a duty to make waste tracking regulations that the other nations of the UK are not subject to. I therefore consider the amendment inappropriate and ask the hon. Lady if she will kindly withdraw it.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her comments. While I understand her reasoning, we want Northern Ireland to be in line with the rest of the UK in being as strong and far reaching as possible on waste and electronic tracking systems. It is important that we enable the Northern Ireland Assembly and the authorities there to do everything they want to. We had a long debate on powers and duties when considering the Agriculture Bill. If it is that important, it should be legislated for, and it should be in the Bill. However, having heard the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to.
Clause 59
Transfrontier shipments of waste
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 177, in clause 59, page 50, line 19, at end insert—
“(1C) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to prohibit the exportation of waste consisting wholly or mostly of plastic from no later than March 2025.”.
The clause seeks to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and give the Secretary of State new powers to regulate the export of waste from the United Kingdom. In principle, it is welcome, because a country of our wealth and location should absolutely not export polluting waste to countries in poorer parts of the world with economies nowhere near the size of ours. This is a question of morality in many ways. I touched on it earlier this week when I referenced the situation that the Government are now in with Sri Lanka and the 21 containers that were shipped there in 2017 that are now being returned.
For all the welcome that the clause deserves, existing international commitments mean that it is already illegal for the UK to send polluting waste to non-OECD countries. The international Basel convention obliges signatories, including the UK, to prohibit the export of waste to developing countries if they have reason to believe that the waste will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner. The convention will be strengthened in 2021, when most plastic will become subject to even stricter hazardous waste controls.
The United Kingdom, in many ways, has had a lost decade under the Tories and Lib Dems when it comes to protecting the environment. I have to say that this country has struggled to fulfil its international obligations in this area, although the Environment Agency in England recently tried to increase its preventive work, and I acknowledge those small, tentative steps forward in spite of the cuts to resources it has suffered over the last 10 years.
For the power before us to be exercised effectively, the Government need to put in place an adequate regulatory and enforcement system to ensure that they meet current and future obligations on waste shipments. Ministers need to review the approach to consumption and resources use to reduce current and future reliance on landfill and incineration. This should address the underlying drivers of the waste problem. For ease of reference, those drivers include unsustainable growth and consumption of single-use packaging and other items, a lack of domestic recycling and reprocessing infrastructure, and limited end markets for secondary materials. We have had some useful debates on those things already during the passage of the Bill through this Committee. The amendment is specific and allows us to show the leadership that people and nations across the world expect from the United Kingdom.
Daniel Zeichner
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, who has made a very good case for the amendment. I am puzzled about why the world is not more excited by the Bill at the moment. Given the wider world’s interest in environmental issues, one would expect it to be on everyone’s lips. Of course, Greta Thunberg laid out the challenge: she does not trust a single politician, and here was the opportunity for the Minister to respond and to become a politician Greta Thunberg might trust. Part of the problem is the lack of ambition in the Bill, and that is exactly what the amendment inserts into it—a sense of urgency.
I suspect that hon. Members have been into primary schools and talked to young children. I used to do that often, and I was struck by how many times environmental issues came up. I have had numerous letters from schools, and the issue of waste being transported elsewhere comes up time after time. So many of our fellow citizens do the right thing. In so many households, particularly in a city such as Cambridge, people go to huge efforts to recycle, but then they ask themselves where it goes. When they read—possibly even in The Guardian occasionally—that all is not well on this front, it really demoralises them. They think, “What’s the point?” They are doing their bit, but their Government are not doing the bit that only Government can do.
That is why there is an opportunity to strengthen the Bill. The Minister should welcome the opportunity the Opposition are giving her today to do that and to perhaps begin to be able to say to the wider world that these things really are worth supporting. With all the caveats, all the “mays” and all the reasons why these things cannot be done yet because they are too difficult and complicated, the feeling out there in the wider world among the people we represent is that there really is not the sense of urgency that the situation requires.
Dr Whitehead
I echo my hon. Friend’s claim that the amendment is very important for how the country is seen to deal with its waste, and particularly for how we are seen by our own population. Hopefully, we are seen in a positive light. All that we have discussed about recycling, single-use plastics and such things is based, to a considerable extent, on the public’s confidence that what is going to happen is actually what does happen. If the public think that none of what is being said to them is true, the chances of them co-operating—by sorting everything into different bins, ensuring that things are returned, and stopping dumping things in hedges—will be undermined.
The fact that we are seen to be dealing with our own waste properly and safely, and that we are not simply using the export of waste as a safety valve for our inadequacies in processing waste fully in our country, ought to be something that should concern us very much. Frankly, that is what has happened over a number of years with our waste exports. We do import some waste, but we export quite a lot more than we import. The waste we import is usually waste that can be used for energy from waste and various other things, such as refuse-derived fuel. The waste we export is not only of a much wider variety, but actually goes to parts of the world where, in many instances, we cannot be sure—and certainly, people there cannot be sure—that the destination for that waste is of the standard we would expect if that waste were disposed of in our own country.
The Minister has said this legislation would ensure that we do not export waste other than to OECD countries. That sounds very reassuring, until we look at membership of OECD countries. It is not, shall we say, EU members and a couple of other states in the world. It is actually a wide variety of states across the world: for example, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Turkey are members of the OECD. Therefore, that is not necessarily the quality standard route, as far as safety valves are concerned. The best thing to do is probably to ensure we have sufficient recycling collection, processing and reuse facilities here, so that we can really deal with all our waste in the UK. That is not just a practical thing; it is a moral obligation we have for the future, as far as waste management is concerned.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West mentioned, what we really do not want is repeated scenes—not just repeated scenes, but repeated extremely embarrassing scenes—of bales of waste, mainly consisting of plastic, going to countries we think will quite easily accept them and say nothing, but that are now beginning to say, “This is not good enough. The quality of this material is not right. It is not what we thought it was going to be, so you can have it back.” That is not just one instance—Sri Lanka; we have form on this. This has happened with several countries, including Malaysia, which sent back 27 bales of waste. Indeed, I put a written question to the Minister a little while ago about how that had happened, what was going to happen with that material when it came back to the UK and whether it would be properly dealt with and disposed of.
Part of the reason these things have started to happen is that some of our traditional destinations, in terms of what have historically been fairly lazy assumptions about export of waste, have drawn the drawbridge up themselves. China’s great green wall policy means that the Chinese no longer want to receive anything that looks vaguely usable that we might put in a container back to China, and that we cannot work on the assumption that they can somehow reprocess some of it and will be quite pleased to do so because that will help their economy. They do not want it. They have put a green wall up to stop these things happening.
That has meant that the waste exports have gone to other countries, which it was thought are less particular about what they want to receive and, indeed, probably happy to receive stuff that is not what it says on the tin or on the bale. One issue from this particular return of bales of waste to the UK was that they were claimed to be high-quality waste that could be reused and remanufactured by those countries for recycling purposes. However, they were not. There was all sorts of old stuff, to coin a phrase, in those bales, and it was way beyond the standard that they would reasonably accept. Two questions arise from that. First, what were we doing continuing to export in that lazy way to those countries? Secondly, why did what I thought were our internal checks and balances to ensure the quality of what we export fail to work?
We have potentially considerable work to do. If we are to continue to export waste at all, we have to get our act together and ensure that that waste is as good as it could be and is absolutely not going to the wrong places. The Opposition think that the best way to deal with plastic or mostly plastic waste is simply to say that by 2025 we will stop doing that. Yes, that gives us a challenge, because we currently do not have sufficient good-quality plastic recycling facilities in this country, particularly those that can properly separate the 25 or 26 different kinds of plastic and put them at the right level in the plastics hierarchy so that we do not end up only making traffic cones with the plastic we recycle.
With plastic recycling, the production level of the plastic going into the system needs to be commensurate with the recycling that takes place, so that the plastic can be recycled at that level. For example, food-grade plastic has to be recycled with other food-grade plastic. If it is contaminated with anything else, it stops being food-grade plastic, recycled or not. Indeed, if we are not careful, it all goes to the bottom of the plastic hierarchy, and we get massive amounts of park benches and traffic cones and nothing else.
We need better facilities in this country for recycling and reprocessing plastic that can be recycled properly, according to the hierarchy. That is partly why the amendment says:
“from no later than March 2025.”
That would give us the space to start getting our act together in this country and ensuring that facilities are available to recycle properly. We really cannot accept, and I do not think any of us would want to accept, that exporting waste should in the future be seen as a safety valve for our own inadequacies. It has to be different from that. The amendment underlines why it has to be different, how it can be different and how we can set an example to the world by ensuring that we deal with what arises from our own backyard in our own backyard and do not send it out across the world, for purposes that we do not know too much about and that the people concerned are obviously increasingly upset about when it gets to them.
This is an important amendment that we hope the Minister will accept entirely in the spirit in which it is intended. I know that she is absolutely committed to those high standards in our waste management, and I hope that she will accept it in that spirit.
Rebecca Pow
I thank all hon. Members who have inputted, although I take slight issue with the “lost decade” for the environment. I think Labour needs to look at its own record prior to that and ask how we have come to this pass. Thank goodness we have a Government who are doing something about it. However, that is not to say that I do not welcome the Opposition’s support; I absolutely do.
Also, the hon. Member for Cambridge asked why people were not more excited about the Bill. I believe they are genuinely excited about it, and it is such a huge Bill. Other hon. Members have probably had this too, but when one meets groups of people who might be a wee bit, what I call controversial, and explains what is in the Bill, they are absolutely amazed. It literally addresses all the things that people write to us about and that fill our inboxes, so I for one am going to be that champion—indeed, I hope I already am. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me and promote the Bill, because I think it will do all the things we need for a sustainable future.
Anyway, to the amendment, for which I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and which would prohibit the export of
“waste consisting wholly or mostly of plastic”
by March 2025. However, the clause already provides powers to make regulations on a wide range of matters to do with the import and export of waste, including prohibiting and restricting its export. We will use powers in this clause to implement our manifesto commitment to ban the export of plastic waste to non-OECD countries —exactly what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test is asking for—as we recognise that some countries have difficulty processing imports of this type of waste. We are committed to dealing with more of our waste here in the UK through the measures I have been talking about today and previously. We will consult industry, NGOs and local authorities on the date by which the ban will be achieved.
Rebecca Pow
I will, but very briefly, because the hon. Gentleman had a very long go just now.
Dr Whitehead
I will indeed. I just wanted to correct what the Minister seemed to suggest I said about the OECD. I was not saying “Hooray for exports to the OECD!” Rather, I think we should see whether all OECD member countries keep to high standards of waste reception and export. My perusal of the membership suggests that not all do.
Rebecca Pow
I too looked at that great list of members yesterday and at non-OECD countries. The OECD countries represent 80% of the world’s investment and wealth. I just wanted to make a point about OECD countries and waste, though. We must not forget that waste is a commodity and that there is a legitimate global market for secondary materials. Exports of waste for recycling between OECD countries are already covered by an international agreement—the OECD decision—which provides the framework for the control of movements of waste.
Where the UK cannot currently recycle materials economically, exports can ensure in some cases that th3e materials are recycled, rather than sent to landfill or for incineration. Not all products sold in the UK are made in the UK. Waste exports can help to increase the amount of recycled materials going into new products we buy that are produced abroad. We must not forget the big picture where waste goes and what it is used for.
Making the amendment before the consultation on the date for stopping the exports of waste to non-OECD countries would pre-empt the result of the consultation. It is important that all stakeholders have a fair and equal opportunity to express their view on when the proposed prohibition should be implemented. The prohibition could have wide-ranging effects on local authorities and our wider waste infrastructure, and it is important to consider these effects fully before we set a timetable for implementing the ban.
I assure all hon. Members that the Government take very seriously the regulation of waste imports and exports, as well as the impact illegal waste shipments can have on the global environment—hence our manifesto commitments. Electronic waste tracking will help this agenda, as we will know what is going where and it will be harder to send the wrong products abroad. I reaffirm that we should be dealing with our own waste right here in the UK wherever possible. I ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw her amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her enthusiasm for this Bill. We are obviously all enthused, and it is important we get the word out about what is going on. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge and for Southampton, Test for their eloquent speeches about the need to deal with things at home and not just shove them off into the far blue yonder. People at home have woken up and want to do the right thing. We go on and on about people’s awareness being raised, but we must ensure that they have the ability to do the right thing.
Greta Thunberg has spoken eloquently and young people around the UK especially have taken on board what she says. I was honoured to make my maiden speech on 1 May last year, when she addressed a number of us in Portcullis House. It was the day we declared the climate change emergency so it was important. She is seen as one of the leading lights in engaging young people and encouraging them to lobby those within and outside this room, so that we will do the right thing for them and for future generations.
The nub of the matter is the end result, which is that we are dumping containers in another country. I have seen TV pictures of young people—children—scavenging through waste sites, and the waste has clearly been identified as coming from the UK. That is not acceptable and we know it. We need to make sure we deal with our waste here in the United Kingdom, for the very reason that the Minister has outlined, and with the very mechanisms that she outlined. We make the waste and we must dispose of it properly ourselves though measures including proper processing and proper waste stations. Let us not forget, if we ship waste abroad, it contributes to climate change through the extra emissions from shipping freight.
The Minister has made an eloquent plea for us to withdraw the amendment because the deadline of March 2020 might hinder meaningful consultation, but I argue that the deadline is a helpful way to encourage people to consult and to decide how we can achieve what we want within the timeline. I should say it is a spur—a driver—to help. If the Government are ambitious then, yes, set an ambitious target. That is why it is important that we should push the deadline. That is how we can start to demonstrate that this is about actions, not words. For that reason we shall divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.
Clause 70 stand part.
That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
I wanted to draw the Committee’s attention to schedule 11, which concerns the local authority management framework. As hon. Members will see, within that framework on air quality, an enormous amount is placed on the local authority’s plate. That is quite right because the people at local authorities are absolutely the right people to deal with air quality problems.
A little while ago there were exceedances of world standards on air quality. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs required a number of the local authorities that were in danger of infraction at that point to draw up local air quality plans and to produce proposals to improve air quality in certain areas. My city, Southampton, was one of those places. Generally, there was a good relationship between the Department and my local authority in drawing up those plans—this was before the more extensive plans set out in schedule 11 —how those were looked at by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what sums of money were put in to support the plans in some instances, and how they then went forward. So far, so good.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Improving the quality of the air we breathe is an absolute priority for the Government. We are taking action to reduce pollution from a range of sources, including a £3.8 billion plan to reduce pollution from road vehicles and our commitment, set out in clause 2 of the Bill, to set a legally binding national target to reduce fine particulate matter, which we discussed a great deal on the very first day of this Committee, a long time ago. The current local air quality management framework places responsibility on local councils to assess local levels of air pollution and to address pollution exceedances. The framework—I think this is what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, and I agree with him—is not sufficient for delivering the progress we want to see.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues, but, first of all, on cross-departmental working, I can assure him that I, as the environment Minister, am working increasingly across Departments. On air, we work with the Department for Transport in particular; we have the joint air quality unit with that Department and we are also increasingly working with the Department of Health and Social Care. That is really healthy and really important.
However, going back to that framework, local authorities have told us that they need greater co-operation from a range of bodies in order to deliver meaningful action to bring pollution levels to within statutory limits. The provisions in the schedule will drive greater co-operation between different levels of local government and allow the Secretary of State to designate other relevant public authorities that will also be required to take action. I think that is what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test is really driving at, but it is all in here, and we will consult on which bodies should be designated—actually, we launched a call for evidence on this on 5 October, so work is already under way.
As we set out in our clean air strategy, we also want to provide a quicker and more proportionate enforcement mechanism for smoke control areas, enabling greater local action on domestic solid fuel burning, which is a major contributor to national fine particulate matter emissions. I think the hon. Gentleman touched on funding. We anticipate only a small extra cost to local authorities from the revised local air quality management frameworks —the estimate we have had is around £13,000 per year per local authority.
Returning to the enforcement measures, especially in relation to the smoke control areas and domestic solid fuel burning, we are going to help tackle that, and we will achieve that by replacing the criminal offence in existing legislation with a civil penalty regime, which will allow for the removal of the statutory defences that currently hinder enforcement. This change will ensure that local authorities can avoid lengthy and costly court cases—many of them have mentioned this to us—in enforcing regulations on the smoke emissions, enabling much smarter enforcement. It will be much quicker and simpler for them to deal with an issue as and when they come across it if we make it a civil penalty.
Ruth Jones
On that point about enforcement, while we agree that it is essential that local authorities are able to enforce, how does the Minister see that enforcement being undertaken? There are environmental health officers up to their eyes with covid, there are lots of people who are no longer in work because of the cuts the authorities have had to make and the funding is an issue. How will it happen?
Rebecca Pow
The main way it will happen is that we will put the measures in the Bill to enable it to happen, so that the local authorities can take the action they are asking for. This is something they have been asking for and it will be made much simpler for them to take the action that they want to take, so they need to take it. We will have all our targets on smoke and fine particulate matter, so there will be even more reason to tackle any issues within one’s particular local authority.
These measures will also require retailers in England to notify customers of the law regarding the purchase of certain solid fuels for use in smoke control areas. These measures will all work together to improve compliance. They will remove the limit on the fine for the current offence of delivering these fuels to a building in a smoke control area. Local authorities will also be able to apply smoke control legislation to boats moored in their area, subject to consultation. Finally, criminal prosecution of serious offenders who repeatedly emit smoke that is prejudicial to health will be made possible by removing an exemption in existing statutory nuisance legislation. That is another thing that will definitely help the local authorities.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clause 71
Environmental recall of motor vehicles etc
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 71, page 61, line 25, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
The clause provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for the recall of relevant products that do not meet the appropriate environmental standards. I am afraid that this is yet another case of mays and musts. The whole point of the Bill is to deliver real change and to ensure that we seize every opportunity to save our planet.
Do not forget, the Bill disappeared for more than 200 days, so we have lost a lot of time in the fight against climate change—but the fight is why we are here today. We cannot simply report back to the Floor of the House, and to the country, a Bill that is full of mays, ifs and buts. Let us be confident and turn those mays into musts and whens. We can get the Bill through and get on with what we need to do about climate change.
Rebecca Pow
We know the harmful effect that pollution from vehicles and machinery has on our air quality and the health of our communities. I am sure that all Members are aware of the difficulties facing many local authorities in bringing down concentrations of dangerous air pollution. Much of that is due to vehicles that emit more pollution on the road than they do in a certification test. The Government therefore set out in our clean air strategy that vehicles that do not meet the relevant environmental standards must be recalled and fixed. The provisions will enable the Transport Secretary to issue a mandatory recall notice if vehicles or parts of vehicles do not meet the environmental standards required of them.
I assure hon. Members that my colleagues in the Department for Transport intend to lay secondary legislation at the earliest opportunity to ensure that non-compliant vehicles can be removed from the road. However, it is critical that the vehicle recall regime is fit for purpose. We therefore intend to have a full public consultation on the draft regulations, and we expect the secondary legislation to be in place as soon as possible after Royal Assent. That will depend on the outcome of the consultation. It is appropriate that the Secretary of State is provided with the flexibility as to when and how this provision is given effect. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for her words. Obviously, we welcome the clean air strategy. The fact that secondary legislation will be introduced is also welcome but, again, we do not want it to be seen as an excuse to kick things further down the road. Kicking the can down the road is not a good idea, especially when it comes to people’s health. As we know, the lack of clean air can impact directly on people’s lung capacity, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and things like that, which are all exacerbated by poor air quality.
My question to the Minister—it is rhetorical, of course—is, again, who will enforce? She has talked about secondary legislation, but who will actually enforce when a vehicle is seen emitting polluting smoke and particles? Who will do it? There is no money and no staff within the local authorities to do it.
Rebecca Pow
The measures will impose no additional cost on the motorists. All the recalls will continue to be fully funded by the affected vehicle manufacturers. When enacting a recall, the Government will now be able to impose supplementary conditions on vehicle manufacturers, which could include the requirement that the owner of the vehicle or equipment is compensated for any inconvenience. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that that means there is a sound system, including setting it all in secondary legislation.
Ruth Jones
That is interesting. I am sure that we will have further debates on this with later parts of the Bill. When I ask who will enforce, I am talking about boots on the ground—who will physically get to the car, lorry or whatever, to pull it in for the assessment it needs in order to impose that secondary legislation? But I am grateful to her for her explanation and, on that note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 72 to 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)
Environment Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Tuesday 17th November 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 November 2020 - (17 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I welcome hon. Members back to line-by-line consideration of the Environment Bill. I particularly welcome the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, who joins our Committee for the first time.
Clause 75
Water resources management plans, drought plans and joint proposals
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 75, page 66, line 11, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
We start this morning with an amendment relating to clause 75. It will not be a surprise to any member of the Committee. The suggestion is to replace the word “may” in the line under the heading “Plans and joint proposals: regulations about procedure”. Proposed new section 39F of the Water Industry Act 1991 states:
“The Minister may by regulations make provision about the procedure for preparing and publishing—
(a) a water resources management plan,
(b) a drought plan, and
(c) a joint proposal”.
It seems to the Opposition that it is very important that these things—a management plan, drought plan and joint proposal—are actually published and that provision is made about the procedure for publishing them. That is a central part of this clause.
As we have said in this Committee previously, no aspersions are cast in any direction concerning the present intentions of Ministers, but I remind the Committee that we are making legislation for a very long time and that there might conceivably be circumstances in which Ministers less well inclined towards the process light upon this clause and decide that it is not really so important that regulations are made, hence we think that the word “must” should be inserted in the Bill.
We have pointed on a number of occasions to the lack of “musts” in the Bill. I think that this is one of the more important ones and I hope that the Minister, even if she is not prepared to consider a number of the other “musts”, will have laid by a little store of sympathy for this “must” proposal, because it relates, as I think she would agree, to a very important feature of this clause.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I would like to add to the argument about the fact that this legislation will stand for a long time. Even the fact that clause 75 amends the Water Industry Act 1991 is a reminder to us of how long we expect this legislation to be in force and people to be acting on it accordingly. The Water Industry Act became law 29 years ago and we are still discussing it, and how we will amend it, now. Many years from now, we will still be discussing this legislation, and therefore it is so important to get it right. That is why a “must” instead of a “may” is very important, especially in this clause.
This amendment seeks especially to talk about regional plans. Currently, planning on a regional rather than a company-by-company basis is non-statutory, and so to put this on a statutory basis would be a gear change in terms of water resource management. I would welcome any moves to put regional plans on a statutory footing, but the Government have to be clearer on the circumstances in which the Secretary of State would use the powers and how adherence to the regional plans would be encouraged if it were not clearly set out here. The current drafting is too weak and does not give this clause the teeth that it needs.
By changing “may” to “must”, amendment 9 would tighten up the clause considerably and make it far more effective. It would require the Secretary of State to make provision setting out the procedure for preparing and publishing water resources management plans, drought plans and joint proposals. I would like the Minister, before rejecting the amendment and dismissing it as unnecessary, to answer the following questions. Under what circumstances would the Secretary of State expect to use the powers created by clause 75 to direct water companies to prepare and publish joint proposals—the regional plans? There is a concern that that will not become standard practice if it is not expected. If the powers are not used and regional water resources planning remains on a non-statutory footing—if it is just a “may”—how will the Secretary of State ensure that companies produce water resources management plans that are aligned with the regional plans?
In the absence of a commitment to using the powers created under clause 75 to direct regional planning, can the Minister assure us that the Secretary of State will direct the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to set out the need for company plans to align fully with regional plans in its strategic policy statement to Ofwat? Otherwise, many who are listening to and reading this debate will remain concerned that companies’ individual plans could deviate from regional plans, affecting our ability to provide sustainable water resources for society in the light of the worrying projections set out in the Environment Agency’s national framework for water resources.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I want to make a general philosophical point about “mays” and “musts”. We have been talking about this matter a lot over the past couple of weeks. Obviously, our end objectives are the same: we all want a Bill that strengthens environmental protection, and a strong and independent Office for Environmental Protection.
I realise that this clause is slightly different from earlier clauses, but I will make the generic point that when we say that something should be a “must” rather than a “may”, we are often prescribing what the OEP can do. I realise that this amendment is about Ministers, but if we accepted all the amendments on this point, the OEP would end up with a whole list of things that it must do, as prescribed by the Committee, and it would spend all its time ticking those boxes. We would take agency away from the OEP.
As a parent, if I go around telling my children, “You must do this, and you must do that,” they do not feel very independent. If I tell them that they have to be grown up and make their own decisions, they feel more empowered. Throughout this whole process—we have another couple of weeks to consider amendments—it is worth thinking about what being so directive towards the OEP would do to its agency and independence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is good to be back this week. I welcome the shadow Minister again, and the new member of our Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn. I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for the amendment. I understand that the intention is to give certainty that Ministers will make secondary legislation about the procedure for preparing and publishing water resources management plans, drought plans and joint proposals, but he is again playing on my sympathies over “may” and “must”. He will not be surprised that I am not going to relent on this one.
I think the hon. Member will agree that the explanation is quite clear. The duties under sections 37A and 39B of the Water Industry Act 1991, which we have already heard about, to prepare and maintain water resources management plans and drought plans remain on statutory undertakers; they are “must” duties on the Minister. This was raised by the hon. Member for Putney. The plans are already on a statutory footing, and the Minister’s power to make regulations about procedural matters, to which the amendment refers, does not remove those duties. Ministers fully understand that water undertakers need to know the procedural requirements for fulfilling their duties in good time.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire for the good points that he made about independence and his children. It is entirely appropriate to provide Ministers with flexibility on when and how this provision is given effect.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I come from a very dry region, which adjoins the constituency of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. Some water companies, such as Anglian Water, are already working with other parts of the country, and there are regional plans coming into place. Does the Minister agree that it would be much better to give legal certainty by specifying that as the amendment suggests?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, and lots of companies are already working towards that. We will talk later in more detail about how water companies will work holistically together to deal with the whole water landscape.
In the Bill, the Secretary of State has powers to direct future procedure under statutory legislation if he thinks, for example, that more attention needs to be given to what the hon. Gentleman suggests. There are existing powers in section 37B of the 1991 Act to make regulations for procedural requirements, and those are replaced by new section 39F. The existing powers have already been used by Ministers to make the Water Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007 and the Drought Plan Regulations 2005.
Water companies’ plans are revised every five years. The plans are prepared at different times within their own five-year cycles. When exercising these powers, Ministers in England therefore need to be flexible and mindful of when to introduce the new planning requirements, so as not to have unnecessary impacts on the preparation of water companies’ plans, many of which are under way. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I think the Minister knows what my answer is going to be. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made a fair point about what would happen if we put in every “must” in every place in the Bill, and how that might constrain the agencies that are responsible for carrying out its business, but that is not what the Opposition has done with our repeated suggestions for the inclusion of “mays” and “musts”.
We agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not appropriate for an agency to be constrained in that way if, for example, it may decide to carry out an action relating to an investigation or look at the extent to which it ought to do certain things. In that case, it is not appropriate to use “must”, and “may” is perfectly appropriate. There are, however, other circumstances where it is clear that an agency, or indeed the Minister, ought to do something.
In his analysis, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made reference to parents and children, and I would say that this is on the parents’ side. It is a “must” in the same way as a parent must not leave their child on a bare hillside for the evening to see whether they survive. That is the sort of “must” this is, rather than a stipulation that a parent or a child must do certain things. I would put the Minister in the role of the parent, as far as this process is concerned. If the Minister is, in a sense, the parent of these activities, the Minister ought to act like a good parent. If there is a suggestion in the Bill that the Minister “may” not, that should be recognised.
In answer to the Minister’s question, I will not press this amendment to a Division. I know that this is becoming a little formulaic, but the Minister may want to reflect on whether drafting amendments need to be made at certain places in the Bill, either now or at a future date, bearing in mind that this is not a spray-paint job as far as “mays” and “musts” are concerned. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Alan Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 75, page 66, line 22, at end insert
“including persons or bodies representing the interests of those likely to be affected.”
I will give the game away straight away by saying that this is a probing amendment, as I am sure the Minister will be pleased to learn, and we seek her comments on it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, the 1991 Act has been with us for a while. Does the Minister think that bodies that represent those who are likely to be affected by a water resources proposal or a drought plan should be included in the process of preparing and publishing regulations? There is a distinction to be made between the Government deciding to make a plan, and those who would be particularly affected by that plan—for example, the hon. Members who would be affected by a drought plan in Cambridgeshire—having input into the process. There is a relationship between a high-level plan and the reality of any changes on the ground, and it is important to have both perspectives.
That is the reason for this amendment, and the Minister may wish to comment on whether she agrees with the principle behind it, even if the wording is not quite right. I would particularly like to hear whether she is signed up to the idea that I have set out and, if so, whether there are other ways of ensuring that the drawing up of these plans and proposals is a two-way process.
Fleur Anderson
I would like to unpack the amendment slightly more and highlight some areas that may be affected by the Government’s proposals. We would be very interested to hear from the Minister how this Bill will be enacted on the ground after it has progressed through both Houses.
Consultation is key during any planned preparation. The plans to clean up our water across the country are essential and, unless they are done correctly and with the full engagement of all the representative bodies, they will not work. If that happens, the current plateauing of environmental protection, which many people find very concerning, will continue.
The removal of section 37A(8) from the Water Industry Act 1991will remove a list of other bodies. The Act states:
“Before preparing its water resources management plan…the water undertaker shall consult”—
the use of the word “shall” is interesting. Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, I think that our job in this Bill is to say what is within the OEP’s remit, what must happen and what the OEP, with its flexibility, can decide should happen. We need to set that framework, and an essential part of that is engagement with all the right agencies. The proposed deletion will remove the Environment Agency; Natural Resources Wales; the Water Services Regulation Authority, or Ofwat; the Secretary of State; and any licensed water supplier, as listed in the 1991 Act. These bodies will not be included in this Bill unless we add the text of the amendment, which is, I think, very reasonable,
“including persons or bodies representing the interests of those likely to be affected”.
I do not think that that is overly restrictive, because it would give the OEP the ability to decide who those persons or bodies are. It does, though, say that they must be consulted. Has the Minister considered how to ensure that the new provisions on the preparation of plans by water undertakers will retain stakeholder engagement requirements? Does the Minister believe that the proposals are sufficient to ensure that the Environment Agency, in particular, is fully engaged in plan development? Its involvement is crucial to ensure a high level of environmental scrutiny of water resources options. That is essential for both the working of the Environment Agency and the effectiveness of any plans.
The Minister may suggest that this is dealt with through other requirements such as the customer challenge groups. However, those arrangements are typically extremely narrow and do not enable the wide engagement of the stakeholder that is necessary for the best plans—world-leading plans. Amendment 30 would ensure that consultation rights for stakeholders—
Fleur Anderson
Thank you, Mr Gray. Amendment 130 would ensure that consultation rights for stakeholders could be created under such regulations and allow these provisions to include a requirement for
“persons or bodies representing the interests of those likely to be affected”
by a plan to be consulted during the plan preparation. This requirement should be included in the Bill to make it as clear as possible and to ensure that full consultation with stakeholders takes place, so that we have the best possible water resources management plans and the best likelihood of increasing water quality across the country.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Minister for this amendment—a probing amendment, as he said. I understand the intention to ensure that those who are likely to be affected by water resource management plans, drought plans and joint proposals be consulted. The Government recognise that planning for water resources is strengthened by the involvement of a range of stakeholders, both individuals and representative organisations, in the development of the plans, as was outlined by the hon. Members who spoke.
The Government intend that stakeholders will be involved in the preparation and delivery of these plans in England. Clause 75 enables Ministers to set out in regulations which bodies are to be consulted on the preparation of plans. Under existing powers, Ministers have set out a long list of relevant consultees in the Water Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007 and the Drought Plan Regulations 2005. The Environment Agency’s national framework for water resources in England, which was published in March, already gives further clarity. It sets out how we expect water undertakers in England to engage with stakeholders to prepare their plans in future.
Reflecting on the comments from the hon. Member for Putney, I want to clarify that Ministers in England want to ensure that the process of developing these plans is open and transparent—more so than ever—through these changes and that stakeholders are involved at the right time, so that they can effectively collaborate on the plans. If we are to encourage this more holistic joint-working approach, that is really important.
While the current wording of “persons” is not defined in the Water Industry Act 1991, the Interpretation Act 1978, which applies here, defines “persons” as including
“a body of persons corporate or unincorporate”—
that is, a natural person or a legal person. It includes a partnership, which would include representative bodies. The meaning of “persons” is very broad and would include representative bodies, making the amendment unnecessary. I hope that provides clarity.
The changes introduced by clause 75 will help the plans to deliver cross-sector and mutually beneficial outcomes, which we all want for the wider water environment, as well to secure water supplies. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will see that his probing amendment is unnecessary. He was right to ask those questions, but I hope that I have answered them. I respectfully ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I have, as a result of this debate, begun to feel that this is less of a probing amendment than I initially thought. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney made an important point, which I neglected to include in my contribution. The Water Industry Act 1991 included these things. At that time, there were specifications about agencies and bodies that should be consulted and involved in the plans. That has all been swept away.
While the Minister makes the possibly important point about the phrase “persons to be consulted” in proposed new section 37F(3), that appears to be a rather feeble replacement for what was firmly in the previous piece of legislation. At the very least, I would like some assurance. The Minister says that the phrase “persons to be consulted” could be interpreted as persons in the collective. By a transfer of reasoning, we might therefore get to the Environment Agency and various other people in the end. I would like the Minister to actually shorten that course and say, “Yes, it will,” so far as the Bill is concerned.
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but just for clarity, we can make regulations to specify what persons or bodies must be consulted during the plan preparations, and we plan to use that power. I just wanted to get that on the record.
Dr Whitehead
I think we may be getting there. When the Minister says, “we can make regulations”, is she saying that the Government will make regulations that effectively restore that arrangement, in terms of persons, by a regulatory route, as I was trying to tease out? It would be helpful if the Minister said that it is very likely that regulations will come about that include a better definition of persons, so that those bodies can effectively be brought back into the process in a way that the Bill seems to have neglected to do.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman would like to encourage the Minister to say something else on this.
Rebecca Pow
I will intervene one more time, just for clarity. As I said, we made the Water Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007 and the Drought Plan Regulations 2005, which demonstrates that we have already done something like what the hon. Gentleman asks for. I reiterate that we can make regulations to specify what persons or bodies must be consulted during plan preparations, and we plan to use that power.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for that. That is 65% of the way there. On balance, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 47, in clause 75, page 67, line 20, leave out “the Assembly” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.
Amendment 48, in clause 75, page 67, line 32, leave out “the Assembly” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
Clause 75, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76
Drainage and sewerage management plans
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 200, in clause 76, page 68, line 17, at end insert—
“(ca) the water quality and impact of the discharges of the undertaker’s drainage system and sewerage system,”.
This is a probing amendment, tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), myself and others. The last amendment I tabled proposed to change one word and add one letter to the Bill’s proposed environmental improvement plans. This probing amendment adds 16 words to a subsection on drainage and sewerage management plans. Both amendments have in common the shared interests of our environment and us as beneficiaries of that environment.
Amendment 200 focuses on drainage and sewerage management plans. It is an uncomfortable fact for us all that a huge amount of raw sewage is still discharged into our coasts and waterways—200,000 times in the last year, with 3,000 discharges in UK coastal waters between May and September—all of which threatens the quality of the water itself and water users. It is for that reason that 40,000 people signed a petition to end sewage pollution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow was motivated to initiate a private Member’s Bill, which will be heard in the House in due course, and to table this amendment to the Environment Bill.
Surely it is the aim of all of us to stop discharges into rivers, lakes and waterways, as well as into our sea, and to raise our current rating within Europe—although we are leaving the European Union, we are still a geographical part of Europe—from 25th out of 30 for coastal water quality. Only 16% of our waterways meet good ecological status.
Why does that matter for all of us, as users? Ultimately, there are health risks—gastroenteritis, ear, nose and throat illnesses, and apparently even, although I have not seen evidence, hepatitis and E. coli. Those of us who enjoy wild water swimming—in the River Wye, for example, on the Gloucestershire-Herefordshire border—will know that there are times when agricultural companies are pumping discharge into the water and damaging its quality and the experience, particularly for the young.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. Does he agree that we need a change in when water companies give notifications of sewage outlets, particularly around the coastline, such as in my constituency and around the Cornish coast? Currently, they do it only in what they call “bathing months”. With better equipment and better wetsuits, we now swim all the year round off the Cornish coast. We have no way of knowing—unless we know that these things happen after heavy rainfall—whether the water is safe to bathe in.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend makes a striking point. From a human perspective, Cornwall is probably the most used bit of coastline in our United Kingdom. The pressures are considerable and the point that she makes about more people swimming and surfing all year round is important. The restrictions should not just cover the traditional swimming months of May to September. I am sure the Minister will address that point.
Alongside a duty on water companies to ensure that untreated sewage is no longer pumped into the seas, the amendment would tackle a series of other actual and potential issues—for our water quality has implications across the whole ecological system, from plant life to fish stocks, as well as the health of the population. Our surface, coastal and ground waters suffer from significant pollution, as I have illustrated, and they also take that pollution into our seas and oceans. The Government have not made as much progress as we would have liked on meeting the targets established under the EU water framework directive, and the Bill is a step towards making significant improvements.
While diffuse pollution from agriculture, as I illustrated with the River Wye, accounts for 40% of river pollution, wastewater from sewage treatment accounts for almost as much, at 36% of river pollution.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
As a Parliamentary Private Secretary, I am not always meant to speak, but my hon. Friend mentions the River Wye, which runs through my constituency. It would be remiss of me not to mention that there are many actors in this space. We cannot solely blame farmers in their entirety. The issue needs a whole supply chain response, because it is too important a problem to lay solely at the door of agriculture.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There will not be too much specific finger-pointing with the amendment, nor in the Bill in general. We have already referred to water companies. Agriculture, in the broadest sense, is a challenge along the river that she loves in her constituency so much. There are, of course, others who discharge pollution into our waterways. Everyone has to do their bit; that is why the amendment is so important.
Let us be clear that the drainage and wastewater management plans proposed under clause 76 are an excellent step forward. They seek to improve water company focus, and they send a clear message about improving the safe and environmentally responsible treatment of human effluent. However, there is an omission in the objectives. The amendment would therefore place the obligation on water companies, in their five-year plans, to consider the impact on water quality of the wastewater facilities for which they are responsible.
Sewage is estimated to account for 55% of the rivers that are failing to reach the good ecological status to which I referred. This can lead to pollutants such as organic material, which depletes the dissolved oxygen in the water, and other pollutants such as phosphorus, nitrates, ammonia, pathogens and man-made toxic chemicals entering the water environment.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member for Gloucester has made a powerful speech in support of the amendment, covering many points that I would have raised had he not done so. The Opposition would have tabled an amendment on this subject had amendment 200 not appeared. We did not, because we saw that a substantial number of Members from both sides of the House had put their names to the amendment, which I think adds to its gravity. Frankly, we felt that if we had proposed a separate but similar amendment, it might have decreased the chances of this one being made, so we kept the position as it was. The one point I would disagree with the hon. Gentleman on is that the amendment should not be probing; it should be a serious attempt, with cross-party support, to get a provision into the Bill that will undoubtedly be to the benefit of the natural environment and its users as a result of changes in water companies’ activities.
I want to reinforce what the hon. Gentleman had to say about discharges of sewage and similar activities that have taken place over a number of years. He is right to state that there were more than 200,000 releases of raw sewage into rivers last year. That number slightly underestimates the actual effect of the releases, since some occurred over an extended period rather than being instant. We should think about why that happens.
These are not accidents; they are provisions within the operating arrangements for water companies which allow the occasional release of raw sewage into watercourses. All water companies have an emergency release provision in their operations. They have a system of stop valves that normally separate the sewage from the water, but if the system is so suffused with water at certain points—during a heavy storm, for example—that it cannot cope, those valves are effectively released; the two flows are then mingled. That is the point at which raw sewage may be released into watercourses.
Water companies say that, generally speaking, the dilution of the sewage is such that it does not make a great deal of difference, particularly in heavy storms and similar conditions. That is partly overthrown by the fact that discharges sometimes take place over a substantial period and are not simply brief discharges into rivers at the height of a crisis like a storm. I do not think that anybody would say that in periods of severe crisis for a water company, those sorts of provisions should be removed, but that provision far exceeds what we might expect.
The discharge of spills came to an incredible 1.53 million hours across the nine English water companies last year. As I mentioned, a lot of the spills are not brief. The water companies could introduce procedures that would ensure that they were brief by improving how they separate out water and sewage, and ensuring that those flows can be combined only in the most critical circumstances. It is evident from what we know about those discharges that that is not the case. This is being used as a safety valve by water companies in many instances, rather than as an emergency, last-stop procedure. It is certainly within the companies’ ability to ensure that those safety valves become last-gasp emergency procedures just by improving their procedures to ensure that arrangements for the separation of water are maintained to a higher standard.
As a shadow Minister, I would say that, wouldn’t I? However, it is perhaps not surprising, given that this concern is shared pretty much across the House, that other people have said much the same thing. For example, I believe the Minister met chief executives of the 15 water companies in September, at which point she called on them to take further action to protect the environment, reduce leakage and safeguard water supply. She said that
“we discussed a number of issues I feel strongly about, including storm overflows, and how we can work together to see much more ambitious improvements. This country’s green recovery from coronavirus can only happen if water companies step up and play their part.”
I could not have put it better, and the Minister indeed put it very well.
The hon. Member for Gloucester, who made an excellent contribution, reminded us that the amendment is supported, and was substantially crafted, by the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow. Other hon. Members pointed out the concerns on this issue in their constituencies and why action needs to be taken. The entire Opposition think that this is a good idea and wish to pursue it, and of course the Minister has made admirable comments on how water companies need to step up their activity, particularly on storm overflows, to get things organised.
Basically, what is there not to like about the amendment, and why can it not just be instantly put into the Bill? It will not detract from anything; it will simply add a layer of urgency to something that we all think needs to be done, which surely is what Bills should be about. They should frame action in such a way that entreaties and suggestions are added to by a piece of legislation that says, “Go and do this over a period of time.”
We not think that this should be seen as a probing amendment. That is a very minor disagreement between the Opposition and the hon. Member for Gloucester, who I appreciate may have suggested that it should be deemed a probing amendment out of sensibility for his own side’s manoeuvrability, shall we say, on this issue. In his heart, I think, he would be absolutely behind the idea that it ought to go in the Bill straight away. I sense that very strongly from the vibrations that are coming across the room.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for the amendment and for painting such a charming picture of wild swimming in the River Wye, which I should think is quite chilly. I must also refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, who has done so much work on this. As my hon. Friend knows, I have met colleagues several times to discuss this very important issue. He quoted some, frankly, fairly ghastly statistics, as did the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. My hon. Friend is right that this matters and he knows, as does our right hon. Friend, that I take it extremely seriously. I think the hon. Gentleman knows that too.
The issue of river health and the impact of sewer overflows is a priority for me. One of my hats is Water Minister. I vowed that I must do something about that while I am in this role, and I am determined to take action. It has been overlooked for far too long. I have discussed that with my officials at great length. I will not say that they thanked me for it all the time, but it is a priority that I believe we have to get right.
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester that controlled sewage discharge to watercourses from sewage treatment works are tightly regulated by the Environment Agency using powers under the environmental permitting regulations, so we obviously already have that in place. I want to be clear that when we were designing the current provisions in the Environment Bill on drainage and sewerage management plans, in clause 76, it was a prime objective to tackle the discharge of sewage into our waterways better.
Clause 76 specifically requires that each sewerage undertaker must prepare a drainage and sewerage management plan. [Interruption.] Yes, there is a “must”—that got a cheer! The clause also specifically requires that a drainage and sewerage management plan “must” address relevant environmental “risks”—those two words are very important—and how they are to be mitigated. That will include sewer overflows and their impact on water quality.
Although I understand the intention for specific references to address sewer discharges and water quality, it is entirely appropriate in this case to provide a broad definition in primary legislation of relevant environmental risks. The provision needs to stand the test of time and be fit for the environmental challenges of tomorrow, not just of today. I can say unequivocally and can confirm that I and any future DEFRA Ministers will also have a failsafe power to make directions to specify any other matters that a plan must address. In simple terms, that will ensure that if a plan or plans are not adequate, the Government can take swift action. I will not hesitate to use that power to direct companies if I am not satisfied with their performance to address sewer discharges and water quality. They should consider themselves on notice; in the meeting that was referred to by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, I pretty much gave that message. I am not messing about.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Minister is making a powerful point. The Opposition have no problem at all with how diligent she is and how conscientiously she does her job. I am just wondering how she would feel if a successor—obviously in many years’ time—was not quite as diligent. We need to know that the safeguards are in the Bill. We want them enshrined in primary legislation. If the Minister is so keen on the power and so committed to it, what is the problem with putting it in the Bill?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for reiterating my commitment. We believe the measures and steps that are here will ensure that that does happen—the sewerage and drainage management plans will come into use and the idea of that will become normal—but there will be an opportunity for a DEFRA Minister to have a failsafe power to make directions to specify any other matters. We also have the Environment Agency keeping abreast of all this. We even have the OEP, at the end of the day. We have so many checks and balances in the Bill that once we get the system going, it should be failsafe.
Richard Graham
The Minister has reiterated her own commitment, which none of us doubts. None the less, as the chair of the Environment Agency has said, despite all the various checks and balances, progress has not been as strong as any of us would have liked. Here is the opportunity to insert the words about
“the water quality and impact of the discharges of the undertaker’s drainage system and sewerage system”.
Even if the Minister believes that the Bill has enough “musts” and enough powers for the Minister to direct, the explanatory notes are not that clear, saying simply that
“The sewerage undertaker is required to set out in the plan what it intends to do to maintain an effective system of sewerage and drainage, and when those actions are likely to be taken”,
then adding, rather vaguely:
“Should other factors become relevant”.
Does the Minister not agree that there is a real opportunity to specify, at least in the explanatory notes, that the water quality and impact of sewerage overflow must be addressed?
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend is doing absolutely the right thing in checking up on the issues. I have been doing that myself, in fairness. He mentions the EA. As he said, Emma Howard Boyd, the chair, made it clear that much more is expected of water companies, which includes developing, publishing and implementing specific plans by the end of this year, to reduce pollution incidents. The Environment Agency is on the case. Following my meeting, the Secretary of State is meeting with water companies again very shortly. I repeat that “relevant environmental risks” will include sewer overflows and water quality; I said that just now and I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester was listening. Once that has been established as a risk, it would be very hard for anyone to argue in the future that it was not a risk. That addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Newport West, and I reiterate that point.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister talks about checks and balances, but I am sure she will know that, as far as the checks and balances relating to storm overflows are concerned, more than 60 discharges a year should trigger an investigation by the Environment Agency. Those storm overflows have been released hundreds of times per year by each water company. The Environment Agency relies on water companies to self-monitor their discharges, so the check and balance does not work as well as it should. Does the Minister think that arrangement is sufficient to keep those discharges under control?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for raising that important point; I just want to talk a little bit about the Environment Agency. They are actually part-way through a programme to improve the management of storm overflows. Event duration monitoring gadgets are being installed on the vast majority of combined inland and coastal sewer overflows, and will provide data for the duration and frequency of storm spills by 2025. Approximately 13,000 of the 15,000 overflows will receive this event duration monitoring, so it will make a difference—I am convinced of that. We do, however, accept that there is a great deal more to do.
Let me clarify how important I think the issue is; we do not want to sit around waiting, but to get on and do something about it. In addition to the Environment Bill and the ongoing discussions around making it as strong as possible, I have set up a new storm overflows taskforce to make rapid progress in addressing the volumes of sewage discharge into our rivers. This has been done at speed and very recently, when all of this “stuff”, as they call it, came to my attention. I would like to thank everyone involved for moving so fast on this. I will set a long-term goal on the storm overflows for sewerage undertakers, which I will talk about in more detail later, but the work on that needs to start now. The taskforce is developing actions that will increase water company investment to tackle storm overflows in order to accelerate our progress.
Daniel Zeichner
The water companies operate in a tightly constrained regulatory framework, always having to balance bills, investment and shareholder returns. What impact does the Minister think her welcome initiative will have on that, and will she be directing them as to either what they do not do instead, or where that investment should come from?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for that, and of course he makes a really important point. All those things will be in the mix for consideration. The storm overflow taskforce has been set up between the EA, DEFRA, Ofwat, the Consumer Council for Water, Blueprint for Water and Water UK. These are all things they are well aware of and will be discussing, and they will be the ones setting out clear proposals to address the volumes of sewage discharge into our rivers. They are working on that now, at speed, and I anticipate we will have a good idea of their list of actions by spring. The hon. Member might say that that is a long time away, but we are already in November; it is actually only a in few months’ time. I anticipate that this will be really beneficial and really helpful.
The whole thinking behind the taskforce’s action list is to increase the amount of sewage processed at treatment plants, for example through building additional sewage storage capacity, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester might be pleased to hear, and separate surface water connections for the combined sewerage network.
I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth for her input; I have met her and others from Cornwall over the issue of surfers, as well as Surfers against Sewage, who do great work highlighting the issues. As I said, the taskforce is looking to all issues to do with water quality and sewerage overflows, which will include bathing water. We are looking into that.
I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, who makes a good point—always standing up for her farmers, in that great farming country she is in—and she is absolutely right. We cannot lay all of this at the door of the farmers. There are many causes and they all have to be looked at and tackled, but that is not to say that there is not work to be done with farmers—I believe they know that. Through our new environmental land management scheme, there will be opportunities to work with farmers to reduce pollution. That is coming down the tracks as well and will also help with the whole water pollution issue.
Richard Graham
I am very grateful that the Minister has announced this storm overflow taskforce, which is an interesting new group. Taskforces come and go and they have occasionally been used in the past—surely not by this Government—as a sort of alternative to action. One thing that would make us all have greater confidence in the Bill being able to deliver the change that the Minister and all of us wish to see, if she is unwilling, at this stage, to amend clause 76 with the words the amendment suggests, would be if she would consider amending the explanatory notes. At the moment, the relevant sentence reads:
“Any relevant risks to the environment and mitigation measures should be recorded in the plan.”
The Minister could, if she wished, insert “any relevant risk to the environment and mitigation measures, including water quality and the impact of sewerage overflow.”
Rebecca Pow
Thank you, Chair. I thought my hon. Friend would try and sneak in a final go. I do not blame him for that.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you, Mr Gray.
On that note, I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester says about the explanatory notes but I want to reiterate what I said earlier: relevant environmental risks will include sewer overflows and water quality. Once that has been established as a risk, it will be very hard for anyone to argue that it is not a future risk. I shall leave it there.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and other Members for all their work, particularly in raising awareness of this issue. I hope, on the strength of the assurance that I have given today, that my hon. Friend will kindly consider withdrawing his amendment.
Richard Graham
This has been a helpful discussion, with Members contributing from all sides. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test is even able to detect vibrations from across the room, which perhaps none of the rest of us has been able to do. As for the key issue in the proposed amendment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow put it very well in a note to me where he said, “This amendment would require water companies, their regulators and overseeing Ministers to have regard to continuous improvement through these admirable five-yearly plans to ensure our rivers can gradually recover from their polluted state to once again become clear and clean for our children and grandchildren to enjoy.” Members on both sides have highlighted how, in their constituencies, that is relevant.
The Minister has tried to reassure us that that is exactly her own objective. I have no reason to doubt that, as she has confirmed it several times. However, it seems to me that were I to withdraw the probing amendment, it would be on the basis of the words she used, which were that the relevant risks would include water quality and the impact of sewerage overflow. It is great that the Minister has made that statement, but we need to see that in the explanatory notes. If she can give an indication that she would consider that on Report, I would be happy on that basis to withdraw the amendment.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate words. I am happy to consider making it clearer in the explanatory notes.
Richard Graham
I am very grateful to the Minister for making a significant step to recognising the strength of feeling on this, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 199, in clause 76, page 70, line 4, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
When a minister chooses to make a drainage and sewerage management plan, this amendment obliges them to consult on it.
Yes, this is another amendment. By the way, I thought that last bit was really exciting. I am sorry that hon. Members did not vote our way on amendment 200 this morning, but I appreciate the effort that everyone put it to make it almost get there.
Amendment 199 relates to the amendments to the Water Industry Act 1991. This is about how regulations “may” make provision about consultation, which is a particularly weak “may”. I would have thought that consultation is an essential element of the process. In particular, we are talking about consultation to be carried out by sewerage undertakers—that is, water companies—who are required by regulation to make provision about the person to be consulted, the frequency and timing of the consultation and the publication of statements.
There is a pretty tight requirement on water companies to be clear about what their provision is, except they do not have to do it. That seems to me to be a suggestion that holds the entire subsection. There is quite a fierce thing in this subsection about consultation. This is a good thing. It covers not just consultation, but who it should be carried out by—the sewerage undertakers—as well as instructions on who should be consulted and so on. It is all spoiled by the “may” at the beginning of the sentence. I think this is another important “must”, which ought to go into the Bill. Again, I will not push the amendment to a Division, but I hope the Minister will take careful note of our strong feelings on the issue and will put it in the box of reconsiderations for when she gets around to deciding whether there should be drafting amendments to the Bill in the future.
Fleur Anderson
I welcome the Minister’s earlier comments about taking action on sewage pollution, of which this is an additional part. I welcome the aims of the clause, and I believe it is vital that a strategic approach is taken to waste water management. However, I have a couple of issues with it that I would like to point out.
Sewage pollution is a very important issue for constituents across the country, including in my constituency of Putney, next to the beautiful River Thames, where we are extremely concerned about it. Some 39 million tonnes of sewage is dumped into the River Thames every year, with an estimated 50 epic dumps of pollution. The Tideway project is making great headway—it is making amazing progress, and I commend it. It will result in a real difference being made. However, there are still extreme concerns. One is about the use of the term “sewerage” in the clause, whereas the industry would prefer to use the term “wastewater”. Wastewater is a much larger section of domestic, industrial, commercial and agricultural production, of which sewerage is only a small subsection.
I slightly digress from the amendment—
Fleur Anderson
Which I should not do. I acknowledge that, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Clause 76 amends the Water Industry Act 1991 by adding new section 94C. There are a whole rash of “mays”, and we have chosen modestly, and I think correctly, to identify one that should be a “must”. It is in new section 94C(3), which, again, talks about consultation on plans. We have talked about that previously, and it is absolutely vital for ensuring that those plans work and that they tackle the 39 million tonnes of sewage going into the River Thames and the similar incidences across the country. The Bill places obligations on water companies only for something they are already doing; it does not reflect the scale of the challenge from climate change or the fact that drainage is universally recognised to be a shared responsibility with other organisations that are also responsible for managing service water.
Water UK is concerned that, as written, clause 76 will exclude significant bodies that are involved in drainage and will eliminate much of the potential benefits that customers, society and the environment could otherwise gain. It is a fundamental feature of drainage and wastewater planning that water companies cannot do this in isolation, because drainage is shared with other risk management authorities, as defined in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. For example, large numbers of drainage assets are not under the ownership of water companies, the management of which needs to be integrated into the drainage and wastewater management plans. That has been recognised by the National Infrastructure Commission in its recommendation that water companies and local authorities should work together to publish joint plans to manage surface water flood risk by 2020. Ensuring that such consultation is done as a “must” rather than a “may”, which is the aim behind the amendment, is absolutely essential.
As a minimum, all flood risk management authorities should have a duty to co-operate in the production of drainage and wastewater management plans. There should be the ability to require other flood risk management authorities to provide the information needed for the production of such plans. Clause 76 would ensure that that would happen as a directive to the OEP, which is needed to ensure that we have the best sewerage management plans and wastewater management plans that we can.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for the amendment. It is amazing that we have managed to get him excited—for me, that is a massive milestone in the Bill’s passage. I hope he does not mind my saying that.
I understand that the intention behind the amendment is to give certainty that Ministers will pass secondary legislation about the consultations to be carried out by sewerage undertakers on their drainage and sewerage management plans. Under proposed new section 94A of the Water Industry Act 1991, sewerage undertakers will have a duty to prepare drainage and sewerage management plans. Ministers understand that sewerage undertakers need to know the procedural requirements for fulfilling their duties in good time. Ministers require flexibility on when and how the provision is given effect so that procedural requirements for plans remain proportionate and current.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for what she has said. She has gone some way towards assuring us on this matter, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 131, in clause 76, page 70, line 6, at end insert
“including persons or bodies representing the interests of those likely to be affected”.
This amendment is very similar to amendment 130. It adds the same wording to the end of this clause to ensure that persons or bodies representing the interests of those likely to be affected are included. We have effectively discussed this, so I am not very excited about this amendment. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] By the way, I ought to assure the Minister that, although I am probably among the least excitable Members of this House, I do get excited about quite a few things; I draw a distinction between those two uses of language.
I think that the Minister will probably respond to this amendment in the same way that she did when we tabled a similar amendment to the end of a previous clause, so I do not think that we need detain ourselves very long, other than to say that we still think that such an amendment is a good idea.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for the amendment and his brevity. Clause 76 enables Ministers to set out in regulations which bodies are to be consulted on the preparation of drainage and sewerage management plans—a process that will be strengthened by the involvement of a range of stakeholders. We intend to make those regulations in England to include those persons or bodies representing the interests of those likely to be affected, including representative bodies such as the Consumer Council for Water.
I went into some detail about the meaning of the word “persons” previously, so I refer the hon. Member to that. As I also mentioned, this was done in a similar way when the existing water resources management regulatory making powers were used by Ministers in making the Water Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007. The regulations set out a long list of persons to be consulted by undertakers. I hope, therefore, that he will see that the amendment is unnecessary, and I respectfully ask him to kindly withdraw it.
Dr Whitehead
In the light of that answer, which I had anticipated, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 51, in clause 76, page 70, line 38, leave out “the Assembly” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
Amendment 52, in clause 76, page 71, line 6, leave out “the Assembly” and insert “Senedd Cymru”. —(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
I will not detain the Committee at great length on this particular clause stand part debate, because I just want to raise an issue that somewhat puzzles me about the wording of the clause.
The Minister alluded to the source of my puzzlement a moment ago in her response to the previous debate. As hon. Members can see, the title of the clause is
“Drainage and sewerage management plans”.
The clause refers repeatedly to such plans, but what we should be talking about are not Drainage and sewerage management plans but drainage and waste water management plans.
Some hon. Members may think there is not much of a distinction, but there is quite a substantial distinction, in that sewerage and waste water are not the same things. Waste water includes all the sources of waste water coming into a particular riverine or estuarial area, which may have a number of sources that are not sewerage-based. Therefore, the definition of these plans as drainage and sewerage management plans narrows what they might consist of—not only that, but the definition narrows who might be involved in these particular plans. It narrows it down to water companies, whereas a number of other companies are indeed involved in waste water management and properly ought to be within those plans, to make a comprehensive arrangement as far as waste water is concerned. What is a further source of puzzlement is that the Department and industry have actually worked on such plans for many years, and they are called drainage and waste water management plans.
The Minister may say, as she did a moment ago, that in the Water Industry Act 1991 the words “drainage and sewerage management” effectively mean a wider issue as far as waste water is concerned, but of course the wording in clause 76 is not what was in the 1991 Act but is actually an amendment to that Act. It would have been easily possible, as far as the construction of the Bill is concerned, to include the words “sewerage and waste water management” in the Bill, with no cost to anybody—no additional amendments; nothing—whereas the less than adequate wording in the 1991 Act has been retained for the purpose of these amendments.
I wondered why that was the case. Is it an omission or is it deliberate? Other than the rather obscure reference to the 1991 Act, why does not the Bill state what plans the Department has and what the plans should consist of if they are properly to take account of what “waste water” defines and accommodates?
Rebecca Pow
How quickly, in the space of 10 minutes, we have gone from excitement to puzzlement. I hope I can, however, assuage some of the puzzlement.
Clause 76 amends the Water Industry Act 1991 to place drainage and sewerage management plans on a statutory footing to match the status of water resource management plans. The provisions are modelled closely on the existing approach to water resource management plans.
I shall deal with the interesting point about the distinction between sewerage and waste water. The clause amends the 1991 Act, which defines the term “sewerage system” in a way that covers all relevant aspects of waste water, so we have used that wording. This includes facilities to empty public sewers and other facilities such as waste water treatment works and pumping stations.
The term “waste water” is not defined in the 1991 Act. The statutory name is not intended to dictate what the water industry chooses to call the plans as part of its daily operations; it might have some other casual term for it. Drainage and sewerage planning is the only key planning process without a formal statutory status in the water sector. Placing plans on a statutory basis will ensure a more robust planning and investment process to meet future needs, including housing.
Statutory plans will also allow waste water network capacity to be fully assessed and encourage sewerage companies to develop collaborative solutions with local authorities and others who have responsibility for parts of the drainage system. They should also sit with planning for population and economic growth and therefore help to deliver improved resilience in sewerage and drainage sources over the long term.
There is strong cross-sectoral support for the measure. When we consulted publicly on making plans statutory, over three quarters of respondents supported the proposal. The statutory production of the plans will clearly demonstrate how a sewerage undertaker intends to fulfil its duty under the Act to provide, improve and extend the public sewerage system to ensure that its area is effectively drained. A statutory plan will help to set out the actions needed to address the risks that some assess that might pose to the environment or customers.
Dr Whitehead
I think the Minister should accept that I am one of the least puzzled Members of the House, but I do admit to puzzlement sometimes. On this occasion, my puzzlement has not been assuaged. The Minister is talking about how good these plans could be, but that does not take us much further in terms of why the wording is as it is when it would have been so easy to put it right when the Bill was introduced. I take on board the Minister’s assurances that, in practice, the word “sewerage” can be used by reference back to the bits of the 1991 Act that have not been amended by this legislation to expand its remit, but it would have been easier to get it right first time round, but I shall not pursue this. It can go into the Minister’s box of things to think about should she wish to clarify this part of the Bill any further.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 132, in clause 80, page 78, line 1, leave out “2028” and insert “2021”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 133, in clause 80, page 78, line 34, leave out “2028” and insert “2021”.
Amendment 134, in clause 80, page 79, line 7, leave out “2028” and insert “2021”.
Dr Whitehead
These amendments all make the same point about there being no compensation for certain licence modifications in water abstraction. Should licences be modified as a result of environmental considerations, especially with the uprating of environmental legislation, water companies and other organisations will have to undertake additional actions to ensure that their licences are adhered to, but they will not receive compensation for those modifications. That is all well and good, except when those licences come to be revoked or varied, in pursuit of a direction under a section of the Water Act.
The no compensation clause comes in on 1 January 2028, so it could be argued that that gives the water undertakings a reasonable period to adjust to the changes, but it may have the reverse effect of what is intended. If companies were to make changes that might need to be undertaken before 2028, they would get compensation. I am not sure whether the clause requires a period of notice for changes caused by increased environmental protection—it is reasonable to give water companies time to adapt—or is it a device that allows water companies to get some money for environmental changes that they should be doing anyway, if they do them before 2028? It is a pretty long run-in for changes. I ask the Minister—and this goes for all these amendments, because they all seek to change the date from 2028 to 2021—whether she thinks that the 2028 date is satisfactory in terms of a run-in for the water companies to make their changes.
If they make the necessary changes before 2028, would they be protected from a legal requirement to enter into and discuss compensation? I would suggest that that is less than satisfactory. The Minister faces a choice this morning on which way she jumps; or perhaps, with great dexterity, she could jump in both directions.
Not only is there potential confusion about the precise intention of this clause, but the 2028 date itself seems to be excessively generous by any measure. If the Minister is not able to at least give us an indication that that date might be considered for foreshortening, we may wish to divide the Committee.
Fleur Anderson
I would like to speak in support of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister about the long deadlines of this Bill, which would be rectified by amendments 132, 133 and 134.
Clause 80 amends the Water Resources Act 1991 to improve the way in which the abstraction is managed. This additional Environment Agency power, to act on licensing that causes environmental harm, is welcome. However, the timescale proposed in the Bill is too long, as the changes will apply to licenses revoked or varied on or after January 2028. With compensation remaining payable on any license changes opposed by the agency before that time, budgetary constraints will significantly limit its scope to act, which cannot be the aim of this Bill.
The current timescale does not appear to fully grasp the severity and immediacy of the problems facing UK waterways and the poor performance of water companies to date. Four out of nine companies assessed by the Environment Agency require improvement. We cannot wait until 2028 to start revoking licenses and take action, when there is clearly systemic underperformance in the water industry.
Moreover, water companies in England were responsible for their worst ever levels of environmental pollution in the five years up to 2019, leading to condemnation from Ministers and the Environment Agency. In the agency’s annual assessment of the nine privatised water and sewage companies, its chair, Emma Howard Boyd, said that their performance continued to be unacceptable.
Unsustainable abstraction can do serious environmental damage, particularly by changing the natural flow regime. This results in lower flows and reduced water levels which, in turn, may limit ecological health and result in changes and reductions of river flows and groundwater levels. This is about far more than just hosepipe bans.
The Government’s own analysis has shown that 5% of surface water bodies and 15% of groundwater bodies are at risk from increasing water use by current license holders, which could damage the environment. With the Environment Agency recently warning that in 25 years, England’s water supply may no longer meet demand, we will have to clamp down on over-abstraction now. Before becoming an MP, I worked for the aid agency WaterAid, where I saw the result of over-abstraction and how damaging that was for communities around the world. We do not want to face that here.
Abstracters are unlikely to give up these abstraction rights voluntarily and forfeit potential compensation payments. This means that over-abstracted rivers and groundwater-dependent habitats will continue to suffer for at least another eight years under the clauses of this Bill, putting threatened habitats and public water supplies at risk. Further clarification could then ensure that the new date would not impose unrealistic time pressures on water abstractors.
Variations to licences could then be made, setting out a reasonable compliance period for changes to be put in place before the abstractor would be in breach of the new conditions. That would give fair notice to abstractors, which I understand is a concern for the Minister and is the original purpose of the 2028 date, while also enabling swift action on the mounting environmental harm caused by damaging abstraction. It would put environmental risks in the driving seat, not the concerns of water companies, which is what the Bill does at the moment.
Does the Minister agree that without bringing forward the date from which environmentally damaging abstraction licences could be amended without compensation, we are unlikely to achieve the existing Government targets for the health of the water environment, which require us to bring our waters into good status by 2027 at the latest? Bringing the date forward to 2021 will allow action to be taken within the final cycle of the river basin management plans for 2021 to 2027, and allow us to reduce abstraction damage in line with Government targets set under the water environmental regulations of 2017. The dates need to add up.
In its report, “Water supply and demand management”, published in July, the Public Accounts Committee advised:
“The Environment Agency should write…within three months setting out clear objectives, and its planned mitigation actions and associated timescales for eliminating environmental damage from over-abstraction”.
The Committee wants immediate action and we should, too. Has the Environment Agency yet been able to outline how it will eliminate the environmental damage in line with statutory deadlines, given that this power will not come into effect until after those deadlines have passed?
I support these amendments, in order to put the Government’s own targets in line with each other and make sure that we take action against over-abstraction as urgently as necessary.
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Member for Putney has highlighted why we need to control water abstraction, which is why these clauses are so important. The Government would strongly prefer that solutions are found at a local level between abstractors and the Environment Agency, before these new powers are utilised. A lot of work is already going on to look at abstraction licences, to find different ways of working and to reduce quantities of water abstraction. Indeed, the Government’s 2017 abstraction plan sets out the Government’s commitment and actions to protect our water environment, and it is already beginning to have some effect. Since 2014, a total of 31 billion litres of water has been returned to the environment, and a further 456 billion litres has been recovered from unused or underused licences.
The implementation date of 2028 will afford the Environment Agency the time to engage directly with abstractors to resolve situations without the need to use these powers. That is one of the main pieces of work in progress, as I have outlined. It will also allow time for a catchment-based approach to water resources, to produce solutions. There is a lot of catchment-based work going on. Opportunities will come through the new environment and land management scheme and its systems of new environmental management, where farmers and catchments work together, which is crucial in a holistic approach to the water landscape.
Finally, the date allows time for the transfer of abstraction licensing into the new environmental permitting regime. The powers are more of a big stick, but we are hoping that these other things will swing into place before they have to be used.
Ruth Jones
Does the Minister agree that 2028 is a long time into the future? By then, small water bodies and wetland habitats, which are an essential but unnecessarily overlooked part of our water environment, may be lost. Something that has already gone cannot be brought back. The year 2028 is far too far into the future and we do not want things to be lost in the meantime.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I hope she realises, as I have just outlined, that we are taking action now. The Environment Agency is already working on reducing abstraction with these licence holders in many cases, and that work must carry on at pace.
I also want to be clear—the hon. Member for Putney touched on this—that these measures do not apply to water company abstraction licences. Following the Water Act 2014, water companies are not eligible for compensation for any revocation variation of their abstraction licences, so it is not the water companies we are actually talking about, but the other abstractors of water.
Dr Whitehead
I would have thought that if measures to sort out sustainable abstraction were already being taken, that would be a compelling argument for bringing the date forward from 2028. It is, after all, a longer period than the second world war. I am not convinced by the Minister’s arguments, and on the basis of that date we would like to pursue a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 135, in clause 81, page 80, line 28, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
“(9) Regulations under this section are subject to the super- affirmative resolution procedure.
(10) In this subsection, ‘super-affirmative resolution procedure’ has the same meaning as it does in Section 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006.”
I will not detain the Committee for long. Our amendment suggests that instead of regulations under this section being subject to the negative procedure, they should be subject to the super-affirmative procedure. There is a real difference between the two because, as hon. Members will know, the negative procedure for secondary legislation requires merely that the legislation be laid before the House, and if no one objects to it within 21 days, it automatically becomes law. The affirmative procedure, on the other hand, means that under normal circumstances, the House is entitled to a debate on the legislation, in which the Minister is required to take part, at least to air the reasons behind the introduction of the regulations.
The affirmative procedure is potentially an important protection for Parliament to hear properly what is happening with secondary legislation. The super-affirmative procedure guarantees a 90-minute maximum debate on a piece of secondary legislation, and that is the procedure that we would prefer for this clause. We will not press the amendment to a vote, but we would be grateful if the Minister reflected briefly on why she thinks the negative procedure is the right way to go.
Fleur Anderson
Although there is some justification for a power to make technical updates to regulations, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has set out, the clause could provide a licence for the Secretary of State to weaken, via secondary legislation, the standards of our waters, and their chemical status in particular. Secondary legislation has caused a huge amount of division between the Opposition and the Government, as we have asked that much more of it be put into primary legislation. If there is more secondary legislation, and “may” does not become “must”, it is really important that it is debated under the super-affirmative procedure.
That is particularly worrying in the light of Sir James Bevan’s speech, which suggested possible reform of the way in which the status of our water is considered. What is behind that suggestion? The last thing we need now is a regression of water quality standards. According to data released by the Environment Agency last month, not a single lake or river in England that has been recently tested has achieved a good chemical status. We are experiencing a five-year high for environmental pollution by the water industry.
Stakeholder concerns about the unmitigated power in the clause would be unlikely to evaporate if there were a commitment to non-regression of environmental standards. Given the public support for environmental protection, which I am sure the Committee will acknowledge, why are the Government reluctant to provide assurances and to agree to the amendment? That goes to the heart of many of the issues at the centre of the Bill. Time and again, we have heard assurances of non-regression, but the Government have so far avoided every single opportunity to put those promises into statute. That persistent refusal makes us all highly suspicious.
At the heart of the water framework directive is the principle that the water environment is a system and that all its parts need to be in good working order for it to operate effectively. That principle remains true. The clarity of the one in, one out rule should not be abandoned, and any weakening of chemical standards would be a backward step in the light of growing public concern about water pollution and the new data showing the extent of water quality failures across England.
I urge the Committee to support the amendment, which goes some way towards addressing that significant risk, and would ensure that any changes to water quality regulations would be subject not to the negative procedure, as the Bill currently states, but to the super-affirmative procedure—as a new MP, I had to go and look it up and have learned a lot about it—as defined in section 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. That would give stakeholders the right to input into any water quality regulation changes, including UKTAG, the UK technical advisory group that currently advises on standards—
Environment Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
Tuesday 17th November 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 November 2020 - (17 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Before our lunch break, we were discussing clause 81, on water quality and the powers of the Secretary of State. The clause gives the Secretary of State a wide-ranging power to amend the regulations that implement the EU water framework directive, particularly as they relate to the chemical pollutants that should be considered under the regulations and the standards applied to them.
I have some concluding comments to my earlier statement. The amendment would ensure that any changes to water quality regulations would be subject not to the negative procedure, as the Bill sets out, but to the super- affirmative procedure. This would give stakeholders—including UKTAG, the UK technical advisory group, which currently advises on standards and which should retain a lead role in this process—the right to input into any water quality regulations changes. It would also legally require the Secretary of State to have regard to that input, ensuring that standards and targets are altered only in line with scientific advice and following appropriate stakeholder consultation.
A robust, binding legal assurance of non-regression on environmental standards would give further assurance on that point. The Government still have the opportunity to give such assurance through the Bill, and that would be warmly welcomed by the environmental sector and many other stakeholders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I thank the hon. Member for Putney for tabling the amendment. I understand entirely the desire to ensure an appropriate level of scrutiny when this delegated power is exercised. The clause creates a narrow power for the Secretary of State to maintain a list of the most harmful chemical substances that could enter watercourses and sets out measures to monitor and tackle them, keeping pace with the latest scientific knowledge. This is a key aspect of our wider regulations that protect and enhance our water environment. The exercise of the power in the clause is subject to consultation with experts in the Environment Agency who provide scientific opinion and have a statutory duty to monitor water.
I highlight the fact that the Secretary of State will take into account the latest scientific evidence when updating lists. In addition to the EA, a lot of that evidence comes through the UK technical advisory group, a working group of experts drawn from the environment and conservation agencies for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland who already derive threshold values for UK-specified pollutants, which are monitored for the purposes of contributing to the ecological status of our surface waters. A statutory consultation requirement could not be placed on the UK technical advisory group as it is not a statutory body, but it offers valued expert advice. The Secretary of State must also consult any person or bodies appearing to represent the interests of those likely to be affected by these provisions.
I understand that the amendment seeks to increase the level of parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of the power by upgrading to the super-affirmative resolution procedure, as the hon. Member for Putney mentioned. As we have mentioned, this procedure is used extremely rarely for statutory instruments that are considered to need a particularly high level of scrutiny—for example, legislative reform orders under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which could be used to abolish, confer or transfer statutory functions or create or abolish a statutory body or office—so we do not feel that that would be appropriate.
The hon. Member was concerned about a lowering of standards, which is absolutely not the case. I know that she has a particular interest in this, and I was so interested to hear earlier that she worked for WaterAid. Lots of Back Benchers engage with WaterAid—I did—when it holds events in Parliament. It does really good work. The wider regulations require the EA to have an extensive and robust monitoring regime for chemicals in the water environment and refer to the priority substances as those that must be used to assess chemical status in surface waters. The EA will monitor for new and emerging harmful substances through an early warning system and, in consultation with the EA, the updates to the list will be based on the latest science and monitoring data, which currently suggest a potential increase in the number of substances of concern, rather than a reduction. An eye will certainly be kept on that, because it is so important.
Although I fully acknowledge the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, a super-affirmative, or indeed a standard affirmative, resolution procedure is wholly disproportionate in this instance. This power can be used only to make relatively narrow changes to existing transposing legislation for the purpose of updating certain water quality standards. The power does not extend to changing the wider regime for assessing and monitoring water quality, which is enshrined in the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations 2017. An update to the list of priority substances involves highly technical discussions, as I have mentioned, around emerging pollutants and their threshold values, measured in micrograms per litre, and sophisticated monitoring techniques, including biota testing.
I hope that clarifies the position, and I therefore ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
As the Minster indicated, the name super-affirmative suggests that this is not an everyday procedure. It has been suggested in the amendment because the clause would allow the Secretary of State, albeit on a reasonably narrow basis, to amend or modify legislation, and thereby to degrade or completely remove environmental protections that are already in the regulations. That would essentially be a power to deregulate current regulations, underpinned by the ability to do so by simply notifying the House. We do not think that is good enough.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney emphasised, the super-affirmative procedure would not just allow for greater parliamentary scrutiny but would allow for greater consultation in the process. We think it is an appropriate device to add, although it is a relatively new one. It has been in place, as the Minister alluded to, since 2016.
However, the Minister has given some assurances on the limit of the Secretary of State’s power to degrade or remove secondary legislation. She has also indicated that that would not be the intention of the Government, and that, on the contrary, it is their intention to try to uprate those regulations.
Rebecca Pow
Apologies; I was mistaken earlier. It was the shadow Minister who tabled the amendment. In addition to all these matters, the Secretary of State will conduct a two-yearly review of significant developments in international legislation on the environment. That is another prong that will help to keep up the standards of environmental protection. I thought the hon. Gentleman might be interested to hear some of the ways we might use—
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for her intervention. Alas, we will never hear the detail of what those changes might be, but the fact that she was brandishing a sheet of paper that clearly had them written on it is perhaps further assurance. I did indeed move this amendment, but the multi-talented nature of Opposition Members could have led one to believe that someone else had done so, such is the power of our interventions this afternoon.
We do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, but I hope that this is another thing for the Minister’s “to think about” box. I do not think that it is generally a good idea for secondary legislation to be put through the negative procedure on this catch-all basis. Among other things, doing so puts considerable impediments in the face of Parliamentary scrutiny, because the negative procedure requires the legislation to be prayed against. That means that the right to a debate lies with the usual channels rather than being guaranteed, as it is with the affirmative procedure.
I hope the Minister will take the general point on board for future legislative purposes that we do not think that is a good idea. We would be grateful if the Minister could have that in mind when she is reviewing the legislation. On this occasion, we are reasonably happy with the Minister’s assurances on this clause and the additional—alas, secret—assurances that she has on her piece of paper. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82
Water quality: powers of Welsh Ministers
Amendments made: 53, in clause 82, page 81, line 19, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.
Amendment 54, in clause 82, page 81, line 21, leave out “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”—(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
Clause 82, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 83 to 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 87
Valuation of other land in drainage district: Wales
Amendment made: 55, in clause 87, page 85, line 9, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
Clause 87, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 88
Valuation of agricultural land in drainage district: England and Wales
Amendment made: 56, in clause 88, page 87, line 33, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
Clause 88, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89
Disclosure of Revenue and Customs information
Amendment made: 57, in clause 89, page 89, line 9, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
Clause 89, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
Apologies, Mr Gray, but we had previously notified the Committee that our amendments to the natural environment and environmental protection elements of the Bill would be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 169, in schedule 14, page 207, line 26, leave out paragraphs (3) and (4) and insert—
“(3) The relevant percentage is a minimum of 10%.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this paragraph so as to increase the relevant percentage.
(5) The Secretary of State shall review the relevant percentage after 5 years or sooner.”
This amendment amends the power to vary the 10% level so that it can only be increased.
I apologise to anyone who was expecting to continue to hear the mellifluous tones of my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. I am grateful to have a backing part; it is a huge honour.
After all the excitement this morning, I hope we can have a similarly exciting afternoon. We are coming to the bit that I have been looking forward to most since I first read the Bill: the exciting part around nature and biodiversity. Part 6 is fascinating. It is hard to imagine a more important and pressing subject when we all know that around the world, the targets we have collectively set ourselves continue, sadly, to be missed. At the same time, we look to find ways out of the economic crisis stemming from covid.
Part 6 is a very important part of the Bill. As I looked at the Bill last night in revising for today, I reread some of the 25-year environment plan. What an optimistic, forward-looking and exciting document it is, full of “wills”, “shalls” and “musts”. The trouble is that some of that enthusiasm seems to have been mislaid en route. One of the key things is that somewhere along the line, the planning White Paper came along, and there is an unresolved tension between the excellent ambition of the 25-year environment plan and those new suggestions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test said at the beginning of our discussions, we think this is a good Bill, but we want to make it better. My task this afternoon is to try to help the Minister restore it to the Bill it might once have been. We could see this as a bit of a whodunnit. Who was it, and how did the changes creep in? Who did such harm to it, and how can we now help the Government make good? In some of the discussions on this schedule, the Government thought about going beyond net biodiversity gain towards net environmental gain, and we would really like that desire to be addressed.
Much of the schedule is about the planning system. I suspect many Members here have direct or indirect experience of our planning system and know how important it is. For the moment, the provisions for reducing environmental impact in the planning system are focused on preventing and mitigating harm. The net gain objective has been embraced in the national planning policy framework since 2012, when it replaced the previous policy objective of no net loss, which sought only a neutral outcome after losses and gains were accounted for. Thanks to the rules for site-based protection in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the net gain objective has been relatively effective in reducing loss of habitats and species without slowing down development, but it has been far from enough to turn the tide in nature’s decline. The principle of taking a more strategic approach to restoring nature and requiring a 10% net gain in biodiversity is one we fully support. That is what is addressed in this schedule.
We know how important that is because, sadly, the UK continues to suffer rapid biodiversity loss. The Government have failed on too many metrics: 46% of conservation priority species in England declined between 2013 and 2018. This is serious. We welcome the fact the Government have begun to address some of the issues, although we think we need to approach this serious issue in an open and clear way. We note the Prime Minister’s announcement a few weeks ago about 30% of land being protected, but we also gently point out that some 26% of that is achieved through a counting mechanism that includes areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. We want to address this problem. We have to be serious about it and not try to play with the figures, and our view is that at the moment the Bill is a lost opportunity to stop the decline. However, the new general condition has the potential to be an effective tool to boost biodiversity across the country, and there are many issues we want to address in the amendments to see how the Bill can be improved.
I will touch on several of our amendments, including on the length of time for which habitats should be maintained, which is 30 years; the exemptions, too many, in our view, from the biodiversity gain condition; the relationship between the new system and irreplaceable habitats; and the lack of a mechanism to guarantee what is prescribed in the biodiversity gain plan to ensure it is actually delivered on the ground. To turn to the detail of amendment 169, our fear is that we are in danger of being left with a rather unambitious percentage of biodiversity net gain that is all too easy for the Government to decrease if they choose to do so. At first sight, setting the condition for planning permission at 10% biodiversity net gain seems a reasonable thing to do, but it is important to note that the impact assessment published alongside the biodiversity net gain consultation in December 2018 said that 10% is merely the lowest level of net gain at which the Department
“could confidently expect to deliver…net gain, or at least no net loss”.
It does not appear that this is taking us very far forward. Indeed, 10% net gain is less ambitious than the current practice of some local authorities. I am told that Lichfield District Council already requires 20% net gain on new development, so although we welcome the Government’s statement and its response to the biodiversity net gain consultation, the 10% should not be viewed as a cap on the aspirations of developers who want to go further. I was pleased that the Minister reiterated this point on Second Reading. It would be very helpful if she could make a clear statement, to facilitate ambitious developers and to help them and local planning authorities, underlining that the aspiration is to go further.
A number of changes need to be made. Under schedule 14, the Secretary of State has a number of powers to make regulations, including a Henry VIII power to amend the 10% biodiversity net gain objective and to amend the types of developments the net gain will apply to. The Bill’s provisions read that “the relevant percentage” of biodiversity net gain for developers is 10%, and:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this paragraph so as to change the relevant percentage.”
Our amendment is very clear: that must be amended to include a commitment to monitor and review practice, so that the level of gain can be increased in future if evidence demonstrates this is possible and needed. We also need a lock-in so that the percentage can only be increased by the Government, not simply decreased at a later date. There must be no mechanism in the Bill to lower the level of gain; that would seriously undermine the objectives of the system as a whole, and would likely result in little or no gain being achieved in practice.
Amendment 169 would ensure that the only way the 10% net gain figure could be changed is by being increased after review by the Secretary of State. It would also lock in a timeframe to ensure the percentage is reassessed after an appropriate amount of time, within a maximum period of five years.
I am sure the Minister will, as she has throughout, assure us that there is no need for concern. But to return to my whodunnit, I fear that there may be a villain in my story and Members might be able to guess who some of the contenders might be. Looking back at the Prime Minister’s “Build, build, build” speech in July, he did claim—spuriously in our view—that:
“Newt-counting delays are a massive drag on the prosperity of this country.”
We will discuss newts in more detail later, but when Government policy lurches from one approach to another, we need certainty that the commitment of the current Minister will not be trumped by future Ministers who might take a different view. Unless we get that certainty, we will certainly wish to press this amendment to a Division.
Rebecca Pow
I welcome the hon. Member for Cambridge as he takes the floor this afternoon. This is a tremendously exciting part of the Bill, through which we can all be a part in doing our hugely important bit for nature in this country. He is right about degradation—I am not even going to think about denying that—and about how important the Bill is. This is the tool for achieving the measures in the 25-year environment plan, which was the first environmental improvement plan. It is great that the plan is full of optimism because it sets out what we want to do and where we want to go, and these measures will be in this Bill.
Let me turn to the amendment. Responses to the net gain consultation revealed that some developers have already made voluntary commitments to no net loss or net gain and there were calls for both a higher and a lower percentage. It was quite interesting how that came out. On balance and having considered all responses, we believe that requiring at least a 10% gain strikes the right balance between ambition, creating certainty in achieving environmental outcomes, deliverability and costs for developers. It should not be viewed as a cap and the hon. Member for Cambridge has already mentioned a local authority that has set its sights higher. Many more are doing that and going voluntarily above 10%.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the “Planning for the future” White Paper, which I think will probably be referred to a lot today. It specifically sets out support for biodiversity net gain and rightly identifies improving biodiversity as one of our most important national challenges. It is important to build the houses people want and all of the developments that we need, but that cannot be done to the detriment of the environment.
That is quite clear in the White Paper that biodiversity net gain and biodiversity more generally are one of our most important challenges. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on the implementation of biodiversity net gain to make sure it is fully integrated into the planning system. I have already said that the 25-year environment plan is the first environmental improvement plan, and all these things will work as part and parcel of one another.
The ambition of 10% net gain represents a significant step forward beyond current practice while striking a balance and meaning it does not have be reviewed as a cap. Restricting the ability to set a lower percentage requirement may force the Government to exempt any development types that cannot achieve a 10% net gain, rather than keeping them in scope and subjecting them to a lower percentage requirement. Broader exemptions would be a greater risk to the achievement of the wide policy aims than targeted application of a lower percentage gain.
Limiting the power might therefore compel future Governments to make other adjustments to the requirement, which could compromise environmental and development outcomes more fundamentally than a lower percentage of net gain.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister is making an interesting case for the clause. However, does she accept that it is a particularly egregious example of “first you have it, then you don’t” legislation appearing in consecutive paragraphs? That is to say—a bald statement, as she said—the relevant percentage is 10%, but then the Secretary of State can take that away. Does she have any suggestions as to how one might make that a little less alarming, if she is indeed suggesting that that sort of arrangement needs to be in place?
Rebecca Pow
I reiterate how closely we are working with other Departments and on the “Planning for the future” White Paper to make sure that biodiversity remains the significant objective that it needs to be, as has been indicated already.
Other measures in the Bill, such as the local nature recovery strategies that we will come on to talk about, will help with our moving towards biodiversity net gain. There are a lot of measures that will make it much clearer where the net gain is, what the advantages and benefits of it are, and where it should go.
One of the main aims of our planning reforms is to enhance the environment while having the development that we need. We want environmental assets to be protected. We want to provide more green spaces, more sustainable development and new homes that are energy-efficient. Many of these measures have already been announced and are being introduced, such as the measures on houses and on the reduction of carbon-intensive modes of transport. All these things will work together, and measures in the Bill will help that process. We will also work through the White Paper to deliver even further on the net gain.
Let me reiterate that limiting the power might compel future Governments to make other adjustments to the requirement that would compromise environmental and development outcomes more fundamentally than a lower percentage of net gain. What we are trying to do overall is to raise up the whole net gain.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that these amendments are very moderate? We are not looking to limit things down, but to raise things up. The Bill already has the relevant percentage—10%—so to put that as a minimum is surely a very moderate thing. That word is a very important one. As she has already said, she is very ambitious, so adding that word would surely increase the ambition.
Rebecca Pow
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I still stick to my point that restricting the ability to set a low percentage requirement might force Government to exempt any development types that cannot achieve the 10%. What we are trying to do is to make sure that everyone gets to the 10% mark, and others might go above that voluntarily.
On the final point about the amendment, about compelling the Secretary of State to review the percentage within five years, I offer my assurances that the Government intend to monitor closely the policy outcome of net gain after its implementation. Of course, Members should remember that we have our Office for Environmental Protection; we have a great big monitoring and reporting body. It will be very difficult for anyone not to stick to these measures. They are all in the Bill and they add to the overall enhancing of the environment. I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister. I suspect that a theme is already emerging from this discussion, whereby the Minister tries very hard to explain away the differences that have emerged. That is her job and she has made a very good attempt at it. However, it seems counterintuitive to argue that, on the one hand, the Government are going to introduce this level and, on the other hand, they will have the ability to reduce it. As for the argument that that somehow protects the measure, I think that the cat was slightly let out of the bag by the suggestion that there might be exemptions that will allow another way round it. We will come on to that in a moment.
In some ways, this is a strange discussion, because the White Paper on planning emerged in the summer, after this Committee was in abeyance. It seemed to us—we made this point very strongly—that this process is a complicated set of interactions that would have benefited from the detailed interrogation of experts. We will get into some quite detailed planning law issues in the coming hours, I suspect, and many of us possibly do not have the expertise that some of our witnesses might have been able to bring to these discussions. It is a great pity that we are not able to explore that in more detail. But we are where we are and we will have to do our best.
The problem is that a lot of this goes back to the question of trust. Basically, the Minister is asking us to trust the Government. She says that they are introducing the OEP, but the OEP will work to the legislation that we are putting in place today. Inevitably, there is pressure —we know that there is huge pressure and we understand why—from local developers and a Government who want to build, build, build. That is why nature needs a voice: it needs the legislative protection that the Minister is so passionate about. There should not be any loopholes, because we know what will happen: if we leave loopholes, people will use them. That is why—and I will keep repeating this point—I want to understand what changed, who did it and why, because if we get an answer to those questions, we will understand what is likely to happen in future.
This Bill might look lovely and sound great, but when we begin to delve down into the detail and look at the “mays” rather than the “musts” and at the exemptions and loopholes it introduces, we may find that, like on so many other occasions in the past, it is a great disappointment. That is why we want to absolutely tie this down. On that basis, we wish to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 168, in schedule 14, page 209, line 37, leave out
“maintained for at least 30 years”
and insert
“secured in its target condition and maintained in perpetuity”.
This amendment requires habitat created under net gain to be secured in perpetuity.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 75, in schedule 14, page 209, line 37, leave out
“for at least 30 years”
and insert “in perpetuity”.
This amendment would require post-development habitat enhancements for the purposes of biodiversity gains to be maintained in perpetuity rather than for 30 years.
Amendment 74, in clause 91, page 92, line 1, leave out
“for at least 30 years”
and insert “in perpetuity”.
This amendment would require habitat enhancements for the purposes of biodiversity gains to be maintained in perpetuity rather than for 30 years.
Amendment 230, in clause 91, page 92, line 1, leave out
“for at least 30 years”
and insert
“secured in its target condition and maintained in perpetuity”.
This amendment would require habitat enhancements created under net gain to be secured in perpetuity.
Daniel Zeichner
The theme continues with this set of amendments because, in exactly the same way as I have just explained, there is a risk of not achieving the desired outcome and ambition of the 25-year environment plan.
The amendment relates to the length of time that the biodiversity gain habitats should be maintained. Our amendment challenges the Government’s suggestion of 30 years. In our view, both schedule 14 and clause 91(2)(b) would allow protected sites potentially to be downgraded or destroyed after 30 years, thereby destroying the ecological gains and carbon storage benefits, and any prospect of those gains and benefits making a long-term impact.
That is essentially the issue: we are talking about the long term. I am sure the Minister will explain in a moment the logic for the Government’s 30-year proposal, but this takes us back to the basic point about how serious and ambitious we are about embedding these changes for the future. There will be little point to the provisions if they do not work in practice. For instance, if someone gets rid of a pond that has been in place for hundreds of years, with all the richness in biodiversity it has developed, and replaces it with another pond nearby, that replacement could be let go after 30 years. Our concern is that the provisions do not give the necessary strong support. The danger is that too short a period could simply see the biodiversity gains swiftly lost. Thirty years sounds like quite a long time, but when one bears in mind that we are already two years down the line from the 25-year environment plan and that politics does not always move at a frightfully great pace, it is not hard to imagine things moving quickly and those gains being quickly lost. If biodiversity gains are to properly contribute to the 25-year environment plan commitments to a nature recovery network and to provide carbon sequestration, which is so crucial to our net zero targets, these areas must be secured and maintained for the long term, because only through that kind of approach will we secure long-term nature recovery.
There really ought to be some binding mechanisms to ensure that the habitat condition target is reached in a timely way. One does not want to be cynical about some of these things, but one can well imagine that people wishing to build, build, build will try to find ways around them and will try, on occasion, to take advantage. The time taken for a habitat to reach its target condition—for example, for woodlands to reach maturity—could be specified in a biodiversity gain plan and included in planning conditions to ensure that it can be enforced. One can see so many possibilities here, and yet, even though the goal is within grasp, it seems that it is being clawed back. Again, I wonder by whom and for what purpose.
Amendment 168 to schedule 14 and amendment 74 to clause 91 would change the provisions by requiring post-development habitat enhancements for the purpose of maintaining biodiversity gains in perpetuity, rather than for 30 years. I have no doubt that the Minister secretly agrees with that; I suspect that she would like to see these things achieved. However, I suspect that she is constrained.
Our amendment 168 would ensure that those habitats are maintained at their target condition. It is interesting to note that that proposal comes not only from the Opposition Benches but is broadly supported. I was delighted to see a similar amendment in this group from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), although I do not think that it goes quite as far as ours. However, there are clearly Government Members who see the significance and importance of achieving this for the long term. I have to say once again that, if we do not get the commitment we are looking for on amendment 168, we will divide the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
I want to add a few thoughts to the excellent introduction to the clause from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. This issue has a considerable relationship to not only biodiversity gains generally but our targets under climate change legislation.
Part of the purpose of a number of the biodiversity gains that may arise as a result of putting percentages on biodiversity gain is not only to make a little gain but to actually sequester what is in that gain. That sequestration should and will count towards the carbon balance, so far as getting to net zero is concerned. We will discuss, when considering a new clause later in Committee, the whole question of what to do about planting trees over a period of time and how the planting of those trees leads, as those trees mature—my hon. Friend alluded to this—to substantial gains in net negative emissions, which are absolutely essential for reaching a net zero target in the future. The assumption would be that the carbon embedded in those trees is permanently placed on the carbon account as a negative input, because it has been effectively sequestered by the trees. That means not only that we can get to net zero, but that the whole question of net negative in the net zero equation is an essential starting point, and without that net negative input, there is no way we will get to net zero by 2050. As we in this House have all agreed, 2050 is the proper target, although we would like net zero to be achieved sooner in this country as far as emissions are concerned.
Rebecca Pow
I thank both hon. Members for their comments. The 25-year environment plan has been referred to, and I would say that Opposition Members are talking about weakening the commitments on biodiversity net gain in the 25-year plan. The Bill actually takes us further on biodiversity net gain. The plan only included a commitment to consult on a mandatory approach and strengthened policy. We are proposing a robust mandatory requirement with a broad scope of mechanisms for securing gains. I think that is important to register at the beginning.
The schedule states that “any habitat enhancement” within a development site that is considered significant by the planning authority must be
“maintained for at least 30 years after the development is completed.”
Respondents to the net gain consultation expressed strong support for a minimum period of maintenance, and Government responded by confirming that they would introduce a minimum period—hence the 30 years.
Ruth Jones
I am just seeking some clarification on the definition. The Minister said the amendment appears to weaken the Bill, but “in perpetuity” cannot be weaker than 25 years, because perpetuity is longer than 25 years.
Rebecca Pow
My point was that what we are introducing in the Bill is much stronger than what was in the 25-year environment plan. That was the point I was making. I will press on—
Rebecca Pow
But it was referred to earlier. It is a commitment we have made, and we are strengthening it. Credit should be given where credit is due. A great amount of work has advanced since the launch of that plan, which I went to in 2018 with the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). We are forging on and doing even more than was promised in that plan.
I welcome the acknowledgment by hon. Members of the importance of long-term maintenance of biodiversity gain sites to ensure that we provide long-lasting benefits for wildlife and communities and for climate change, as was ably referred to by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. There are, however, practical reasons why we should keep the minimum requirement to a 30-year duration. We need to create the right habitats in the right places for wildlife. Increasing the minimum required duration of maintenance might dissuade key landowners from volunteering their land for gains. Agreements made for perpetuity would also risk creating permanent conditions or obligations to maintain particular types of habitat, when future changes in climate or ecological conditions might make a different type of habitat more suitable. The Bill leaves space for flexibility.
I want to give some more detail about what we term conservation covenants. Any conservation covenant used for net gain would be drafted to secure the carrying out of habitat enhancement works and maintenance of the enhancement for at least 30 years. We would expect responsible bodies to respect that purpose when deciding whether or how to modify or discharge a conservation covenant. They might consider whether any flexibility for landowners would better serve that purpose than retaining the conservation covenant unchanged. I have talked to landowners about this, and it is a point they make, so that has to be respected. The Bill leaves the flexibility for that.
There are also a range of existing protections for habitats, which will not be going away. They could apply to biodiversity gain sites even after the 30 years have expired. These are principally of relevance to off-site habitat enhancements, but would still apply to habitats created within developments. We understand from stakeholders that there may, in some cases, be little difference in funding requirements between the minimum 30-year agreement and a longer agreement.
In cases where it is acceptable to a landowner and would deliver greater biodiversity benefits, we would, of course, encourage longer-term agreements. We would do that initially through guidance. Should further evaluation of the policy show that this is not achieving the right outcomes, the encouragement might be adjusted through policy, the biodiversity metric, which has been in existence for about five years and is currently being updated by Natural England, or further guidance. Any future decision relating to the mechanisms of the encouragement will be made by Government on the basis of evaluation of the biodiversity net gain practice rather than speculation, which, I suggest, is what is being done at the moment.
Dr Whitehead
First, I think it should be put on record that suggesting that a Government initiative is better than an amendment being proposed, when the comparison is made between two Government initiatives, one of which is better than the other, really should not stand. We did not write the 25-year environment plan; the Government did. If this improves on the 25-year environment plan, fair enough, but it is not to do with us.
Secondly, in law, 30 years means 30 years. It will be found out whether that was the right thing by encouragement only after 30 years. If someone rips everything up after 30 years, they will find the Government’s encouragement was not as good as it should have been. I am puzzled as to how the Minister will find out whether this is working short of the 30-year period. Would it not be better not to have that 30-year period, to ensure that we do not have to find out the hard way at the end of 30 years, when that change is made in law?
Rebecca Pow
I take the point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier. I put on record that I hear what he has said. We will not fall out.
Things will not stop after 30 years. For example, while the agreements made for biodiversity net gain might expire, the created habitats will remain subject to a wide range of protections at that point, as I just said. For example, if a woodland had been created, it would benefit from existing protections for woodland and would then fall into the scope of the felling licence and potential environmental impact assessment regulations for forestry. All those other protections would come into play.
I reiterate that people can voluntarily enter into contracts longer than 30 years if they so wish. I am sure that certain people will want to do that. In light of the reasons I have set out, I ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I have been elevated, Mr Gray, to doctor. Thank you very much.
Daniel Zeichner
I am not sure what a doctor looks like, but thank you.
This has been a useful discussion, because it begins to show how complicated some of this is. It shows—we will come to this in subsequent discussions—that the interactions between the different pieces of protection legislation are complicated, as I have already hinted. This is possibly already a discussion for lawyers, and my fear is that it will become a discussion for lawyers in the future, because these things will be disputed. If we do not get the legislation clear now, it will lead, I suspect, to disappointment in the future.
Perhaps I was overly gushing in my praise for the 25-year environment plan at the beginning, but I was seeking to make a broader point, which is that in too many cases we have stepped back. This is a case in point. The Minister, in explaining the logic behind the 30 years, has raised more concerns in people’s minds than she might have allayed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test for linking this issue to sequestration and our necessary attempts to achieve net zero by 2050. He seems to me to be absolutely right; we need these improvements.
It is striking that, in this schedule, this is the key tool that the Government are adopting. They are using the planning process. If that is the key path to protecting nature in future, we do not want to start introducing loopholes and qualifications in this way. I understand the debate around the 30 years—I was ploughing my way through the submissions to the net gain consultation and the Government’s responses—but I am sure that the Minister will concede that many people agree with our position, which is that this needs to be seen in perpetuity. An additional point is about how we monitor and check that progress in between. As we all know, it is all too easy for this place to pass legislation and think, “job done,” only to wonder why it has not had an effect in the real world. We will probably touch on some of those points as the debate continues.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 22, in schedule 14, page 212, line 15 leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 22 would make it a duty for the Secretary of State to provide a clear procedure to planning authorities. Here, again, we come back to the realms of local government. I should perhaps have said earlier that some years ago I was a district councillor in rural Norfolk. I very much enjoyed the experience, and spent many hours—as, I suspect, did many other members of the Committee—on local planning processes. I learned that planning law is lengthy, complicated and sometimes controversial, but very important when it comes to protecting and developing local communities.
This is another one of those “may” and “must” issues. The amendment would strengthen the Bill, which states only that
“The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the procedure which a planning authority is to follow in determining whether to approve a biodiversity gain plan”.
I fear, yet again, that the devil is in the detail. I remember being quite impressed as a district councillor some years ago that there was an interest in biodiversity. We had a biodiversity committee, which meant that we had some fascinating discussions, but I fear that nothing much happened. That is so often the problem: that there is concern but no means of translating intent into action.
Whether the Secretary of State “may” or “must” make regulations is therefore quite important. I fear that many planning authorities that do not have to engage with this will look at it sympathetically, because people want it, but it will be the usual thing: when they are constrained by so many competing requirements, it is tough to do something unless they have to, which is what we are in this place to ensure.
Regulations may specify the details of the
“time by which a determination must be made…factors which may or must be taken into account in making such a determination”,
and appeals against the planning’s authority’s decisions. I suspect that we are all familiar with the dilemmas that local councillors often face. We give them a huge range of things to take into consideration while trying to achieve balanced outcomes that can withstand scrutiny and appeal, and quite often—and rightly so—they have to take direction from their expert officers who have already made those calculations.
The question is where we balance this issue as a priority against the other things that councillors take into account. My sense is that unless we strengthen the Bill, it will become one more on the list of things that they really ought to take into account. At best, it may become a line on an agenda that gets ticked: “Yes, we have taken it into account, because somebody raised it,” but will it actually be considered among the trade-offs in the decision-making process? I am not convinced.
We also wish to raise the question of how the regulations will be decided here; again, we believe that they should be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow proper parliamentary scrutiny. They should also be subject to proper public consultation; because the issue is complicated, the input of biodiversity and planning professionals through public consultation would strengthen discussion and improve procedures. These are not simple matters—they have significant consequences and significant costs—but in due course such input would improve the overall planning outcomes. Improved procedures could ensure that all planning authorities’ biodiversity gain plans are sufficiently detailed, subject to public consultation, and made available in draft so as to inform planning applications. That is a part of the democratic process that we believe very valuable, although the planning White Paper seems to suggest that, for whole swathes of the country, that process may not be continued in future.
We want to get the Minister’s thinking on this, because it is not clear why she would not want to accept the amendment. We will not press it to a Division, but we would like an explanation.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for moving the amendment. Paragraph 16 of schedule 14 sets out that the Secretary of State may impose further procedural requirements relating to how a planning authority approves a biodiversity gain plan. Paragraph 15 makes it clear that the biodiversity gain objective must be met; it also specifies that other key factors, such as the accuracy of the plan’s ecological information, must be considered by the planning authority. The Government intend to use the paragraph 16 power to ensure that the requirements fit well with the planning system; the hon. Member alluded to that, and obviously it is really important, but we believe that the other considerations in paragraph 15 should provide confidence that approved plans will meet the legislation’s environmental policy objectives.
Primary legislation consistently takes this approach to the balance between powers and duties, as we have discussed many times. It is entirely appropriate to provide the Secretary of State with flexibility as to how the provision is given effect. Forcing the use of regulations when they might not be needed risks creating unnecessary complication, or even weakening the purpose of the measures. It may not be necessary for the regulations to cover all the areas in paragraph 16; they are set out to give the Secretary of State discretion to address them if it is considered necessary. While we cannot rule out needing to address appeals in the regulations, that may not be necessary. Forcing the Secretary of State to regulate such matters immediately when that may not be a clear necessity would risk adding complexity to a process that we aim to keep straightforward. The addition of undue complexity risks undermining the benefits of the approach for the planning authorities, the communities—which are obviously so important—and the developers using it.
The biodiversity gain plan is simply the document that allows the developer to demonstrate to the planning authority how it has satisfied the biodiversity net gain requirement. A typical biodiversity gain plan will consist of the completed biodiversity metric and some supplementary information. We expect that the consistency of the plans will make their assessment easier for the planning authorities, and reduce the risk of miscommunication. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to kindly withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I listened with interest to the Minister’s explanation. I am not entirely sure that I am convinced by it, because it is not clear to me why making regulations at a later date, rather than making things clear sooner, will make the position less complex. Having the discretion to make them or not does not seem helpful.
The Minister also raised an issue about the biodiversity net gain metric, which is worthier of comment. There is a worry that we are creating yet another algorithm that people will not understand—the phrase “mutant algorithm” has already been bandied about with regard to housing numbers and the planning White Paper. As someone who is interested in data, I am not convinced that it is the algorithm that is mutant, the issue is those who put the data in, or interpret or programme it in a certain way.
Clearly, there is concern that technocratic approaches to making such decisions will take away local input—that those with unique knowledge of the local community and local biodiversity could in some way be excluded. That is a concern. The amendment has the potential to explain to local planning authorities how things should work, so the Minister is missing an opportunity.
An important point was made to me by the Town and Country Planning Association: if there is just a simple metric, where sites have apparently lower biodiversity value, people’s attachment to that local open space and its social values could somehow be lost. There is a big debate to be had about how the metric works, and what parameters feed into it in.
Rebecca Pow
I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but although he suggests that the metric is a new thing being imposed on people, it has been used for about five years, and is referred to by planning authorities and developers. As I think I just mentioned, Natural England is working on updating it, because it is complicated —it is not a simple thing, but it is a very useful thing. We want to know what is there, what the value is, and what the value could be—all that. We must also remember that all of this will link into the local nature recovery networks, which local communities will be really involved with.
Daniel Zeichner
Yes, and we will discuss those local nature recovery networks. The point that I am making is that the amendment was an opportunity for the Government to give direction to local planning authorities. Different planning authorities would do this differently—some would probably not do it at all, some would do it well, and some less well. It is sufficiently important for the Government to give direction. That is the point of our probing amendment.
To some extent, the Minister has clarified things, although I am not sure that has left us any more hopeful about the impacts, but at least we have had clarification. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 170, in schedule 14, page 212, leave out line 26.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 171, in schedule 14, page 212, leave out lines 29 and 30.
Daniel Zeichner
Amendments 170 and 171 relate to a major concern about the proposals, which is that a number of exceptions have been made to the condition to provide a biodiversity net gain. As I said earlier, a noble ambition can be undone if there are too many exceptions and loopholes.
Under the Bill’s schedule 14 amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, biodiversity net gain provisions will not apply to development for which planning permission is granted by a development order, an urgent Crown development, or a
“development of such other description as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify”.
I hope Members are all still with me. The excitement of this morning cannot necessarily be replicated when discussing this provision, but it is clear that, in the wrong hands, it could lead to some pretty major exemptions.
In order to maximise the benefits of biodiversity gain, provide developers with certainty and create a level playing field, it is important that the application of the biodiversity gain system is broad, and that most development is part of the net gain system. As I said, the intention is noble, but if people want to find gaps and we give them the opportunity to find lots of them, I am afraid that that is what is likely to happen. We have probably seen that kind of thing happen in the past. If biodiversity gains are to be delivered on the scale that I genuinely think we all agree is needed, we need to ensure that the exemptions and loopholes are limited.
We think that the exemptions for development orders could have a very broad application in practice, particularly if they are extended to the full range of development orders, which include local or neighbourhood development orders, and development orders brought forward by development corporations. That could lead to major developments such as new towns, and wider proposals for free ports, being exempt from the biodiversity gain provisions. That is a significant loophole, and a major missed opportunity to deliver biodiversity gains at scale.
The problem that we face, which goes right back to where the discussion started, is that the challenge is pressing and huge. We know that. If we start introducing exemptions and loopholes, we know what happens. It is not an aspersion on developers; we know that lots of people are paid in the development sector to find ways around planning laws. In my part of the world, there are many of them, and they are very good. They are assiduous, and they probably know planning law better than I do—in fact, I think I can guarantee it. That is why we need to ensure that we do not give them extra opportunities to get around it. Clarification on the development orders exemption and its intended scope would be very welcome from the Minister, not least because I think her words might be useful in future, as local authorities try to defend themselves against clever people who are trying to find ways through this.
I am sorry to have to go back to the planning White Paper, but it is relevant because of its proposals. Incidentally —I do not think I made this point earlier—the Minister had to search pretty hard in the planning White Paper to find references to net gain and biodiversity; the mention of it is very tangential. Anyway, the White Paper includes proposals for the extended use of development orders for large-scale development, as well as wider permission in principle.
We fear that significant swathes of development could be taken out of the system of net gain. If I were being kind, I would say that that would be an unintended consequence of the planning White Paper, but I think that there are some who know full well what they are doing with this. It allows the Government on the one hand to say, “Look what we’re doing with our wonderful new Environment Bill. We’re delivering on our 25-year environment plan,” while on the other hand it is business as usual. That is really not what we need. Perhaps the Minister could use this moment to explain how she sees the relationship between the Bill and the planning White Paper. It is highly significant, and difficult, because the White Paper has come along since the Bill Committee was originally formed, but it is hardly irrelevant.
Paragraph 17(b) of the proposed new schedule introduced by schedule 14, which effectively enables the Secretary of State to exempt any type of development in future, could lead to wide exemptions from net gain. I note that in their response to the net gain consultation, the Government have outlined that a “targeted exemption” may be intended for brownfield sites. That is quite a significant statement. For many years, there has been considerable interest in pursuing brownfield sites. I think there is sometimes a misunderstanding that nature exists only in some parts of our landscape. It can, of course, exist everywhere. Brownfield sites are no exception to that. It may not always be as diverse and high grade, but it is still very important to our overall attempt to restore and recover nature.
I understand that some environmental organisations such as Greener UK have expressed concerns that the proposed targeted exemption for brownfield sites could undermine the delivery of biodiversity gain as a whole, if a substantial amount of brownfield land is brought forward for housing development. One can see how that could begin to happen. If it is predominantly brownfield land, frankly, for all our good intentions, we are not making sufficient progress. The sites can have significant biodiversity interest, even when there is no formal biodiversity designation. Under these proposals, we could see damage to brownfield land of high environmental value, which sometimes is not really appreciated until the planning process is well under way. That raises some issues around how the process will happen. At some point in the process, it has to be assessed. The point at which that assessment is done is quite significant. We will come on to that with other amendments.
Will the Minister clarify how brownfield land of high environmental value will be protected and enhanced? What steps will the Government take to ensure that any brownfield site exemption does not undermine our goal of biodiversity gain as a whole? Will she also clarify by what process any future exemptions will be considered by the Secretary of State before being pursued under the broad power in the Bill?
Will there be any public consultation on further significant exemptions from biodiversity net gain? That is a very important point. In my part of the country, which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire will be familiar with, we have a very engaged electorate, to put it mildly, which is a good thing, but it means that people are interested and would not want to be excluded from a discussion. It would be hard to exclude some of them, frankly, but they should have a proper, formal role in that discussion, and a sense that their involvement affects the outcome. Otherwise, it leads to further disenchantment in the way our politics works.
There is a range of weaknesses and loopholes, even before we get to what I have described as the real whopper. It is deeply concerning that nationally significant infrastructure projects and other large-scale infrastructure projects are currently exempted from mandatory biodiversity gains. That is a bigger discussion, but it is a factor in this discussion. We know that such projects can cause significant damage to nature and we believe that provision must be made to include such developments within the scope of mandatory biodiversity gain, in line with the Government’s 25-year environment plan to embed environmental net gain in infrastructure. We will return to this point later in Committee when we discuss new clause 32.
Amendments 170 and 171 would strengthen what the Government are trying to do, by removing the potentially very wide exemption from net gain for development orders, and remove the broad power given to the Secretary of State in the Bill to lay down regulations exempting further development from biodiversity gain as and when they wish. We are genuinely interested in the Minister’s response. I have posed a series of questions. We do not seek to divide the Committee on the amendment, but it is important that people in the wider world get a sense of what the Government are trying to do through this measure.
The Chair
I call the Minister. [Interruption.] I call Dr Alan Whitehead. I am terribly sorry. I would be most grateful if you would indicate more clearly if you wish to speak. The order of speaking goes from the proposer of the amendment to the Minister, but if you wish to add anything, please indicate that to me by standing up or by any other method that is clear.
Dr Whitehead
Thank you, Mr Gray. I escalated from a pen to a hand, but I can escalate to a full body motion, if that is acceptable.
I want to add to the admirable exposition of the two amendments by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge by drawing attention to amendment 171, which would leave out two lines from paragraph 17 of the proposed new schedule, which has the heading, “Exceptions”. I ask members of the Committee to see what has been done here, because I think it is shocking. At the start of part 2 of the proposed new schedule, conditions for planning permission relating to biodiversity are laid down:
“Every planning permission granted for the development of land in England shall be deemed to have been granted subject to the condition in sub-paragraph (2).”,
which is,
“The condition is that the development may not be begun unless”
there is a biodiversity gain plan. That looks terrific. The casual observer would think, “That’s it sorted out. The biodiversity gain plan has to be in place. That’s what the Bill’s about.”
On turning to paragraph 17, we see that there are some exceptions:
“development for which planning permission is granted…by a development order, or…under section 293A (urgent Crown development)”.
That is arguable, but then we have this sentence:
“development of such other description as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”
Put into English, that means that if the Secretary of State introduces a regulation, development is exempted. The whole thing is meaningless from the beginning. All it needs is a regulation, which I presume may well be under the negative procedure, for this to be completely undone.
I know that it is fashionable to blame drafting for these issues, but something as shocking as this has to have had an intention behind it. This cannot arise from someone taking a lax instruction, writing the provision in the bowels of a building, presenting it and no one noticing. How these things are written is instructed by Ministers, who under the Bill can simply remove stuff that the Government do not feel like doing. It refers to all development, not just to some developments—it says “development”. That really is not good enough for a Bill of this kind.
Rebecca Pow
I thank hon. Members for their comments. The hon. Member for Cambridge asked a lot of questions, so if I do not cover them all, we will put something in writing because I could not keep up with them all.
Paragraph 17 of the proposed new schedule introduced by schedule 14 sets out when the general biodiversity gain condition does not apply. Sub-paragraph (b) creates a power to exempt specific types of development through regulations. While I welcome the hon. Member’s acknowledgement of the importance of keeping exemptions narrow, there are good reasons to use this power, which amendment 171 seeks to remove, to introduce targeted exemptions for more constrained development types.
The Government will not introduce broad exemptions from delivering biodiversity net gains, which was something the hon. Member specifically asked about. The power will be used to make narrow practical exemptions in order to keep net gain requirements proportionate. Exemptions will ensure that the mandatory requirement is not applied to development on such a small scale that it could be negligible, and I will go on to talk a bit more about that and about no losses in terms of habitat value. Some development will result in negligible losses or degradation of habitat. Examples of such development might include changes or alterations to buildings and house extensions, for example. Applying the 10% targets to such development would not generate significant ecological gains, and the requirement might result in undue process costs for developers and planning authorities alike.
Ruth Jones
The Minister has talked about targeted, narrow exemptions, but that is not what it says in the Bill. I take on board the fact that she is enthusiastic about and fully committed to this, but somebody coming after her—heaven forbid—could use the wording in a completely different way and we would need to follow that is actually in the Bill, rather than what is in an explanatory note.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for that and I reiterate my first sentence. The Government will not introduce broad exemptions from delivering biodiversity net gain, and we have made that quite clear.
Amendment 170 would undo the exemption for permitted development from the net gain requirement. Permitted development rights play a vital role in freeing up local planning authorities to deal with planning applications that really matter to local communities, and have a wider social, economic and environmental impact. The hon. Member for Cambridge will know that from his time on the planning committee at the district council. Many permitted development rights are for small-scale development or changes of use, such as modest alterations to buildings, small fences or temporary use of land for fairs, where there is little or no impact on biodiversity.
Development undertaken through local planning orders is not exempt from net gain, as we have touched on. Only development under the general permitted development order, such as adding a conservatory, is exempt. It is true that we have extended the scope of the permitted development rights in recent years in order to deliver more homes, but permitted development rights such as allowing office-to-residential conversions and allowing residential blocks to be built up are principally about the use of existing developments and development land, and so are generally outside the scope of biodiversity net gain.
Brownfield sites were mentioned. It is not the Government’s intention to exempt brownfield sites. We absolutely recognise the biodiversity value those sites can have and, indeed, their value to communities—many of them are right in the centre of towns and cities. Any brownfield exemptions will be narrow and will have to recognise biodiversity value. We will consult further on the details of exemptions. For example, brownfield sites will have a set of criteria that would relate to them when these matters were being considered.
Special development orders are rarely used, but it is important to retain the legislative flexibility to make them very quickly to respond to urgent priorities. For instance, in recent years they have been used to secure urgent planning permission for the temporary lorry parks as part of the Brexit preparations, and Members will be able to see the benefit of that and why it is important to do that quickly.
New towns were also touched on, and we are aware that there are extant powers in the New Towns Act 1981 to use special development orders to set out the planning framework for new towns. There are no plans to use those powers at present, and the Government recently consulted on modernising the planning powers of development corporations to ensure that they are fit for purpose. However, we are clear that any new town would need to contribute to biodiversity gain: indeed, one of the great things about new towns is that there is the opportunity and scope to make them wonderful, green, biodiverse spaces in which to live. We have learned so many lessons this year about how important those things are.
We think it is right that the legislation is clear that biodiversity gain should not be included in permitted development rights, and that a clear exemption for development orders is the best way forward. I hope I have given clarity on some of those other areas, and for the reasons I have set out, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendments 170 and 171.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the Minister, and I do think that some of what she said was helpful. However, I have to say that not only was my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test excited this morning; he is now shocked. Being excited and shocked in the same day is a bit worrying, but the Minister will have heard the shocked tones from the Opposition Benches.
I think a close reading of the text gives cause for concern, and I hope that the Minister might, on reflection, look at what she described as “narrow”. One person’s flexibility is sometimes another person’s loophole. There are different definitions of narrow, and some of us can see a yawning chasm—a big gap that anyone who is astride a bulldozer could drive straight through—so we do think there is legitimate cause for concern. Clearly, the permitted development rights extensions have been extremely controversial and a cause for concern, so I am not entirely sure that the Minister’s defence would reassure everyone. Certainly in my part of the world, some huge problems have arisen from some of those changes, and I am not convinced that any concern was given to restoring nature when making those changes. I also have to say that whenever a Minister says there are no plans to do something at present, that is generally a good sign that it may happen sometime soon, so that is also a cause for worry.
I do think this issue needs to be further examined, and I suspect we will be coming back to it. I also suspect that the other place will look quite closely at this, so I do not think today’s discussion will be the end of the matter. However, it is useful to have had it, because if the Bill is not precise, the words that Ministers use become more helpful in defining and limiting.
I suspect that many people will look at the Bill and think that this is too big a loophole, and ask—exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test did—what was the thinking behind doing this? That is the question I keep going back to: why has there been this change from the optimism of a couple of years ago? It may just be that this is what happens in government: officials look at it more closely and say, “You really do not want to do that, because”—and then the Government find that they are losing out on the noble ambition they had at the outset. We are pretty determined to make sure that that noble ambition stays on track.
I hope the Minister thinks we are in being in some way helpful to her; I am sure that is not how it feels at the moment, but she may come to see that in time. With the reset of Government policy, she may suddenly be flavour of the month. Maybe she can feature in a 10-point green plan—who knows? However, we do not need to pursue this issue further at the moment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 172, in schedule 14, page 212, line 32, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would commit the Secretary of State to make regulations excluding irreplaceable habitat from the net gain policy.
I am afraid that we are going to go further into the legalities of the planning system. I apologise: mid-afternoon is probably not the time to be doing this, but it needs to be gone into. This amendment is another may/must one. We are concerned about the provisions for net gain in the Bill, and the relationship between this new system and the irreplaceable habitats that, in many places, we treasure and love. These irreplaceable habitats are very precious places and include ancient woodlands, salt marshes, blanket bog and lowland fen, which, if destroyed, are technically extremely difficult to restore, and it takes a hugely long time to do so. By their very nature, these habitats cannot be properly recreated, so this is not a case of providing a replacement or, in any real sense, a gain.
The national planning policy framework sets out that
“development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats…should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists”.
We need further clarity that provisions on biodiversity net gain will not undermine existing protections for irreplaceable habitats. The amendment seeks to explore the complicated relationship between these new provisions and the existing protections.
Schedule 14 gives the Secretary of State powers to define what is meant by “irreplaceable habitat” and to exclude such habitats from net gain or amend how the legislation applies to them. Amendment 172 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make such regulations, such that they “must” rather than “may” make them. Any regulations and associated guidance on irreplaceable habitats should make it clear that current legal protections and requirements for irreplaceable habitats are fully retained and take precedence.
That is the problem with the interpretation of the different pieces of legislation. I suspect that the Minister has probably had these conversations. We want to add clarity to the process. If that is not done, we fear that it will be open to dispute in future. Not only that, but people would also be able to do things that they would not have been able to do before. The theme of some of the upcoming amendments is that there is a danger that something that looks good could end up doing harm as a result of unintended consequences. I am not in any way suggesting that that is the intention, but it is the risk, and that is why it is important that this is sorted out.
The Government should also reiterate that adverse impacts from development should be avoided, not just minimised. Our concern is that if the requirements for irreplaceable habitats are less arduous than those for other habitats, a perverse incentive could be created. We do not want the regulations to do that or to end up with the extraordinary situation of developers being incentivised to target irreplaceable habitats instead.
The Bill should be absolutely explicit that the mitigation hierarchy, existing designations, and statutory and planning protections for sites and species are not undermined by any of the new proposals. Net gain should be what happens right at the end of the process, if planners cannot find a way of stopping damage to habitats along the way. These protected sites should remain inviolate and rely on and benefit from the current protections and systems, which we want to ensure are in no way diminished.
Any regulations proposed by the Secretary of State should be taken under the affirmative procedure, and there should be public consultation because there is very real public interest in these issues. We believe that allowing third parties, including experts in the nature sector, to input into those regulations through public consultation would ensure that new net gain conditions would not inadvertently provide the kinds of loopholes that I have been describing. I do not think that the Minister will disagree with this, but in my experience local people invariably know their own locality best, and we should not be silencing them.
I say again that this amendment is an attempt to tease out from the Minister some safeguards and words of reassurance, and that we will not need to divide the Committee.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for looking into this issue and for the amendment. Some habitats include ancient woodland, with which I have a great affinity, having been chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ancient woodland and veteran trees. We did a lot of cross-party work on this habitat. These habitats cannot be recreated and are typically considered irreplaceable. They are of enormous ecological and cultural importance and significance.
Daniel Zeichner
I welcome the Minister’s helpful comments. I do not think anyone doubts her commitment to those irreplaceable habitats. The key points are ensuring that that message is clear and understood and that the regulations are made, and the relationship between them explained, in the correct way. We are concerned about future arguments as a result of misunderstanding the gaps. We are all trying to get to the same place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 91
Biodiversity gain site register
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 91, page 91, line 37, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
I am sure you will be delighted, Mr Gray, that we have moved on to another clause, but the previous schedule was a big and important one. The biodiversity gain site register requires another discussion about “may” and “must”. The amendment seeks to tease out the intention behind the measure.
Clause 91 sets out that the Secretary of State may make provision for a biodiversity gain site register to be created. To some extent, this is the last stage of the mitigation hierarchy: it is not something that anyone would want to do, but we recognise that it might sometimes be necessary. It is very important that a register of compensatory habitat sites is publicly available and updated regularly, and that we are able to see how the process works.
All our amendment does is seek to tighten the Government’s responsibility to provide the register by turning it into a duty for them to do so. A register of sites is essential to secure and record meaningful and lasting net gain. I refer to some of my earlier comments: we worry that in some cases there will be not necessarily a lack of will but a lack of capacity to check and monitor. Not only does this have to work, but the message needs to go out that it works, such that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test said earlier, people will not think, “Well, no one is ever going to check. It’s not going to matter, and after 30 years who’s going to know and who’s going to care?” If that becomes the attitude, clearly this whole process and system will have failed in its intentions.
We do not want a simple tick-box exercise where it looks as if it has been done but no one knows what is happening in the real world. We think the amendment would help check on progress in delivering and maintaining enhanced habitat sites. We think it would help with the checking, monitoring, and enforcement function, even though we worry whether it will actually be done. This is a probing amendment, so we will not seek a Division. The question to the Minister is: why would one not do it? If the net gain system is to be established respective of mitigation hierarchy, it is hard to see why one would not do this as soon as possible.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for his amendment. It is definitely worth enquiring about this register, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about it.
Clause 91 makes provisions for the creation of a register of these biodiversity gain sites. The register is necessary for the biodiversity gain condition to work effectively. Without a register, no habitat enforcement outside development sites would be undertaken in pursuit of biodiversity net gain. Furthermore, without the register, a development that is unable to achieve biodiversity net gain within its site boundary may not be able to commence development at all. That would block a significant proportion of new development, so the register is useful in a number of ways.
I welcome the hon. Member’s acknowledgement of the importance of the register and the provisions in this clause, and understand his wish that the powers within it should be exercised in good time. There is a clear need for the Government to design and implement this register before the biodiversity gain condition comes into effect, and I can confirm that, while the hon. Member seemed to suggest that one or may not create the register, it is the Government’s intention to do so.
I want to clarify that this clause provides this power for the Secretary of State to make regulations that will set out the rules and procedures for the operation and maintenance of the new register of biodiversity gain sites. That will include setting fees for applications to add land to the register, criteria for determining eligibility of land to be added to the register, and rules for the allocation of land in the register in relation to developments. The use and nature of the register is likely to evolve, and flexibility will be needed to update its requirements. Before making an order under this power, the Department wants to consult stakeholders. Detailed regulations will need to be in place to provide all parties with sufficient guidance on how the biodiversity gain register will operate. This will help create confidence that the system can achieve the intended environmental outcomes. I hope I am answering all the things that the hon. Member has on his mind.
Primary legislation consistently takes this approach to the balance between powers and duties, as I have said many times before. It is entirely appropriate to provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility as to how this provision is given effect. I hope that provides clarity. I think it is a probing amendment, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister. This is a probing amendment, so we will not divide the Committee, but it is extraordinary that it almost seems like a global change has resulted in “shall” or “will” appearing as “may” throughout the Bill. We could do a global change back again. It is clear that the system cannot work without the register, which gives rise to the question: why the delays? The Minister may be slightly nervous, in the sense that she said that we will need to design and implement the register. It comes from a 25-year environment plan from two or three years ago, so how long is this all going to take? She might want to intervene to say roughly how long she thinks it will take, but I suspect she will not want to do so.
Why is there not a greater sense of urgency? To go right back to where we started, it is urgent and crucial that we tackle this crisis, yet in designing the system it appears that there was a presumption that it would take a few months for the legislation to get through and that the register would then need to be designed.
Rebecca Pow
I will intervene. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that local authorities in particular will want a system that works, not some flim-flam, half-developed thing that is going to go wrong. That is why it is so important to do it step by step. There is urgency, hence the Bill and all the measures in it. All this has to work with the local nature recovery strategies and the overall nature recovery strategy. The targets and all the rest of it will fit together, and it will come on stream with some urgency. Was that an intervention? Does he agree?
Daniel Zeichner
I have clearly touched a nerve. I am delighted to hear that. All I gently observe is that things move rather slowly sometimes. I am sure that the Minister wants it to happen quickly, just as we all want it to happen quickly and to work. I am not entirely sure that those two things have to be mutually exclusive, but I suppose experience suggests that things do not always instantly work smoothly. I appreciate the Minister’s contribution, and having heard what she has had to say, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Amendment 74 was discussed previously. It was originally tabled by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I suspect that it will not be taken forward by another Member. Perhaps the Committee might like to send our warmest, best wishes to the hon. Lady. Perhaps the Minister might like to take that forward.
Amendment proposed: 230, in clause 91, page 92, line 1, leave out
“for at least 30 years”
and insert
“secured in its target condition and maintained in perpetuity”.—(Dr Whitehead.)
This amendment would require habitat enhancements created under net gain to be secured in perpetuity.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 92, page 93, line 5, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
I am afraid that this is going to sound remarkably similar to the previous discussion. We welcome the measures in the Bill to ensure that developers who cannot achieve biodiversity net gain on a particular site will be required to fund improvements elsewhere, through purchasing biodiversity credits, to make up their required 10%—we would say at least 10%, but that is what the Bill requires—biodiversity net gain. We also welcome that the funds from these credits must be used for projects to enhance habitats and biodiversity. However, we have some concerns about clause 92, which we will interrogate with amendment 11 and amendment 136, which we will come to next. On amendment 11, clause 92(1) uses the wording:
“The Secretary of State may make arrangements under which a person who is entitled to carry out the development of any land may purchase a credit from the Secretary of State for the purpose of meeting the biodiversity gain objective”.
This is exactly the same point as in the previous discussion: the system cannot work unless that is done. The amendment would tighten the Government’s responsibility to operate those credits by requiring them to get on with it—to put it crudely.
Rebecca Pow
Clause 92 makes provision for the Secretary of State to set up a system of statutory biodiversity credits. Some developers might find that there are no suitable local habitat enhancement schemes to enable them to achieve net gain, and in such cases, a biodiversity gain requirement might become a barrier even to the most appropriate and sustainable of developments. To mitigate that risk, the Government will sell biodiversity credits, which may be counted towards a development’s net gain. That will allow us to achieve biodiversity net gains through strategic investment in habitat restoration, while reducing the risk of undue delay to development.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s clear acknowledgment that this and the environmental potential of the statutory biodiversity credits system are important. Obviously, there is a clear need for the Government to design and implement the credits system before the biodiversity net gain requirement comes into effect, and I can confirm that that is the Government’s intention. He is right about urgency and about wanting it to happen now, but it all has to happen step by step. The Government have every intention of doing that, because it will be an important part of the whole machine.
The Government will apply principles for setting the tariff rate—that was set out in the net gain consultation—in setting the standard costs of statutory biodiversity units. Although the Government still consider the consultation’s proposed range of between £9,000 and £15,000 for the cost of a biodiversity unit to be broadly appropriate, some respondents raised concerns that it was too low and would stifle habitat creation, while others thought it was too high. Several respondents asked for further evidence and work to refine the cost per unit.
The Government will undertake a review of the rate and seek further stakeholder engagement on this subject before announcing specific costs per unit of biodiversity. That is really important. I have spoken to a whole range of different people, from those who have land and who might want to offer it up for the offsetting, to the agents operating for them. Loads of people in this space clearly need to be consulted. I hope this explanation gives a bit more clarity.
Primary legislation consistently takes the approach, as we have set out in the clause, of balance between powers and duties. Forcing the creation of arrangements that might not be needed risks creating unnecessary complication in the process, or even a weakening of the purposes of the measures. In the long-term, for example, we might no longer need a credit system if sufficient habitat enhancement opportunities were offered by local landowners or conservation bodies. I hope that has given a bit more clarity and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his probing amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister’s comments are helpful. There is concern that if the system does not work appropriately, we could end up with credits stacking up without the work being done, which is clearly not the aim of the exercise. I think that we are all trying to get to the same place, so there is no need for me to re-rehearse the previous arguments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 136, in clause 92, page 94, line 5, at end insert—
“(11) In accordance with the biodiversity metric, the Secretary of State or another person, is obliged to carry out such works as necessary to enhance the biodiversity of habitat associated with the sale of biodiversity credits.
(12) The Secretary of State or another person is required to secure and maintain the enhancement in perpetuity after the habitat enhancement has reached its target condition.”
There is concern that biodiversity credits could undermine the biodiversity gains system as a whole. Our worry—to some extent this touches on my previous point—is that it is obviously uncharted territory. We do not entirely know how it will work, but the key thing, in our view, is that it is linked as much as possible to local priorities. The Minister hinted in her previous reply that it may be a touch optimistic to imagine that local alternatives will always be found, which is the reason for setting this up in the first place, but through the amendment we want to press her on how the Government can guard against the long-term pooling of revenue, instead of funds being used to achieve the net gain that we all want. That is our worry.
We also think—this goes back to an earlier discussion—that it would have been possible to make a requirement for habitats created through the purchase of biodiversity credits to be maintained in perpetuity. I suppose our worry throughout is that, for all the good intentions, it is possible that the system could end up not achieving what we want it to. It could be abused, and could, in effect, buy a way through for developers to access habitats that none of us would want to see developed. That is the danger and the risk, and we want to help the Government, through the amendments, to ensure that is not the case.
We also think that there ought to be a reporting function, and that the added value of biodiversity credits to local habitat creation projects and strategic ecological networks should be set out clearly in an annual report. To ensure transparency, habitats created through biodiversity credits should also be held on a register of biodiversity gain sites. That is partly about ensuring that the mechanisms work in an open and transparent way.
We have had strong representations from both the Town and Country Planning Association and the Local Government Association, which are genuinely worried about the possibility that biodiversity credits really will not be reinvested in their own locality. I think that is a reasonable concern. The danger, as those organisations see it, is that communities that accept developments might not see improved biodiversity, which could, in turn, make the process really quite hard to justify to local people. I can see how that could happen.
There is a question about whether credits should be retained by local authorities, so that funding stays in the area where development takes place, and local people can have a say in how the funding can be used to improve the natural environment. What level we should set that at is quite a big question. To some extent, we are trying to tease out from the Minister what she thinks it should be. We think that there is a genuine discussion to be had. I think she has already hinted that she shares my view that the overwhelming priority should be to get new development to achieve net gain onsite and locally, and that offsite contributions and credits should be a last resort. Further reassurance on that would be helpful.
We are placing, through the amendments, two key requirements on the Secretary of State, or any other body charged with using biodiversity credit funds, to ensure that natural sites created or enhanced by biodiversity credit funds are held to a high and lasting standard. I guess one of the running themes through our amendments is the sense of the provisions actually being for the long-term, rather than a mechanism for developers to find a way through to sites that they might not have had access to before.
The first requirement is that all habitat work carried out using biodiversity credits would have to achieve an actual enhancement in biodiversity, as measured by the biodiversity metric. The second requirement is that enhancement be maintained in perpetuity. I anticipate the Minister’s answers, because I think we have heard some of them before, but this amendment is sufficiently significant that, unless she comes back with a miraculous response, we will seek to divide on it.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his acknowledgement of the importance of the long-term maintenance of biodiversity gains in order to ensure that we provide that long-lasting benefit to wildlife and communities. The Government, too, recognise the importance of those long-term benefits. Indeed, the Government response to the net gain consultation confirmed that through the stated criteria for selecting habitat projects. The response stated that enhancement projects will be selected
“on the basis of their additionality, their long-term environmental benefits and their contribution to strategic ecological networks.”
Obviously, they have to have some real value.
The long-term benefits of habitats are vital, but binding future Secretaries of State to deliver only habitats that can be secured “in perpetuity” risks compromising another of the criteria: that of delivering habitats in strategically critical networks. We would not want to see new habitat creation fail to provide the coherent networks that our wildlife needs because we are bound only to use land that can be secured forever. Where enhancements in perpetuity are an appropriate option, the Secretary of State will have powers under the clause to use payments to purchase land interests in England for habitat restorations, or to secure the enhancements through other means.
With regard to the obligation on the Secretary of State to spend those credit sale funds, I draw the Committee’s attention to the reporting requirement under the clause, which will create a strong incentive for the Secretary of State to spend the funds both promptly and prudently. It was intimated by the hon. Gentleman, I think, that the Secretary of State might be hoarding the funds, but the idea is that this becomes its own trading platform—a bit like the nitrates trading platform, for example. DEFRA would only get involved were the market not working, or potentially just at the beginning when it is getting going. The intention is not that he or she is the banker—that is absolutely not how it should work.
Subsection (6) of the clause should also provide some reassurance. It clarifies that funds may only be used for activities related to habitat enhancement. I think the hon. Member for Cambridge was pressing to ensure that that is what would happen, but that is absolutely what they are for. Furthermore, subsection (10) will ensure that the long-term value of the money received from the sale of credits and the use of biodiversity enhancements can be monitored. That is important as well.
In the light of the reasons that I have set out, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I welcome much of what the Minister has said but, as I intimated, the perpetuity issue, and the concern about what might happen with the system not working and the potential for achieving outcomes other than those we are all trying to achieve, mean that we think our amendment would strongly improve the clause. On that basis, we seek to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 140, in clause 93, page 94, line 13, after “biodiversity in England” insert
“, including in particular the species and habitats listed in section 41,”.
The amendment clarifies the intent of the duty in relation to the conservation of priority species and habitats.
I am afraid that we are back to some of the interaction with different pieces of legislation. We welcome the change in the Bill to strengthen the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006—abbreviated to NERC—so that local authorities have a duty not just to conserve but to enhance biodiversity, as well as to follow the obligations of public authorities to plan for appropriate action in order to fulfil their duty and to report on their actions regarding that duty. That is the good news. That is the bit we support.
However, we have some concerns. Public authorities have a key role to play in turning around the state of nature, and the current duty on public bodies to have regard to conserving biodiversity has been rightly criticised for not being strong enough. A House of Lords Select Committee report on NERC in 2018 clearly outlined that
“the duty is ineffective as it stands, as a result of limited awareness and understanding among public bodies, weak wording and the lack of clear reporting requirements and enforcement measures.”
I cannot help but notice that those are exactly the kinds of concerns that I have been expressing all the way through this Bill as well. I guess what it shows is that there is nothing new about the difficulties that people have had trying to do good things but not necessarily doing them in ways that are clear and specific enough to translate into action.
The Lords Select Committee said:
“We recommend that the NERC Act should be amended in order to add a reporting requirement to the duty; the Government should also consider strengthening the wording.”
The measures taken in the Bill to do so are welcome, but we have concerns about the rewording of the duty of public authorities. We want to probe some of those points with some amendments. We will come to the more serious changes, but the first one is proposed in amendment 140. Currently, clause 93 stipulates that the “general biodiversity objective” be defined as
“the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in England”.
Our amendment would broaden that to include the species and habitats listed in section 41 of the NERC Act. In effect, it is a clarifying amendment, as we feel that the provisions in the duty could be seen as being too open-ended to guide everyday action by public authorities.
We think it would be more helpful for there to be a direction that the biodiversity duty clearly requires authorities to act in order to further the conservation of the species and habitats listed under section 41. For those who are not familiar with section 41, it is a list of some of our most precious and vulnerable species, from water voles and otters to particular species of orchids and the short-haired bumble bee. We believe the amendment would provide a closer link between the public duty to enhance biodiversity and the species that need the most attention. Although I will listen with interest to the Minister’s comments, I do not think it is an amendment on which we will seek a Division.
Rebecca Pow
I appreciate that the intent behind the amendment is to ensure that action that might be taken under the biodiversity duty is effective and is targeted where it is most needed. At the same time, one of the strengths of the duty is that it is broad, and we want public authorities to consider all functions when determining the best action to take. That could be action on limiting their biodiversity footprint or addressing wider, indirect impacts on biodiversity, such as from transport policy, water use or energy consumption. We would not want to stop authorities considering such action, even inadvertently, by focusing their attention on what can be done for a targeted set of species and habitats. Also, there are some 943 species, some of which the hon. Member for Cambridge named, including the hairy bumble bee.
Rebecca Pow
There are some fantastic creatures and 56 habitats of importance on that list, as set out under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Interpreting this list and the actions required is likely to require specialist knowledge, which may not be available within every public authority.
In complying with the strengthened biodiversity duty, public authorities must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy. If Government amendment 222 is agreed to, public authorities must also have regard to relevant species conservation strategies and protected site strategies, which will help public authorities to identify the actions with the most benefits for biodiversity, including for species and habitats listed in section 41 of the 2006 Act. I therefore suggest that the amendment is not needed; indeed, it might constrain public authorities’ actions to conserve and enhance biodiversity. While I think that it was a probing amendment, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Daniel Zeichner
We will not press the amendment to a Division. While the Minister and I might have a slight difference of opinion, the approaches are legitimately different. I was grateful for her reference to the short-haired bumblebee. Like many Members, I am a species champion. I stand up for the ruderal bumblebee, although I have never had the pleasure of meeting one—I live in hope. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 138, in clause 93, page 94, line 18, at end insert—
“(1ZA) A public authority which has any functions exercisable in relation to England must exercise those functions consistently with the aim of furthering the general biodiversity objective.”
This amendment requires public authorities to apply the biodiversity duty in the exercising of all of their functions.
This is a slightly more serious amendment, in the sense that this is a more difficult issue, as we think that the clause has a couple of key weaknesses. Section 40 of the 2006 Act currently states that any public authority must,
“in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.”
That implies a biodiversity duty in all day-to-day public authority decision making. As it stands, although the new duty widens public authorities’ responsibility to both conserve and enhance biodiversity, the wording narrows the application of the duty. Its current drafting applies only to actions taken in line with specific policies and objectives developed in relation to clause 93(3), which requires authorities to consider from time to time what action they can take to further the biodiversity objective and to take the actions appropriate to do so.
I apologise that this is slightly complicated, Mr Gray, but, yet again, we see the interaction between different forms of wording in various pieces of legislation. The risk is that the Government are changing the duty on public authorities to have regard to conserving biodiversity in all their functions to a duty on conserving and enhancing biodiversity with specific considerations that they must make from time to time. The reach into their everyday functions is not made clear.
This is, I guess, a discussion about how local authority members should make their decisions—what they should take into consideration and when. We fear that a key opportunity is being missed to improve the effectiveness of public authorities’ biodiversity work, namely by requiring them to factor in the need to conserve and enhance biodiversity in all decision making, including statutorily required planning and spending decisions. This is actually quite a big issue.
Biodiversity work is in continual danger of being marginalised. I referred to that when I spoke about my experience as a councillor, and I suspect that others will have had the same experience. This is not a criticism of councils or local government—they are under pressure, and many, many demands are put on them. However, if we have the challenge of restoring nature to a level that every member of the Committee would agree is what we are seeking, and if that is actually going to happen, the agenda needs to be taken up in local government. Embedding biodiversity into all public authority decision making is vital to ensure that we do not miss the opportunities that are available.
During my time as a councillor, I very much enjoyed our discussions but, as I have said, I do not think I could honestly say that I recall, when we came to make big decisions—we did make some quite big decisions, such as when the new Norfolk and Norwich hospital was discussed, which was referenced at today’s Health questions—any discussion around biodiversity, although we tried to take many things into account. It would make a real difference if biodiversity was central to decision making.
It is worth noting that the House of Lords Select Committee identified the “have regard” wording in the current obligation as the main reason, in its view, why the duty has been ineffective. That point has not been properly addressed. “Have regard” is a perfectly innocuous term, but it is just that—have regard in passing, not as a central part of decision making. We would welcome an explanation from the Minister on that point.
The amendment would fix the problem with the current wording of legislation and prevent biodiversity opportunities from being missed by requiring public authorities to exercise all their functions consistently with the aim of furthering the general biodiversity objective. That would prevent biodiversity being siloed. It would be rendered as a critical factor to be considered in all public authority decisions, including statutory planning and spending decisions, which can have significant impacts on nature and biodiversity.
Rebecca Pow
Our purpose in strengthening the current biodiversity duty is to ensure that public authorities take robust action to drive nature recovery. It is absolutely not the intention for biodiversity to become siloed, as the hon. Member has just said. He referred to the Norfolk hospital planning having no reference to biodiversity. I do not know what year that was—
Rebecca Pow
How times have changed. That will change—biodiversity will come into the general parlance. This is an ambitious duty. All public authorities will have to undertake a thorough consideration of what they can do to enhance biodiversity at least every five years, and then take action. As I said before, they will need to have regard to local nature recovery strategies and, if Government amendment 222 is accepted, relevant species conservation strategies and protected site strategies will provide information, data and tools to identify the most beneficial action to be taken in the region.
Clause 93 requires all public authorities to take a broad look across all their functions to identify the action they can take that would be most beneficial for nature. In our view, the strengthened duty in the Bill strikes the right balance by supporting action to conserve and enhance biodiversity while retaining the flexibility for public authorities to balance competing priorities. The amendment risks distorting those priorities by requiring public authorities always to exercise their functions to further the objective of conserving and enhancing biodiversity. Public authorities must retain the power to decide the best use of their resources. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge, having been a councillor, appreciates that point.
We expect public authorities to look across all their functions and prioritise the actions that will have the most impact, in contrast to the existing biodiversity duty, which is a reactive duty. It is intended to be universal but, as we know, in many cases it has not driven action on the ground, as the hon. Member suggests. The amendment risks replicating the reactive nature of the existing duty by requiring a case-by-case assessment of each individual function and decision to ensure that it is furthering the biodiversity objectives. We would thereby lose the advantages of the more strategic view, which allows the most effective measures to be prioritised, so I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I hear what the Minister says, but the amendment is crucial to tilt the balance in local authorities. On that basis, I wish to divide the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 139, in clause 93, page 94, line 42, at end insert—
‘(1G) In this part, “public authority” has the meaning given by section 28(3) of the Environment Act 2020.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 147, in clause 99, page 99, line 16, leave out “95” and insert “93”.
Amendment 148, in clause 99, page 99, line 31, at end insert—
‘(4) “Public Authority” means—
(a) a Minister of the Crown, a government department and public body (including a local authority), and
(b) a person carrying out any function of a public nature that is not a devolved function, a parliamentary function or a function of any of the following persons—
(i) the OEP;
(ii) a court or tribunal;
(iii) either House of Parliament;
(iv) a devolved legislature;
(v) the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, a Northern Ireland department or a Minister within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.’
Daniel Zeichner
We tabled these technical but important amendments to interrogate the definition of “public authority” in the Bill as it applies to the biodiversity objective and the local nature recovery strategies—they are linked. Amendment 139 is consequential on amendment 147 and would clarify the meaning of “public authority” under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 by using the definition set out in clause 28(3) of the Bill, as that particularly strong definition would apply well to biodiversity provisions. It would make it clear that the term “public authority” would apply to local authorities or organisations
“carrying out any function of a public nature”,
which would ensure that bodies with key public statutory undertakings, such as water companies or rail providers, would have a responsibility to comply with the enhanced biodiversity duty.
Such bodies might not be included in a narrower definition, and that is important because we know that they have many responsibilities, or a lot of land or many rivers to look after. Keeping them within the ambit of the biodiversity duty would therefore give them a much stronger incentive to do the right thing. Such bodies’ legal status or corporate structures might be different from those of local government authorities, but they still provide key public functions. Amendment 148, like amendment 139, would make it clear that the term “public authority” in relation to local nature recovery strategies applies to planning authorities and all planning functions.
Amendment 147 would amend clause 99, which currently provides definitions of a “local authority” and a “national conservation site”. However, that clause applies only to clauses 95 to 98, which set out provisions for local nature recovery strategies. Our amendment would extend the definition of local authorities and national conservation sites to the Bill’s broader provisions on biodiversity objectives and reporting—clause 93 on the general duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity; and clause 94 on biodiversity reports. Yet again, our proposals would strengthen the Bill, so my question to the Minister is: why would she not choose to support us on that?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for tabling the amendments—I shall rattle through them.
Amendment 139 would change the definition of “public authority” in relation to the strengthened biodiversity duty to that used in clause 28. Taken together, amendments 147 and 148 would have the same effect. Clause 93 does not alter the definition of public authority under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, but clause 28 represents a different approach: it is drafted to be UK-wide, and then has carve-outs. Amending the definition to that in clause 28 would not make a significant difference to the bodies covered by the duty, although it would mean that the parliamentary estate would not be captured.
Amendment 147 would apply two additional definitions to the Bill’s biodiversity duty provisions, the first being “local authority”. The definition in clause 99 is very similar to the existing definition in section 40 of the 2006 Act. However, that definition includes parish councils, so the amendment would remove parish councils from the scope of the biodiversity duty—[Interruption.] “Shocking,” says the hon. Member’s colleague, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test.
I accept that many parish councils are very small and have limited resources, but they are likely to make a contribution to local biodiversity and we do not want to exclude them from the duty. I speak from experience: the hon. Member for Cambridge might have been a district councillor, but I was on my parish council for 10 years—I am very proud of it. We did a great amount of work on biodiversity, including by planting a chestnut avenue and creating a village garden out of a piece of tarmac. There is biodiversity if ever I saw it—we walk past it every day.
The second definition, “national conservation site”, is not a term used in the Bill’s biodiversity provisions, so applying it would have no practical effect. On its own, amendment 148 would have no effect. It would insert a new definition of “public authority” into clause 99. The definitions in clause 99 apply to the provisions relating to local nature recovery strategies, which are set out in clauses 95 to 98, but the term “public authority” is not used in a way that has an effect in those clauses.
I hope that that information was helpful, and I ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification and I endorse her comments about parish councils. I, too, started on a parish council, and as a district councillor, I diligently attended my five parish councils regularly. They have a hugely important role to play. We were trying to widen the scope of the bodies that would be drawn into the process. That might be something that we need to revisit in order to embrace both points, which would be a good outcome.
The amendments were probing, so we will not need to divide the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 93, page 95, line 1, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) the authority must act in accordance with any relevant local nature recovery strategy in the exercise of relevant public functions, including strategic and local land-use planning and decision making and in spending decisions, and in particular in complying with subsections (1) and (1A).””
This amendment would ensure that Local Nature Recovery Strategies are considered in day-to-day planning and spending decisions by public authorities.
Amendment 137 addresses a key issue in the Bill’s current drafting regarding local nature recovery strategies, which we welcome. If they are implemented properly, the strategies can enable a wide range of organisations to contribute to measures needed to address the biodiversity crisis and deliver the Government’s ambitions in the 25-year environment plan, in particular by supporting the creation of a nature recovery network.
By identifying local biodiversity priorities, including restoration opportunities, we think—I am sure that the Government agree—that policy integration and better value for money could be achieved at the same time as saving nature. I suspect that we all have good examples from our areas, but I am sure that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire will join me in praising Natural Cambridgeshire, chaired by Richard Astle, and the excellent work that it is already doing through its nature recovery toolkit. I believe that the hon. Member addressed Natural Cambridgeshire recently. I hope to do so again soon, and I will be keen to bring news of a strengthened Bill.
At the moment, despite local enthusiasm, the duty to use local nature recovery strategies is very weak. It is included in the duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity under clause 93(5), which requires local authorities to “have regard” to the strategies when making plans to conserve or enhance biodiversity, but that risks creating obligations for local authorities to develop local nature recovery strategies, thereby expending precious local resources, only to see that that effort might be wasted through a failure to give the strategies any influence on real decision making. That is a problem.
The duty should be a much stronger requirement to take the strategies into account in the exercise of public functions, including in the statutory planning system and in spending decisions. This mirrors arguments that I have previously made. Unless such a change is made, there is a real risk that local nature recovery strategies will overburden local authorities and once again risk sitting on the proverbial dusty policy shelf.
This is not a criticism of local authorities, but a reflection of the fact that many are already hard pressed and will not have the capacity to do what is asked of them. When I raised this previously, the Minister reassured me that all necessary funding will be made available under the Bill. I liked her reassurance, but she was not able to point me to where that was specified. I invite her to do so again, but I do not think she will be able to do so, because it is not specified—it is just an aspiration. This is not a party political point, but anyone who has been in local government well knows the problem that while central Government frequently make promises, the outcomes rarely transmit. They often end up in general funding, and we are told that it is in there somewhere, without clarity that it is enough. It is important to note that the success of the measures in general will be dependent on the Government making those funds available. I recognise that at this stage it seems difficult to predict the costs—there was some discussion in the impact assessment about how it was not entirely clear how much would be needed—but I ask the Minister how the Government intend to carry out an assessment of how the new duties operate and how they can ensure that resources are available to make the duties work.
The strategies are potentially a very useful tool. If they work well, they could effectively co-ordinate the actions of multiple stakeholders and direct local use of biodiversity gains from the planning system, environmental land management systems and other sources, helping to build and maintain ecologically coherent networks and nature recovery sites. That leads me back to the 25-year environment plan, particularly page 58, which is littered with “we will”, “we shall” and “it will happen”, including the statement that we
“will coordinate our action in England with that of external nature conservation…as well as farmers and land managers.”
That is great, but I have to ask when that will happen.
I had the pleasure of being an Opposition spokesman on the Agriculture Bill, and we were begging constantly, and tabling amendments, for an integrated approach between this Bill and the Agriculture Bill. I am afraid that we were constantly knocked back. Here we are, just a few weeks from the beginning of the phasing out of basic payments, and we do not have ELM schemes in place. The Secretary of State will have to deliver a fix in 10 days’ time. I am happy to be corrected by hon. Members on the other side if that is not correct, but that is what I hear. While the sustainable farming initiative sounds fine, it is a missed opportunity to link to the local nature recovery strategies that we are discussing today. Because of this weak duty to apply the strategies in decision making, I am afraid the potential that these have may well fall short.
Amendment 137 aims to strengthen the duty to use local nature recovery strategies by requiring all public authorities to “act in accordance with” any relevant local nature recovery strategy in exercising their duties, including the statutory requirements, planning and spending decisions. That would make a big difference and deliver real change, and that is why I worry that it is not in the legislation as it stands at the moment. It is essential to ensure that the local nature recovery strategies actively influence important day-to-day decisions that affect nature.
Fleur Anderson
I, too, would like to support amendment 137. I can picture the scene in the drafting committee. One group wanted to have “act in accordance with”, to make the duty very strong so “we would definitely put this into action”, and on the other side was the “must have regard to” group. I would like to speak on behalf of the “act in accordance with” group, and it was a mistake that the “have regard to” group won the day.
The provision for planning to work for nature is very welcome, but there is a risk that it will be stalled indefinitely if we do not have the amendment in the Bill. The duty to use local nature recovery strategies is very weak. The environmental coalition, Greener UK, has similar concerns. The amendment would embed biodiversity in public authority decision making, because here the rubber hits the road—or the hedgerow or the greener area of a siding. The amendment includes complying with spending decisions, and that is what will ultimately decide whether this is put into action.
There is great potential for these strategies to be a highly effective tool, and I welcome the five pilot schemes, as I know the Minister does. However, as it stands, the potential will not be realised because the duty is so weak. The amendment would ensure that local nature recovery strategies actually influence day-to-day decisions that affect nature. There are two examples of how that would work out in my constituency. We have many wonderful green spaces which have “friends of” groups, and they are knocking on the door and trying to get the attention of the local authority all the time. It is not a given that that will happen. Those groups really care about biodiversity, but the day-to-day work of the local authority is not reflecting that.
I have a very active save our hedgehogs group, and I am surprised that they have not been mentioned this afternoon up to now, so I want to put that straight. Those vulnerable mammals have been in decline by 30% in urban areas and 50% in rural areas since 2000. That is dreadful. If the local authority will have regard to the local nature recovery strategies, rather than acting in accordance with those strategies, there is a danger that the work to reverse the decline of hedgehogs will not happen. There is a mention of hedgehogs in the environment plan, but this amendment would cement action to save hedgehogs and all other biodiversity in our planning system.
Rebecca Pow
Some strong points have been made about local nature recovery strategies. I think we all agree that they are a good idea. When I was a trustee of the Somerset Wildlife Trust many years ago, it was working on a similar idea to that which is now coming into legislation. Subsequent Government amendment 222 changes the provision so, if accepted, public authorities will be required to have regard to species conservation strategies and protected site strategies. However, I will speak only to the original purpose of the amendment now.
We want public, private and voluntary groups to engage openly in the development of local nature recovery strategies and for this to follow through into their implementation. That is exactly what the hon. Member for Putney is asking for, so that those hedgehog highways and interlinking runways through fences in towns will stay there. I love a hedgehog as much as she does. I had some rescue ones from the rescue centre sent to my garden. We need to look after our hedgehogs.
Requiring public authorities to have regard to a specific document is an established and effective means of achieving that aim. I have discussed this with the officials. They have convinced me that this is the right terminology. We should also be mindful that public authorities have a wide range of existing duties such as housing, health and social care, which have to be considered. Some flexibility to take these wider considerations into account is important. Similarly, local planning authorities are required to balance a wide range of important considerations when establishing their planning policy for this area. I am keen that we continue to work with the planning system, rather than create complexity by making separate demands on planning authorities. The spatial information provided by the local nature recovery strategies will support the development of local plans.
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Cambridge that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will continue to work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to set out clearly the role for local nature recovery strategies as part of the ongoing planning reforms. The work has already started, and it has been clear that this must be an integral part of our future going forward. Those five pilots will inform the local nature recovery strategies. They have already been announced and money has been agreed for them. We will learn a lot from those about how these strategies will work.
We want the reformed system to play a proactive role in promoting environmental recovery and long-term sustainability. We have really high ambitions for the local nature recovery strategies in helping to do this. They are a crucial tool towards the whole endeavour of biodiversity from the ground upwards. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for enlivening our discussions late in the afternoon—well past teatime, in some people’s view, which I understand—and for introducing hedgehogs into the discussion. I had a side bet with one of my colleagues as to how long it would take for the Minister to raise a hedgehog highway. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney because that allows me to mention Nora the rescue hedgehog. The Cambridge Wildlife Trust allowed her to escape down a hedgehog highway in my sight. I am not sure where she went, but hedgehogs are very important.
The problem was confirmed by the Minister, who admitted that she had been convinced by her officials that this is the correct terminology. We do not think that it is the correct terminology; it is not strong enough. I invite the Minister perhaps to go and have that conversation again. That point takes us back to the beginning of our sitting, when my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test and I questioned why some of these things are as they are. I am led to conclude, I am afraid, that despite the admirable enthusiasm, there are flaws in the process.
The Minister said that we do not want to put too many demands on planning authorities. Actually, we do want to put demands on planning authorities; that is exactly what this will be about if our goals are to be achieved. We get distracted by the hedgehogs and the bumblebees, but at heart there is a serious question of allocation of resources, effort and money through the planning process. That is often what it is about, and my fear is that, wonderful though much local effort is, sadly if it cannot be translated into action it will go on being just good effort, without the kind of gain that we want to see.
I suggested at the beginning of our sitting that there were some villains in the piece, and I think the Committee has a sense of who I think one villain is, but it is not just about the current Prime Minister. It is worth remembering that in 2011 the then Chancellor, George Osborne, described the EU habitats directive as placing
“ridiculous costs on British businesses”,
and spoke about companies being burdened with
“endless social and environmental goals”.—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 807-808.]
The point is that there is a view out there that this is all “green crap”, as another eminent former Prime Minister described it. That is why we are worried, why this matters, and why the Bill needs to be strengthened.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman used the word “villain” with regard to the Prime Minister. He might wish to withdraw it as unparliamentary.
Daniel Zeichner
I withdraw the comment. [Interruption.] But I would like to press the amendment to a Division. I was distracted by the pantomime.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Rebecca Pow
I beg to move amendment 222, in clause 93, page 95, line 3, at end insert
“and
(b) any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.”
This amendment requires a public authority to have regard to a species conservation strategy or protected site strategy in complying with its duties under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 25—Species conservation strategies.
Government new clause 26—Protected site strategies.
Government new clause 27—Wildlife conservation: licences.
Rebecca Pow
The overall purpose of this group of amendments is to enable better species and habitat conservation in England as part of the Government’s commitment to growing back better, faster, greener. They will allow for the creation of two new types of strategies and will resolve inconsistencies regarding the licensing of development.
New clause 25 will allow Natural England to create species conservation strategies, which are innovative approaches to safeguard the long-term future of species that are at greater risk. The strategies will be developed using up-front surveying, planning and zoning across a wide area. Natural England will then develop measures to mitigate, or compensate for, the impact on species— from building projects, for example. This approach helps to avoid the need for reactive site-based assessments and mitigation.
The legislation is based on the successful district-level licensing approach to the conservation of great crested newts, which have already been mentioned today. An area is comprehensively surveyed in advance and a licensing strategy is developed. Up-front mitigation work is then carried out to cover the creation or restoration of ponds in areas that are known to provide the best habitats for newts to thrive in. Developers then make a conservation payment and can begin work without delays.
New clause 26 will allow Natural England to prepare and consult on protected site strategies. These will enable the design of bespoke solutions for sites that are affected by a combination of different impacts, such as pollution from agriculture and pressure from development. Protected site strategies are also based on existing, innovative schemes such as that in the South Humber Gateway, which has unlocked development on hundreds of hectares of land while creating 275 hectares of new wet grassland for birds, and is held up as something of a model.
For both species conservation and protected site strategies, local planning authorities will be placed under a duty to co-operate with Natural England. They will also be required to have regard to relevant strategies as they carry out their planning functions. These new strategies will deliver better environmental protections through simpler processes, and are therefore fully aligned with the proposals set out in the “Planning for the future” White Paper. The planning reforms will reinforce the implementation of these measures.
Amendment 222 adds an important provision to support the new strategies. Clause 93 strengthens the existing duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to require public authorities to take action to further the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. It also requires public authorities to have regard to local nature recovery strategies as they do so. This amendment extends that duty so that public authorities must also have regard to any relevant conservation strategy or protected site strategy as they consider what action to take, so the three kinds of strategies are designed to work together. The local nature recovery strategies will be a system of strategies covering the whole of England, and will identify where action can be taken to reverse the decline of nature as a whole. Species conservation and protected site strategies are more bespoke, targeted measures to help protect specific species and sites that are at risk, and are intended to ensure public authorities comply with legal protections in a way that achieves better outcomes for nature. It is therefore important to make this amendment, to ensure public authorities have regard to all three types of the new strategies.
Finally, new clause 27 makes three changes related to protecting species licences granted under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Those changes are intended to unlock the full potential of strategic licensing for protected species. First, the new clause will introduce an additional “overriding public interest” purpose for granting a licence. Secondly, it will introduce two additional tests that must be met before a licence can be granted if
“there is no other satisfactory solution, and…the grant of the licence is not detrimental to the survival of any population of the species”.
Thirdly, the new clause will extend the maximum permitted licence period from two years to five years.
Taken together, the amendment and new clauses strengthen the nature chapter of the Bill and help to protect and restore species and habitats at risk, while also enabling much-needed development. I have rattled through them, Chair, and there is a lot of detail there, but I commend amendment 222 to the Committee.
Amendment 222 agreed to.
Daniel Zeichner
I think I may have missed a point. We discussed all those new clauses, did we?
The Chair
There was no sign from the Opposition that the hon. Gentleman wished to discuss Government amendment 222, so it was passed. Therefore, we will move on to Government amendment 223. If you are waiting for votes on Government new clauses 25, 26 and 27, they will come at the appropriate point in the consideration of the Bill—not now.
Dr Whitehead
May I seek your guidance, Mr Gray? Presumably, we will want to have a stand part debate on the clause.
The Chair
Hang on, this is not a general conversation. It is of course possible that if anyone in Committee wishes to have a stand part debate, they may do so at the appropriate moment. That is absolutely fine, but it is not to become a discussion.
Rebecca Pow
I beg to move amendment 223, in clause 93, page 95, line 21, after “England))” insert—
“(a) in subsection (1), after ‘conserving’ insert ‘or enhancing’;”.
This amendment adds a reference to enhancing biodiversity to section 41(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.
This amendment makes a small change to section 41 of the NERC Act. The section requires the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to publish a list of species and habitats that are of principal importance to conserving biodiversity. The amendment will change the requirement to “conserving or enhancing” biodiversity.
The language mirrors that of the strengthened biodiversity duty under section 40 of the NERC Act, as amended by clause 93. The duty will require public authorities to take action to further the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. The amendment will therefore create consistent language across two related sections of the NERC Act.
When the list is updated in future, the amendment will allow wider consideration of which species and habitats should be included. That is consistent with our intention, as expressed in the 25-year environment plan, to improve beyond merely trying to maintain the status quo—or conserving—and instead recovering and restoring nature. This small amendment further signals our ambitions to enhance biodiversity.
Daniel Zeichner
I regret to say that we have some extensive questions about clause 93 as amended, which may not come as a welcome moment for the Government. I get the sense, however, from looking at the Government Whip, that he may think tea has come.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Leo Docherty.)
Environment Bill (Eighteenth sitting)
Thursday 19th November 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 November 2020 - (19 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I would like to remind hon. Members about social distancing. Spaces available to Members are already clearly marked. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if you could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I also remind Members to please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We continue with line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
On a point of order, may I highlight the terrific leaf-covered suits of the Minister and her PPS and, indeed, the green jacket of the hon. Member for Putney, as part of a tribute to the cause of this great Environment Bill Committee?
The Chair
As the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, that is not a point of order. However, the point has been made and I am sure it will be appreciated by those to whom it was directed.
Clause 93
General duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity
Amendment made: 223, in clause 93, page 95, line 21, after “England))” insert—
“(a) in subsection (1), after ‘conserving’ insert ‘or enhancing’;”. —(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment adds a reference to enhancing biodiversity to section 41(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for his lovely comment on my suit. As I explained to the Chair earlier, it is my lucky suit. I wore it for both Second Readings—we have had two already—and I thought, as we are doing nature, I should wear it today.
Public authorities can and should play an important role in improving our nature. Under the current duty, a number of public authorities have undertaken projects with the aim of conserving biodiversity, such as changing cutting regimes for roadside verges to allow wild flowers to flourish. The hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned something going on in his own area along those lines, and I am pushing my county council in Somerset to do exactly that.
Such efforts are not consistent across public authorities, nor are they enough when compared with the Government’s wider ambitions for recovering nature and the country’s desire to build back better. They are also not enough to address the drastic decline in biodiversity seen over past decades, which we have referenced several times in Committee. I believe we all agree about the need to address it.
The existing duty was criticised in a House of Lords Select Committee report in 2017, with environmental groups such as Wildlife and Countryside Link giving evidence that the duty was ineffective. We have listened and clause 93 therefore strengthens the biodiversity duty to better reflect the ambition set out in the 25-year environment plan and to give public authorities a better approach to building biodiversity into their core activities. It just needs to be part and parcel of everything in the future. We are changing the nature of the duty away from considering biodiversity every time that a function is exercised, when in many cases it will not be relevant or it will be too late in the implementation process to make the most effective change. We want public authorities periodically to take a strategic look over all their functions, identify where they can make a change that will improve biodiversity as they are developing their policies and procedures, and then take action.
Public authorities must also have regard to local nature recovery strategies, species conservation strategies and protected site strategies—I mentioned those in the previous sitting—when they consider biodiversity. That is an important underpinning for the strategies and is crucial to their implementation.
The strengthened duty seeks to embed consideration of how biodiversity can be conserved and enhanced in the overall performance of public authorities’ functions across England. I urge that clause 93 stand part of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Let me start by reassuring hon. Members that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test is not suffering undue excitement from the previous sitting, but is on a late-running train from Southampton and will join us soon.
May I also thank you, Sir George, for allowing us to sort out the slight procedural difficulty that we had at the end of the previous sitting? It was a long sitting and finished in a bit of a rush. The Government introduced a whole range of important new clauses relating to clause 93, to which I will now be making reference. A huge set of amendments were introduced about species conservation strategies and protected site strategies. Of course, it was not possible to discuss that provision in evidence sessions, and the Opposition were disappointed that that was not possible. It prompts a whole range of questions, and perhaps the Minister can answer some of them in her reply. We are not clear on why the provision was introduced at such a late stage. Although some of it is welcome, there are some questions of detail, which I will go into. It is not clear to us why the provision was introduced at such a late moment.
I have to say that this goes back to the argument that I have been making—you missed the first half of it, Sir George—as I have questioned who was responsible for, in the Opposition’s view, so diminishing the power of the Environment Bill. We think that there is an interaction with the Government’s planning White Paper, and I ask the Minister just to say a little more about the interaction that she thinks that there will be with these proposals.
I draw the Minister’s attention to a piece in The Planner, which I am not sure she is a regular reader of—I confess I am not. The question was raised over the summer of the interaction between the planning White Paper and the good proposals in this Bill and clause 93. One question raised by Huw Morris, one of that publication’s key writers, is this: in a streamlined planning system, how will local plans be assessed from an environmental and sustainability point of view, and how will individual schemes be environmentally assessed to provide the right mitigation? The point is that in the planning White Paper, we have new categories, including of course the growth category, where none of these things will be done in detail. Huw Morris says that the picture gets murkier in growth zones, where schemes will be allowed automatically. With sustainability appraisal scrapped and environmental impact assessments not carried out at the outline stage, how will a development’s green footprint be judged, if at all?
That is a very big question. I appreciate that the Minister might not want to respond immediately, but I hope that she has some opportunity, in the discussions, to give some reassurance to people, because this potentially, in our view, undermines many of the good points that we have talked about. That is why we were so keen to have an evidence session.
In relation to clause 93 and new clause 25 on species strategies and licensing, we have looked at this provision closely and are disappointed that we were not able to examine it more closely in a proper evidence session, because the interaction between some of these suggestions and existing legislation is quite detailed. Strategic approaches to species conservation are clearly essential. We agree with them. It is vital to preserve biodiversity and enable the recovery of nature. As I think we have already said, that is important because 46% of conservation priority species in England declined between 2013 and 2018, and many of those species would certainly benefit from a strategic plan resulting in all relevant public bodies taking appropriate actions to save and restore them.
Sadly, this proposal has to be understood in the context of the net-gain offsetting that we have already discussed, and our fear is that there could be unintended consequences. We are advised that the overall result could sadly be to allow the destruction of habitats and protected species in return for new habitat creation elsewhere. A developer could be licensed to proceed with activities that destroy habitats and species in return for contributing to habitats that support the wider population of that species.
It is a complicated point, but I am sure that the Minister knows what we are driving at. Our worry is that it would allow a developer to proceed without protecting every specimen of a protected species and without always undertaking site-specific survey work. The result would be to speed up development and reduce costs, which seems to us—this is the argument that I am trying to build—to be the effect of the planning White Paper. It seems to be the very opposite of what we are trying to achieve in the Bill.
If the proposal is implemented well, it certainly could be a positive way to contribute to the conservation of certain species, but if it is managed badly or applied to inappropriate species it could sadly become a shortcut to getting round some of the protected species obligations. The evidence for that is provided by conservation organisations that tell us that the implementation of strategic approaches to species protection, such as district licensing for great crested newts, have not been proven effective. The Minister claimed that they had been, but that is not their view.
The Government notes do not give us cause for optimism. In the fourth bullet point of the notes that were issued alongside the clauses, the Government say that there are
“concerns limiting the development and roll-out of such existing schemes: 1) uncertainty about how effective they are and 2) whether they can be considered to meet the high standard of certainty required by law.”
That is the point that we are seeking to pursue.
We are told by environmental organisations that monitoring has been incomplete, that there is little evidence that it has protected the most important newt populations from development, and that the overall benefits for the species are unproven. That could have been probed and tested in evidence, but sadly we have not been given that opportunity. We are concerned that the Government seek to advance on the roll-out of district licensing around the country, with a duty to co-operate forcing the hand of local authorities, many of which are already saying that they are concerned about the effectiveness of the scheme.
We can see the dangers, and we think that high risks would come from extending that kind of approach to other species that have distinct conservation needs. As far as we are aware, no assessment has been undertaken to establish which, if any, other species would be ecologically amenable to this or similar approaches. Can the Minister tell us whether that work has been done? Again, I do not necessarily expect her to have the answer to hand, but if she cannot tell us today, she could write to us.
We are looking for some serious reassurance that the species conservation strategies will not lead to perverse outcomes. We need to ensure that they are delivering gains for nature rather than gains for developers. This may be slightly tedious, and I apologise, but again because we have not had the opportunity to interrogate these matters we think it is important to put it on the record.
Greener UK has raised several legal details with us that we would like addressed. It asked us why the clause has not been worded to ensure that each species strategy is required to identify priorities for the protection of habitats in addition to the existing priorities of creation or enhancement of habitats. Greener UK’s concern is that purely focusing on enhancements, as is currently the case in the clause, would undermine the planning process by undervaluing the need to protect existing habitats, and it wonders why the clause has not been worded to ensure that each strategy must give precedence to the mitigation hierarchy.
That is an important point because, as we said in earlier discussions, offsetting and licensing through species plans should be the very last option rather than considered earlier in the process. Greener UK is particularly concerned that site surveys should still take place when existing data is inadequate to identify impacts on key species. The worry through all this is that this is an attempt to speed up the process for development rather than to protect species.
Site surveys covering features important to species as well as habitats are particularly important for bats and invertebrates. Bat roosts, which are essential to the species’ survival, and endangered insects on private sites, are easily overlooked and are often detected only in pre-development site surveys.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I rise in support of the objections and concerns raised by the shadow Minister about clause 93 and, specifically, new clauses 25 and 26 on species conservation strategies. The strategic approaches to species conservation are essential to preserving biodiversity and enabling nature’s recovery. They should include protecting, restoring and creating habitat over a wider area to meet the needs of individual species. The additional clauses, along with shining a light on species conservation, are welcome. It is clear that current rules are not working and—as already mentioned—46% of conservation priority species in England declined between 2013 and 2018.
I was concerned, however, to read the reports from Greener UK, which is a coalition of 13 major conservation and environmental organisations. It says that the various strategies may be undermined by the way they are written and the way they are enforced, actually resulting in faster development with lower standards. That cannot be the aim of the clauses at all. Were the strategic powers to be managed badly or applied to inappropriate species, they could become the loopholes that developers would use straightaway to put costs before species protection, and to get away with undermining species protection. That would be as a result of these clauses, which cannot be right.
I am concerned that it has been raised by Greener UK that experienced operators of existing licensing systems are not currently providing protection for animals such as great crested newts, so the district licensing does not work at the moment. Has the Minister met those organisations? Has she talked about these issues and the outcomes on the ground?
I ask the Minister to look again at this clause, which must be amended to explicitly state that site surveys should take place when existing data is inadequate. If the barrier is too high to progress with the site survey, it will not be done, except in abnormal situations or when it is too high a bar. It will not be done in all the places where conservation is failing, which is why we are having this decline. Such an amendment would be vital to this clause so it will be enacted in a way that means we can conserve species.
There is no room for error on this. We cannot wait for 10 years then review this, and find out that lots of habitats have been decimated, and that species have not been conserved and have gone because of this. We need to be on it right from the start. What will be the monitoring of the impact of these clauses? Will the monitoring be fast and rigorous, to ensure that the outcome is conservation and protection of special sites, rather than seeing developers riding roughshod over the regulations and using the rules as a loophole for continuing decimation of our important sites?
Rebecca Pow
I thank hon. Members for their comments. As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, he has raised a large number of points in one go. He has given me a large task, and I will write to him if there are points that I miss out, because it was an awful lot to take in at speed.
The hon. Gentleman is right to be asking these questions because we need to make sure that we have got this right. I give him the assurance straight away that new clauses 25 to 27 will not diminish the Bill, but will add to it. That is what we have in mind and there has been a lot of discussion in order to come to that conclusion. We have listened to a lot of comments. That is why clause 93 strengthens the biodiversity duty, to better effect the ambition set out in the 25-year environment plan and to give public authorities a much better approach to building biodiversity into their core activities, so that that is part and parcel of everything rather than being done on an itsy-bitsy, one-off basis.
Daniel Zeichner
No one on the Opposition Benches questions the Minister’s commitment to this, but why was it introduced at a late stage? If she can explain that, it would go some way to assuaging some of our fears.
Rebecca Pow
As the hon. Gentleman knows, this Bill has been in the making for a very long time. It began long before I came along as the Environment Minister. We have spent a whole year working on it, which has enabled us to strengthen it and to work more closely with all the bodies and organisations, particularly Natural England.
The hon. Member for Cambridge talked about Natural England, with whom we have worked really closely. In fact, it will play a big role in all this and we have had full discussions with it. Indeed, Natural England launched a project about 10 days ago. I would have gone, had it not been for the lockdown, so all I could do was a speech. The project was about how nature recovery networks, which is a generic term, and strategies will be pulled together with the protected sites. The launch went well and about 500 people attended the Zoom event, to show how these things will work as we go forward and make sure that in the future biodiversity is embedded into all that we do.
Daniel Zeichner
I will not keep intervening, but my concern is about the section on nature in the 10-point plan that the Prime Minister launched yesterday. There is no mention of net biodiversity gain, which seemed to us to be surprising. That is why we are suspicious. It is difficult, because we have new proposals coming forward from other bits of Government and our worry is that the strength of this Bill has been undermined.
Rebecca Pow
I thought the 10-point plan was brilliant. It put a massive focus on decarbonising and the renewable energy sector, which I know the hon. Member for Southampton, Test is particularly interested in. It was addressing other elements of the whole green recovery. We were really pleased that we got the tree mentioned in there.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 142, in clause 94, page 95, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert—
“(a) all public authorities and persons or bodies exercising functions of a public nature, and”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 186, in clause 94, page 95, line 30, at the end insert—
“(d) Natural England and the Environment Agency”.
Daniel Zeichner
I assure the Committee the going may be slightly lighter for the next period. That was complicated. I appreciated the Minister’s response, but I think there are two takes we can have on this: one is the optimistic take, which she presents, but others are a little more sceptical and suggest that even if the bulldozer is hydrogen-powered, it is still a bulldozer, so we need to be careful.
We welcome clause 94, because it remedies a weakness in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which lacked a reporting duty for public authorities with regard to the biodiversity objective. The world moves on and we want to do better, so the clause is good. Those reports will be important in regularly recording the actions that public authorities take to conserve and enhance biodiversity.
I am grateful to the Minister for her letter referring to the burdens on local authorities. She was very swift in writing to me. I am not certain that my council colleagues will be totally convinced, but apparently there is a new burdens doctrine, which sounds slightly severe. In her letter, she was very specific about some elements that will apparently be funded, but I suspect that, with all these measures, whether it is the reporting duty or anything else, many local authorities will ask where the resources will come from to enable them to do it. Nevertheless, we would like it to be done, because we think that these reports will help to improve information on protected sites, priority habitats and priority species.
The clause could helpfully be amended, to realise the full potential of those reports, so I will continue my theme of trying to strengthen the legislation and achieve the outcome that we all want. Extending the range of public authorities that are required to provide reports, providing more direction on report content and expanding the list of topics that public authorities should report on would be helpful. Currently, the requirement to produce biodiversity reports applies only to local authorities in England other than parish councils, local planning authorities in England and designated authorities. We think that it would be beneficial to extend the range of public authorities required to provide reports, to make sure that all bodies that have influence over the natural environment are properly included. Our amendments 142 and 186 seek to do that.
Amendment 142 would make it a requirement that
“all public authorities and persons or bodies exercising functions of a public nature”
have to produce these reports, spelling out how they are meeting the biodiversity objective; and amendment 186 would add Natural England and the Environment Agency to the list of designated authorities required to publish biodiversity reports. We think these amendments would be helpful. We will not pursue a vote, but it would be helpful to hear the Minister’s response.
Rebecca Pow
You will be very pleased to hear that I will not speak for as long as I did previously, Mr Howarth.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendments. Importantly, the addition of a reporting requirement strengthens the Bill. The reports will be a valuable source of information, facilitating the sharing of best practice and providing both transparency and accountability.
Clause 94 designates some public authorities and provides the Secretary of State with a power to designate in secondary legislation which other bodies will be required to report. We are clear that local authorities and other planning authorities have important contributions to make to restoring nature, so we have designated those authorities in the Bill. We will require reporting from other relevant public authorities, including Government Departments with large estates and bodies that undertake statutory requirements, such as the public utility companies.
Amendment 142 would significantly broaden the duty to report on action taken under the biodiversity duty, which would not be appropriate for some public authorities that are small and have few resources. Parish councils, which we have mentioned previously, are a clear example of such authorities, but there will be others for which it would not be a sensible use of their limited resources to produce and publish biodiversity reports. I am sure that they will all want to have their say, but they could feed that in to their local authority.
Under amendment 186, Natural England and the Environment Agency would be named specifically in the 2006 Act as needing to produce biodiversity reports. The decisions on which public authority should be asked to report are best considered in detail as we develop the regulations that will flow from the Bill. All interested stakeholders will have the opportunity to engage with us to make sure we get the list of public authorities right. I think it is important that that is done. Consideration and consultation are important parts of the process, and while Natural England and the Environment Agency undoubtedly have crucial roles in our effort to enhance biodiversity, there are other important public authorities. I urge the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I anticipated that response, but I do think there is a missed opportunity here. Part of the problem goes back to the existing pressures on organisations like Natural England and the Environment Agency. They have to prioritise. The danger is that they will not be able to do some of the things we are asking them to do unless we actually specify and lay them out. The worry that has been expressed to me is that they sometimes struggle to carry out their biodiversity duties. Unless we actually press them and make it an obligation, they are not going to report on it or be able to do it. That is not a criticism of them; they are working with limited resources.
It comes back to the very basic point that it depends on how important one thinks any of this is. We think it is really important. I will gently say that, in the lead-up to COP26, where nature-based solutions are going to be a key theme, we could be setting a lead here by showing how we are pushing nature and biodiversity up the agenda—not at No. 9 on the 10-point plan, but much higher up, which is certainly where we would put it. I think it is a missed opportunity.
On parish councils and other authorities, which we will perhaps come on to a bit later, perhaps I am slightly obsessed by environmental land management schemes because of my role on the Agriculture Bill, but it seems to me that an awful lot is being put on these schemes. I said during the discussions on that Bill that there was a clear opportunity for local input, and it would be local knowledge that made these measures work. There is a role for these authorities, and this is exactly the kind of place where we could set that obligation.
Rebecca Pow
I have been wanting to intervene and give reassurances on that very point that everything in the Bill will also dovetail with the measures in the Agriculture Bill and the environmental land management schemes. That is essential, I am working very closely with the Farms Minister and the Secretary of State to make sure the Bills work together. The environmental land management schemes will deliver much of the biodiversity and nature enhancement, and public goods including clean water, carbon capture and climate change mitigation, in large part through nature-based solutions. The measures in this Bill will help towards that, and the local authority biodiversity reports will particularly help, as well as the local networks that are developed. They show what nature is where, what needs enhancing where, and how different groups of people can join up through catchment-based approaches. I think what the hon. Gentleman wants to happen is what has been designed. Does he agree?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to say how disappointed we were that the Government did not take the opportunity we offered in our amendment to link the Bills together, not least because they came in the wrong order, being driven by a Brexit timetable rather than an appropriate timetable to do this in the right way. We are not convinced they have been integrated in the correct way. We are only a few weeks away from that new system potentially beginning, and there is a lot of work to do, to put it mildly.
We think that there should be local input from the very beginning, much like the schemes we are losing—economic development, leader schemes and so on—that worked on a local level before. Who knows where the sustainable investment is going? A lot is being lost at the moment. To return to the amendment, we feel that a strengthened reporting obligation would actually help the Government, as we are trying to do, to achieve the outcomes they are seeking more effectively. None the less, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 141, in clause 94, page 95, line 43, at end insert—
“(e) an analysis of how actions taken have contributed to delivery of priorities identified in the Local Nature Recovery Strategies.”
This is a continuation of the same discussion, in effect, because we are looking at how the biodiversity reports could be improved. In the Bill, in the list of topics that the biodiversity reports should contain, there is no reference to any consideration of local nature recovery strategies. I have already spoken with some passion about the need to link all these things up to make them work. We agree that if we are going to tackle the biodiversity challenge, co-ordination is needed. The local nature recovery strategies are designed to do just that, so tying them into biodiversity reports would help to achieve that core purpose of directing local nature recovery activity.
Our amendment would do that by adding to the clause that biodiversity reports must contain analysis of how the actions of public authorities have contributed to the delivery of the priorities identified in the local nature recovery strategies. Our concern—this is a consistent theme—is to lock in a guarantee that something actually happens. The danger is that often good intentions are parked somewhere within authorities that, quite understandably, have many other things going on, and nothing happens. We need to ensure that things are considered in key decision-making processes and that actions are properly monitored, with decision makers held to account. Again, the amendment is a probing one to tease out of the Government how they think the provision will work. There will be no need to divide the Committee.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the amendment. We intend the biodiversity reports to be proportionate and flexible. Designated public authorities will report every five years on how the measures throughout the clauses dealing with nature and biodiversity deliver the intended improvements for nature. To achieve that aim, we should not be too prescriptive by specifying in the Bill what the reports must contain.
There will be considerable variety across the public authorities designated to report. For many, it might well make sense to frame reports against the context of the relevant local nature recovery strategy. The requirement in the clause to “have regard” to the strategies while determining what action to take will encourage that. Indeed, we anticipate that biodiversity reports will be a valuable source of information for local nature recovery strategies when they are reviewed and republished. This should be a two-way process.
For many public authorities, however, having to specify the contribution to every relevant strategy would be a disproportionate burden. A public authority with national reach would find it challenging to provide a meaningful analysis of its contribution across a very large number of strategies. As I said, the idea is that the report is workable, is flexible, but that people are actually able to do it. A lengthy analysis could prevent the public authority from producing a report that is clear, readable and focused on the most important action that it has taken to help nature recover.
We therefore believe that such detail is best left to regulations and guidance, which allow for greater flexibility and, where suggested, content can be better tailored to individual circumstances. On those grounds, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment—I think he said it was just a probing amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
Once again, I might have anticipated that response. My concern continues to be that insufficient leverage is being applied to ensure that such things actually happen. That is the only point at issue. Having heard the Minister’s response, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 94, page 96, line 27, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This is our familiar “may” or “must” discussion. In this case, clause 94 currently outlines that the Secretary of State “may” make regulations to
“require biodiversity reports to include specified quantitative data relating to biodiversity”.
I want to say a little about some of the data issues, because we think that this is rather important. Paragraph 846 of the explanatory notes makes a very good case for the amendment. It says:
“This will ensure key quantitative data is reported in a consistent fashion across all reports, thereby making comparisons across the reports easier. Having such data defined in regulations will also allow for it to be updated in the future as required.”
The Minister will say that that means it is good to have it in the regulations, but we think it should be stated up front.
We believe that good data will make a big difference to how effective public authorities can be in improving biodiversity outcomes. This carries over into some of the discussions around the environmental land management scheme, which is why we pressed very hard for an environmental baseline to be established. Sadly, that was not taken up by the Government, but we think that they will probably have to do it at some point anyway. None of these worthy processes will be possible without good data. Of course, the world has changed in that there are many new and innovative ways of scanning, recording and assessing that may not have been possible a decade ago.
The Secretary of State himself said in his speech on environmental recovery in July:
“We want everyone to be able to access an accurate, centralised body of data on species populations so that taking nature into account is the first, speedy step to a”
planning application. That is a laudable ambition, which we absolutely support, but to do that the Government have to get the data in place. I pay tribute to the army of volunteers who gather data at the moment. We have fantastic volunteers in this country. I suspect that many people here watch and count butterflies, bees, birds and so on, which is all helpful. I have been very impressed by the Bumblebee Conservation Trust—I have already mentioned the ruderal bumblebee—which does excellent work in recording what is happening to bumblebees.
All such organisations require support and the volunteers sometimes need training, because is not always obvious how to gather the data. There then needs to be a process of recording, verification and infrastructure, and there are costs to all of that. Although we have some wonderful not-for-profit organisations and there is a good tradition of volunteering, we feel that it is important that the Government provide support to ensure that we get the centralised, accurate body of data that the Secretary of State referred to. That, of course, will then allow the data sharing, the comparison and the mechanisms that are needed to ensure that we get the biodiversity gains that we are looking for.
I have said on many occasions that we think that local authorities are already struggling to fund, resource and support the kind of work that will be needed to make all these good intentions come to fruition. Fewer than a third of them have an in-house ecologist or biodiversity officer, and we fear that Natural England does not even have the required resources, as I have said, to carry out its current statutory duties in some cases, let alone the extra responsibilities. We think that there needs to be an investment from Government in the right data and environmental information infrastructure to ensure that nature conservation can work.
Again, this is not an issue on which we wish to divide the Committee. However, I would be grateful to hear from the Minister how she proposes to make sure that that fantastic pool of data is going to be put in place and maintained, to ensure that we can make the progress we are all looking for.
Rebecca Pow
I will narrow my comments down because this is a “may” and “must” amendment again. As I have previously explained during discussion of similar amendments from the hon. Member and others, primary legislation consistently takes this approach to the balance between powers and duties. I assure the hon. Member that the Government intend to make the regulations.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
As a trained mathematician, I fully support the use of data supporting policy and as chair of the Government’s Regulatory Policy Committee, it was my job to ensure that we had evidence-based policy making. However, I do not think it is good enough just to say that there should or must be data unless we specify what that data is. The risk, otherwise, is that we come up with the wrong sort of data.
Given our shared belief in data, I have been doing a bit of data gathering myself—not counting butterflies and so on, but counting “musts” and “mays”. In clause 94, I counted not just one or two—not three, four or five—but six “musts” and only two “mays”. That shows how strong the paragraph is, with the “musts” outnumbering the “mays” by three to one. Do Opposition Committee members welcome that fact?
The Chair
Order. We are straying into the territory of the Shakespearian debate about the use of “thee” and “thou”. Interesting though it is, I am not quite sure it adds any edification to our proceedings. It is for the hon. Member for Cambridge to decide whether that intervention has any influence on him.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful, Sir George, and I am grateful to my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. As the chair of the all-party group on data analytics, I, too, can bore for Britain on that. He is right about the “musts” and the “mays”, but a lot depends on where they come in the paragraph. Sadly, there are lots of “musts” and then, quite often, whether something will be implemented or not is followed by a may. There is a hierarchy of “musts” and “mays” that also needs to be taken into account, which shows the difficulties that sometimes arise with using data. It does not always tell the whole story.
Data will be important, particularly as we go down the environmental land management route. I have concerns about that because of the complexities involved. The only way they will be able to work, I suspect, will be through good collection of data. If we are going to move to outcome-based measures—and I think that that is where many people want to get to, finally, on many such issues—it will be essential to be able to measure, record and draw conclusions. I think that we are probably all going in the same direction, and I suspect that we all want the things that are proposed to happen. It is just a question of how quickly they happen, and when. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 96
Preparation of local nature recovery strategies
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 96, page 97, line 27, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This is one of the most exciting provisions. I do not want to be in danger of getting over-excited, but we think that the set of provisions that we have now reached is very important. That is why I must go back to the ninth of the 10 points yesterday, and say that I found the references—and there is a reference to a local nature recovery network—slightly confusing, as it was in the context of landscape recovery projects.
We are in danger of drowning in a sea of acronyms, I fear, and one thing that we would look for from the Minister is clarity about how all those things will work together. We want a coherent framework that will drive an approach that will reverse nature’s decline across the country. We genuinely believe that that can be done, but we feel that the potential for the local nature recovery strategies is constrained by the current wording and, yet again, we are trying to suggest improvements to help the Minister.
We have already touched on some of the weaknesses of the duty in question, and the need for monitoring in biodiversity reports. The amendment has been tabled to underline the point that the full positive impact of local nature recovery strategies will be realised only if authorities are given clear and effective procedures to follow when they are preparing, producing, reviewing and publishing their local strategies. I am afraid that it is again a may/must issue.
Also, it is a concern of ours that in some instances the affirmative procedure will not be used. There is a strong feeling that, were there to be wider discussion, the legislation would be improved. Allowing third parties, including experts in a sector, to have input into the procedures through public consultation, would be only to the good. We seek the Minister’s comments on whether she can make sure that happens.
We worry, also, about the timing. There is no date to begin the preparation of some of the things in the clause and our worry that they could go on the back burner. Will the Minister give some indication of when she thinks they will be in place and implemented, and when the good work is to begin? Once again, we are trying to find out information. We do not seek to divide the Committee—I can anticipate the Minister’s response. I should like to hear what she has to say.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the amendment, but it will not surprise him to hear that we do not believe it is necessary. The backbone of the local nature recovery strategy clauses is a series of duties on the Secretary of State: first, to ensure that there are local nature recovery strategy areas covering the whole of England; secondly, to appoint responsible authorities to lead local nature recovery strategy preparation; and, thirdly, to provide the responsible authorities with the necessary information. The Government are also seeking the power to create regulations to establish the process for preparing a local nature recovery strategy. That is to enable that process to work smoothly and to create consistency in what each responsible authority produces.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Cambridge is aware, but just for information, I point out that five pilots are already running on local nature recovery strategies. One is in Cornwall. There were lots of areas where the pilots on the strategies could have run, but on the whole the areas chosen were those that had already done quite a lot of work in this respect and so had lots of good processes and plans and thoughts. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth probably knows about that initiative, given that it covers her patch. I hope that that explanation gives assurances. The work is ongoing, so the lessons will be learned about all that. That will help for the quick roll-out of these things; others will be able to copy what has been done and put them in process.
We have developed local nature recovery strategies to be an important new tool in delivering a wide range of environmental commitments, such as tree planting, peat restoration, natural flood management and the creation of the nature recovery network, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Cambridge. These commitments for this overarching improvement of nature—that is, the nature recovery network—are set out in the 25-year environment plan. The environmental improvement plan clauses in the Bill will establish duties to monitor and report performance against the commitments—it should be remembered that the first environmental improvement plan is the 25-year environment plan; that is how this all knits together—creating ample incentive for Government to ensure that local nature recovery strategies work effectively to help to meet all our commitments. That will very much be part of it.
I would like to provide reassurance that we intend to waste no time in producing the regulations following Royal Assent to the Bill. It has to happen that we get on with these things pretty fast. Changing this proposed power to produce regulations into a duty to do so would serve no purpose. The Government are clearly committed both to the establishment of local nature recovery strategies and to the role that the regulations will play.
I hope that what I have said gives a bit more clarity on the direction that the hon. Gentleman was asking about and I ask him whether he would kindly withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
We still do not feel that there is sufficient speed. That is our concern. Pilots are great, but we have seen with the environmental land management scheme that we can go through pilots and pilots and pilots; the question is whether the crisis is being addressed sufficiently speedily. We would like things to move more quickly, but I hear what the Minister says, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 97
Content of local nature recovery strategies
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 143, in clause 97, page 98, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) a statement of how the strategy is expected to contribute to achievement of relevant environmental targets.”
We move from pace to content. We would like to say a little about this—we have a number of amendments, which we can probably go through fairly swiftly—because we think that some things could be done to strengthen the content of local nature recovery strategies. Amendment 143 is to underline that we believe that there need to be clearer links between these requirements and the target-setting framework established at the outset of the Bill.
We believe that the strategies should be required to be developed with regard to the need to contribute to delivery of the environmental targets. We fear that, without that, there will be no means to measure how well the nature provisions are contributing to the overall goal of nature recovery. A clear link would ensure that each local nature recovery strategy delivered local and national objectives, as intended.
Local nature recovery strategies need to be the primary means by which ambitious national environmental commitments, priorities and investments are targeted to deliver maximum public and ecological benefits—the whole range, from tree planting to nature-based flood defences. In combination with those clear national priorities and ecological advice, working with local knowledge and expertise, they can be channelled into delivering measurable achievements through the local strategies. That is the way to make these strategies a success.
We think this amendment is helpful, provides clarity and knits the Bill together. From the outset, our worry has been that the Bill is a rather disparate set of measures. Through the amendment, we could tie it all together and make it work better. Once again, the amendment is an attempt to draw out from the Minister the Government’s thinking on the issue, and we will not seek to divide the Committee.
Rebecca Pow
I understand the hon. Member’s intent in tabling the amendment, but I do not think it is necessary. The Government already have ample measures at their disposal to ensure that the local nature recovery strategies play their part in meeting the relevant targets, once those have been determined. As time goes on there will be opportunity for all manner of targets on nature to be set. That link has already been made.
First, as we have discussed, the Bill gives the Government the power to issue regulations setting out how each local nature recovery strategy must be prepared. Secondly, it will enable Government to issue statutory guidance on what local nature recovery strategies must contain, expanding on the detail on the face of the Bill. Thirdly, it will require the Government to provide the responsible authority with information to assist in preparing these strategies. That information includes a national habitat map as well as the location areas that the Secretary of State believes could contribute to the establishment of a network of areas across England for the recovery and enhancement of biodiversity in England as a whole.
In combination, these measures provide the opportunity for Government to set out a national spatial framework for the nature recovery network and to shape how it is reflected in each local strategy. The Bill also introduces a duty on the Secretary of State to meet the long-term environmental targets. All that reporting and monitoring will feed into that, starting from the ground upwards. All these measures will feed into achieving those targets.
The duty will be sufficient to ensure that the Secretary of State will use the tools referred to and provide responsible authorities with clear information on how local nature recovery strategies should contribute to achieving those specific targets. It will ensure that the Secretary of State has every incentive to monitor the effectiveness of these contributions. I urge the hon. Member to remember that the framework of reporting, monitoring and being held to account will all be part of making sure that we improve nature. I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 144, in clause 97, page 98, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) a description of how actions intended to meet the net gain objective and land management changes supported by public funds should be spatially targeted through Local Nature Recovery Strategies in order to contribute most effectively to environmental improvement.”
This amendment clarifies the relationship between LNRSs, net gain, ELM and other policies.
I suspect that we are trying to achieve the same things through slightly different means. Amendment 144 seeks to ensure that local nature recovery strategies are comprehensive and bring all an area’s environmental gains into a cohesive plan. They should co-ordinate all the local biodiversity net gains arising from planning as well as from the land management changes pursued under ELM schemes. As I have said, we think that linkage to ELM is absolutely key to ensuring a cohesive approach. Again, we think the amendment would strengthen the Bill, which is rather important. I have referred to the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, which I think needs to be strengthened.
We are helping the Minister here; she could win many brownie points by pointing out to her colleagues that, given that COP26 is nature-based, this is an opportunity to absolutely deliver on nature recovery. I am offering her an early Christmas present, really, and I am afraid that on this occasion we will divide the Committee, because it is a perfect opportunity for her to show that she wants to join us in strengthening her very own Bill.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for the amendment and for his constant endeavour to strengthen the Bill, which we want to be a strong one—he is right about that—but I do not believe that this amendment is necessary, and I will set out why.
Local nature recovery strategies will be a powerful new tool to help us take a more strategic approach to how we plan for nature’s recovery and to how we use nature-based solutions to address wider environmental challenges. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about nature-based solutions, but they are very much part and parcel of this new will to deliver for nature and for all those other benefits—flood control, better water quality, carbon capture and sequestration, and so on—so I think we are on the same page on that.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I think the point that the Minister is trying to make, which I reiterate, is that a lot of those schemes are in their infancy. We have just discussed the five pilot plans, one of which my constituency is involved in. If the Bill is too prescriptive, we will be unable to tweak those plans later if they do not work. It is important that we set out the intention on the face of the Bill and let the pilots do their work, so that Ministers and experts in the field have the flexibility to learn from and use best practice moving forward.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that; I could not have put it better myself. That is why we are running the pilots, and it is great that they are already running. The hon. Member for Cambridge asks when we are going to do all this, but we are actually already doing it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that each area will be different: Cornwall will be quite different from south Humber or Keighley. Those areas’ requirements and demands will vary and that is why we need to run pilots.
We do not want the pilots to go on forever—the hon. Member for Cambridge is absolutely right about that—and the Secretary of State and I are at pains to say, “Yes, we want all the data and feed-in, but we do need action.” I like to think that we will see action. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that we have to ensure that we work to promote actions through the environmental land management scheme and that those actions work with what we are putting into our local nature recovery strategies. The idea is that those will all work together and that we will then deliver our biodiversity net gain, which will also be helped by the strengthened biodiversity duty on public authorities in the Bill.
Beyond the Bill, the strategies will support local authorities in protecting and enhancing biodiversity through the planning system, and encourage more collaborative working between the public, private and voluntary sectors, to establish and achieve common goals. We are keen that each responsible authority leading production of a strategy properly understands and considers the different mechanisms through which the net gain and adding to nature could be achieved. The responsible authority will not always have direct control of all those different delivery mechanisms, however, so they will need to work collaboratively with other organisations, as we have proposed.
Simply requiring the responsible authority to give its opinion on processes that it does not control will add little to the strategy and could deter partners from engaging constructively. My intention is instead to use the statutory guidance provided with the clauses to explain how the responsible authority should take account of potential delivery mechanisms when preparing its strategy. I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge: he is absolutely right that we are coming up to a crucial year, with COP26. However, I hope he is very pleased that nature and adaptation are part of the COP. That is why it is so important that we demonstrate that we are going to lead by example, with the pilots and all the measures in the Bill, which show that we are taking these issues seriously; it can work and add to nature. I therefore kindly ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
That was a helpful set of interchanges, but I have to say that we need something stronger than, “I’d like to think that we are going to see some action.” The urgency is much more pressing. There is a danger of ending up with perpetual pilots, and we want to go much more quickly and more strongly. On that basis, we will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 145, in clause 97, page 98, line 23, before “are” insert
“an ecologically coherent network of sites that”.
This amendment clarifies that local habitat maps should contribute to a coherent ecological network.
Obviously, I am very disappointed that the Minister felt unable to accept my Christmas gift, but we will move on.
Amendment 145 seeks to ensure that local habitat maps, which are included in local nature recovery strategies, are set out in an ecologically coherent way. It is important to get some clarity, because the sites should relate to each other in a coherent way to form part of a wider integrated network for nature’s recovery. We do not want to see local habitats stagnating in isolation; they should relate to one another.
Our understanding is that the intention is for local nature recovery strategies to be produced, as the Minister has already made reference to, in a bottom-up way, to create a nature recovery network at a national level by way of creating corridors of habitat across the country.
I wonder slightly about the national level. As has already been referenced, we have quite clear regions and sub-regions, and it depends on the landscape. Our point is that there should be some coherence. There is a slight risk that there will be a lack of coherence. For instance, we could see a situation where a local authority prioritises a green space for people, quite rightly, but neglects the fact that it could be a crucial stepping-stone between two vulnerable habitats, which could be resolved by creating a corridor of trees that links those habitats.
The basic point we are trying to address is that there should be some integration. By linking strategies together, we believe they can form the building blocks of a national nature recovery network—a joined-up system of nature-rich places, as originally envisioned in the 25-year plan for the environment. We will not seek to divide the Committee on this amendment, but we want to get a sense of whether the Minister shares our aspirations.
Rebecca Pow
I have to go back to the last comments from the hon. Member for Cambridge. He said that, “I’d like to think” we might have some environmental improvement. I am thinking about it all the time, as my team know. All my thinking will lead to action, through the Bill—I just want to make that very clear.
I understand that the intention behind the amendment is to ensure that local nature recovery strategies consider the ecological coherence of any areas that they identify in their local habitat map, and I reassure the Committee that I recognise how important ecological coherence will be in the strategies. The current clauses allow us to publish statutory guidance to set out in more detail what each strategy must contain, so we intend to draw on examples of existing good practice in spatial prioritisation for nature, to ensure that ecological coherence is reflected in the strategies. Quite clearly, “link up” and “join up” are very important, and wildlife corridors are exceptionally important.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. We probably have slightly different views on this issue, but we are both trying to get to the same place. My concern—it goes right back to the planning White Paper, where these issues are touched on very lightly—is about the lack of integration, rather than having a coherent, planned overall approach. That makes the whole approach less effective. We have heard what the Minister says, however, and we do not seek to push the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)
Environment Bill (Nineteeth sitting)
Thursday 19th November 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 November 2020 - (19 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 146, in clause 98, page 98, line 45, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must produce a strategy to inform the development of a Nature Recovery Network, including a spatial description of the opportunities for recovering or enhancing the environment through actions to protect or restore biodiversity, in terms of habitats and species, in England.
(3B) The Secretary of State must publish guidelines that set out a process for review and approval of Local Nature Recovery Strategies by Natural England to confirm the priorities and proposals identified in the Local Nature Recovery Strategy would contribute adequately to the delivery of a national Nature Recovery Network and relevant environmental targets.”
The amendment requires the Secretary of State to undertake the mapping and planning work necessary to carry out their functions in relation to the national habitat map.
We welcome the provisions of the clause. It requires the Secretary of State to assist public authorities in preparing their local nature recovery strategy by publishing a national habitat map for England, and to help identify national conservation sites and other areas of particular importance to biodiversity. Predictably enough, we have one or two concerns and comments about that, which our amendment 146 allows us to address.
If this national habitat map is to be effective in informing the preparation of local nature recovery strategies, it needs to be available in good time for the preparation of local nature recovery strategies. As we touched on earlier, we want that to be done speedily, so the national map needs to be done speedily.
It will not be sufficient simply to present national conservation sites on the map. We will also need critical information—on, for example, the condition of sites and the opportunities for recovery—to help direct public authorities in their important work to improve and restore national conservation sites.
The Government’s proposal is a start—it provides some of the information that authorities will need—but good planning for the natural environment requires more than the identification of isolated patches of nature on a map; it requires a strategy for enhancing and linking sites, throughout urban and rural areas, to facilitate nature’s recovery. What is missing from the clause is provision for the Government to undertake work to identify habitat opportunities. Nor is there any national system of review of the local and national recovery strategies put in place—any quality control to check that each one is making a meaningful contribution. Our amendment 146 would address these omissions by requiring the Secretary of State to
“produce a strategy to inform the development of a Nature Recovery Network”;
to
“set out a process for review and approval of Local Nature Recovery Strategies by Natural England”;
and to confirm that each one
“would contribute adequately to the delivery”
of the national nature recovery networks that we need. Those requirements would give the Secretary of State responsibility for knitting local nature recovery strategies together, which is what the Minister said she wishes to do, so that they function as a coherent national network.
As this is a good opportunity to help the Minister in her endeavour to rescue and strengthen the Bill, I will give her one last opportunity to accept our assistance; we will seek a Division on the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I welcome the hon. Member’s ambition of providing a national framework to inform the development of the nature recovery network, but the Bill already provides for a framework.
Part 1 of the Bill requires the Government to publish an environmental improvement plan, setting out the steps that they intend to take to improve the natural environment. It also establishes the 25-year environment plan, which, as I said this morning and so many other times, is the first environmental improvement plan. That first plan commits the Government to establishing a nature recovery network, and to publishing a new strategy for nature that includes the network. We have no intention of reversing any commitments made in the 25-year environment plan. Of course, the Office for Environmental Protection will also hold the Government to account on their progress in implementing the environmental improvement plans, including for the nature recovery network.
The clause requires the Secretary of State to provide information that we intend will offer a national spatial framework for the network. This framework includes a national map of areas of existing value for biodiversity, as well as areas where there are opportunities to enhance biodiversity and associated wider environmental benefits. There is also provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance on what the local natural recovery networks should contain and regulations on how they should be protected. These mechanisms will allow the shaping of how each responsible authority reflects the information provided under clause 98.
Natural England has a key role to play in supporting the establishment of the local nature recovery strategy, as I explained earlier. We want them to help produce national guidance to support the responsible authority in producing each strategy and to be the responsible authority themselves where needed. These roles are provided for in the Bill. Regulations produced under clause 96 will be crucial for establishing roles and responsibilities. Provisions for local nature recovery strategies in the Bill will form part of environmental law. This means that the Office for Environmental Protection will have oversight of these provisions, as it does over all aspects of environmental law.
I hope that the hon. Member is reassured that the Bill, as a whole, provides a suitable framework for the nature recovery network, as well as appropriate mechanisms to ensure that local nature recovery strategies contribute to its development. Therefore, I request that amendment 146 be withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the Minister’s response and to her for reintroducing the OEP at this stage. As she will recall, this side were not entirely convinced of the efficacy of this new organisation, and some of us do worry that it will just be a desk in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the early new year, and we want it to be much tougher than that. I suspect her response on this has been the same as on many of these attempts from our side to strengthen and add vim and vigour to this process. However, I am afraid I am still not persuaded or convinced, but I do thank her for the charm and courtesy she has shown in our exchanges. I would still caution her to beware the bloke on the bulldozer, and we do think there is a danger that this Bill’s good intentions are undermined. We would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 15 be the Fifteenth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 101 stand part.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I appreciate that there are no amendments in this group, but I think it is worth having a brief stand part debate here to mark the fact that we have moved from talking about nature and biodiversity to a very brief section in this Bill on trees. I say very brief section, because even though the heading above clauses 100 and 101 and schedule 15 is “Tree felling and planting”, it does not actually deal with planting at all. It only deals with cutting trees down.
We think, among other things, that is a tremendous opportunity missed. Although we are limited in this particular group to talking about the clauses and schedule, I ought to draw the Committee’s attention to our proposed new clauses later in the Bill on this particular subject that do address tree planting. As we know from the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, the question of tree planting is very much on everyone’s minds, and for the obvious reason that tree planting is going to be crucial to reaching our future net zero targets.
There have been various estimates of how many trees need to be planted over the next period to sequester the relevant amounts of CO2 to create a significant negative contribution to our net zero target by 2050.The tree-planting ambition is not a question of running on to a site, sticking a number of saplings in the ground, running away again, and hoping that they will all have grown into large trees in 30 years and will sequester carbon satisfactorily. The process of planting trees requires an enormous amount of loving care and attention, both in the planting and in the subsequent maintenance of the trees.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. After all, page 99 of the Bill includes “Tree felling and planting”, which are the two sides of the coin, but the whole of the next page gives everybody the authority to cut down trees, as he has quite rightly pointed out. Does he agree that that is a rather negative way forward?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend makes an important point. If someone chanced upon the Bill, flicked through it, looked at the contents at the front and said, “There is a section on tree felling and planting; that’s good, because we want to know about tree planting,” and then found that there was no tree planting, that would be rather an odd outcome, yet that is what we have in front of us. I would like to know, at the very least, what the Minister thinks can be done to rectify that omission and whether she intends, when the tree strategy is mature, to amend the Bill or, if this Bill has already gone through the whole of the House, introduce a subsequent Bill that will match up with what will be in the Environment Act, to give whole-life regulation and protection to tree planting, which is absolutely necessary for our ambitions for the future. Although we do not want to amend these clauses, because we accept that they are within the limitations written into the Bill, we give notice that we intend to proceed to rectify at least part of the issue concerning the heading of the clauses as we move on to the new clauses.
There is an indication, certainly in schedule 15, that the problem of maintenance and stewardship for the future is not anticipated, even on the question of felling and restocking trees. Schedule 15, which is an amendment to the Forestry Act 1967, requires restoration orders to be put in place—a good thing in itself—where people have felled trees when they should not have done or without the proper provisions being applied for.
Schedule 15 provides a welcome advance, in that there is clear regulatory guidance on restocking, but that guidance then starts to fall down, inasmuch as the restocking orders last for only 10 years. The precise problem that we have outlined with replanting could arise for the restocking orders. The person who has knocked the trees down might grudgingly replant more under the restocking order, but 10 years later, he or she can pull them all up again.
That is certainly not in line with the sort of stewardship that we think has to take place for trees, both in general and in particular with regard to the restocking orders. I would appreciate it if the Minister could comment this afternoon on whether she thinks the provisions in schedule 15 for the duration of restocking orders are sufficient in the light of our discussion, or whether she might review that for future reference.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I know that I represent millions of people across the country in wanting to speak more about trees and seek more about trees in the Bill. There are some things in these clauses that we can agree on. I know that the Minister is a lover of ancient woodland and that the clauses are close to her heart as a chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ancient woodland and veteran trees.
Fleur Anderson
As a former chair, she has said of ancient woodland:
“It is an absolute travesty that only 2% remains and we must ensure that no more is lost.”
We agree on proposed new section 96A(1) of the Highways Act 1980, as inserted by clause 101, in which it becomes statutory for local authorities to
“consult members of the public before felling a tree on an urban road”.
Constituents in Putney will welcome that measure, because in many cases, they do not know why a tree has been felled and they would like to have had a say. It gives our fantastic volunteer tree wardens more power to look at the trees in our urban areas.
We also agree that the Bill is landmark legislation that legislates for urgent action on the biggest environmental challenges of our time. Therefore, it is disappointing that clause 100 is sadly lacking. We will talk about a tree strategy later when we debate new clause 19, but that is where this clause could have come in. Putting an English tree strategy on a statutory footing is key to delivering the commitments in the 25-year environment plan, alongside which the Bill sits.
The 25-year environment plan has targets for net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and for planting 30,000 hectares of trees a year across the UK. We need interim and overall targets in the Bill to ensure that we deliver on those targets. Why is that? Trees sequester carbon, support biodiversity, protect against floods, stabilise the soil, improve our physical and mental wellbeing, filter air pollutants and help to regulate temperatures. The Environment Bill seeks to do all of these, and more on trees would enable us to do it better and make it that landmark legislation. However, 53% of UK woodland wildlife is in decline. Woodland expansion is well below the rate necessary for the future. DEFRA has a woeful track record of missing tree planting targets. It cannot be left out of this Bill and just left to happen. History shows that it does not just happen. We really need a statutory England tree strategy.
There is currently no formal mechanism to set targets for protection, restoration and expansion of trees and woodland in England. Here is the opportunity to legislate and address the importance of trees in tackling the climate and nature crisis we face. This Bill aims to restore and enhance green spaces, yet it falls short in not containing a necessary clause about a tree strategy. There should be a strategy with the following objectives: increasing the percentage of tree cover in England, increasing the hectares of new, native woodland creation by planting and natural regeneration, and increasing the hectarage of plantation of ancient woodland undergoing restoration.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I pay tribute to the work of the Woodland Trust, which has helped schools in the hon. Lady’s constituency, I am sure, as well as those of all members of the Committee. Does she agree that the sort of projects it leads will help the Government to achieve their goals of planting masses more trees across the country and involving school children?
Fleur Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention noting the work of the Woodland Trust, which is in agreement with the points I have just made. In fact, this is exactly what it is calling for. Indeed, given that he has talked about the excellent work of the Woodland Trust, I hope he will be supporting new clause 19 when we come back to it. The Woodland Trust would like an English tree strategy to be put on a statutory footing and gave evidence to that effect to this Committee previously, and many constituents from across the country have written in to support this also.
Richard Graham
The point I was trying to make was to highlight the good work that the Woodland Trust is doing alongside the Government, rather than to necessarily support the Opposition’s suggested amendments to the Bill.
Fleur Anderson
I understand the clarification. I would say that the Woodland Trust is doing fantastic work, but it is also calling for this statutory framework. I put Members on notice that we will return to this issue when we come to new clause 19. Therefore, I ask all Committee members to hastily look that up and, I hope, support it when it comes. Alternatively, as the shadow Minister has mentioned, let us see an actual, whole tree Bill come to Parliament with all urgency. That would be excellent as well.
Rebecca Pow
It will not surprise those hon. Members who have spoken that I share their passion for trees and ancient woodland particularly. Indeed, I also praise the work the Woodland Trust does and has done, particularly with young people, schoolchildren and all those who want to get involved with this future environment, as was intimated by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I wonder whether the Minister will also pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Government, as over 80% of new plantings in 2018-19 were in Scotland. Are there lessons to be learned there?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for that intervention. Indeed, it is all credit to Scotland. It has a different, much wilder landscape, where trees are very well adapted to the landscape. I do take my hat off to the tree planting that Scotland does, and we all like to learn from good practice across borders. Forestry is, of course, devolved, and that is why introducing a statutory target for the UK is not appropriate for this stage. I just want to touch on general points about tree planting before I address what the actual clause is dealing with, which really pertains to tree felling.
Yes, we do have an England tree strategy, which does set out the means to protect existing trees and see more planted across the country. We have a massive commitment to more tree planting to the tune of 30,000 hectares by 2025. It is ambitious, but we do have, and we are bringing forward, the measures to make that possible. That long-awaited and talked-about tree strategy will be launched in the spring of 2021. A huge amount of work has gone into liaising on that consultation.
Richard Graham
The Minister is quite right to highlight the good work that has already been done. Does she agree that there is a specific opportunity in many parts of the country in recycling centres? As more councils gradually get out of the business of landfill, there is an opportunity to transform the landscape of these existing recycling centres into places that can generate eco-woodland and green energy and fulfil lots of good environmental purposes.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for a slightly off-the-wall intervention. I bet he has a recycling centre in his own constituency in mind. There will obviously be opportunities.
I will not say that the whole tree planting industry has to be kick-started, because there was a brilliant piece on “Farming Today” this morning—I do not know whether anyone was awake that early—about massive tree planting going on in the north. There is a huge private forestry scheme; it is private and has lots of input by Natural England and the Forestry Commission. It feeds into a big sawmill; the sawmills need the wood, and we want to stop the wood being imported, so we need to grow it at home. Although one may not think that the word “trees” is mentioned enough, all the policies we are putting in place to deliver biodiversity net gain and local nature recovery, or a great many of them, will involve tree planting.
Ruth Jones
Does the Minister not agree that, although it is great to have the tree planting strategy coming up next year, this is a missed opportunity to put it in the Bill, making it a really good, comprehensive, joined-up piece of work?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for that. While she makes a good point, I point her to the fact that we did a public paper this summer, which explored whether a statutory target for trees in England would be appropriate under the target-setting process of the Environment Bill. Perhaps the shadow Minister missed it, but it shows that all of this work is ongoing. We have this target-setting measure in the Bill, and this will be a prime example of where a target ought to be set.
I would take issue. I do not honestly believe that picking out individual things right now, putting them in the Bill and saying there should be a target on them is the right way to go about it. We need the ability to make the target, but we also need to get absolutely right what that target should be. On those grounds, one could say, “We’ll have a target for reeds, for pennywort and for some corncockle.” That is not the way the Bill works. I hope I am making that quite clear. I hope I am also making it quite clear that we have this massive commitment to tree planting. Indeed, that was outlined in our manifesto, and the Prime Minister made his announcement this week in his 10-point plan linking it all together.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Will the Minister commend Solihull Council, which in line with its commitment to plant a quarter of a million over the next 10 years has linked up with the Woodland Trust to plant nearly 12,000 trees in the first year? It did not need a statutory footing to do so.
Rebecca Pow
I absolutely applaud Solihull if it has already planted that many trees. There is a massive amount of voluntary work and other initiatives going on. I will also point out that tree planting will completely dovetail with the environmental land management scheme to deliver lots of those big projects, especially the landscape-scale projects. That will obviously help the climate change, the carbon sequestration work and all the things Members have touched on.
Richard Graham
Does the Minister agree that the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy has also played a helpful role? Many of these plantings were done specifically by primary school children.
Rebecca Pow
I meant to reference that just now, so I am glad my hon. Friend mentioned it. I believe that all MPs got sent three trees—I cannot remember what year that was, but we were—and I planted my three using the instructions. Some other MPs called me up to say, “Gosh, what do I do with these things that look like twigs? How do I plant them?” I talked them through it, because some of the trees had obviously been in the box for quite a long time. It is a great project to link up these areas and to get children, in particular, planting trees.
I am going to deal now with what is actually in the clause. I would not belittle this clause about tree felling and planting at all. It is very important. We have committed to planting and protecting all these trees, and the clause will help us to protect the trees we plant. Street trees are often the closest green infrastructure to people’s homes—the hon. Member for Putney talked about how much value people in urban areas get from trees.
Clause 101 places a duty on local highway authorities to consult before felling street trees, guaranteeing the local public an opportunity to understand why a tree may be felled and to raise concerns if they wish. That is really important, because we have had issues elsewhere in the country, where it has caused an absolute storm when the council has come and cut down trees and people simply cannot understand why that was being done. It is really important to get the messaging right.
Local highway authorities should have regard to guidance the Government will publish. This will provide certainty on how the duty should be implemented, as well as consistent street tree management across the country. Under certain circumstances, however, trees are exempt from the duty, thereby not impeding action to address trees that might have to be urgently felled—for example, due to a tree disease, which would then make them a danger. The introduction of this duty reflects the Government’s commitment to protecting our urban trees, which people value so highly and which are important in the urban space.
While reported illegal tree felling rates are low, no level of illegal felling is acceptable. We propose to address this through clause 100 and schedule 15. The felling licence system works well, but is now over 50 years old. Since its introduction, the driving forces behind illegal felling have changed, and statutory protections no longer serve as a deterrent to some illegal felling. Our forestry enforcement measures resolve this and support effective enforcement of the felling licence regime.
First, we will increase the penalty for illegal felling to an unlimited fine, addressing the gains that can be made from illegal felling to realise the value of the land. Court powers to compel replanting will also be increased. Secondly, the measures will ensure that potential buyers or new owners of illegally felled land are made aware of their obligation to replant that land. That will ensure that restocking is achieved, regardless of whether that land is sold.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test raised the issue of restocking and the 10-year issue in the schedule. If a person replants following the restocking order, but then fells the trees again, that is breaking the law. The trees can be felled only with a licence, so a fine could be applied in those circumstances. It is thanks to other changes in the Forestry Act 1967 and the changes that the Environment Bill is making that that will be the case. I hope that clarifies the issue.
The public obviously care very deeply about trees, and clauses 100 and 101 and schedule 15 will ensure that we have powers to protect and value them. That will allow us to retain the benefits they deliver for us—capturing carbon, providing shade in our streets and homes, creating homes for wildlife and, not least, looking beautiful. When I chose my flat to live in in London with my allowance, one of my chief criteria was that I could see a tree from the window, which I can. It gives me a great deal of pleasure and makes me breathe easy.
Dr Whitehead
I am sure that the Minister knows this already, but there are many ways of getting rid of trees other than felling them. The issue here regarding proposed new subsection 3(b) relates to the requirement
“to maintain those trees in accordance with the rules and practice of good forestry for a period not exceeding ten years”.
Maintenance in terms of the practice of good forestry might include various things, such as making sure that the trees do not get eaten, or making sure that they are sufficiently watered so that they do not die, and various other things that do not involve felling. However, the penalties in the legislation at the moment are for felling. She may want to have further thoughts about this 10-year rule in the light of that particular observation. This issue is not just about felling; it is about a number of other aspects of good forestry management of trees as they grow to maturity.
Rebecca Pow
I think I have given a very clear answer about the felling. If someone replants, that is an offence; they will be prosecuted for it. I think I have made that very clear. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that maintenance is important; quite clearly it is. I also agree that planting a tree is not a simple thing; it has to be planted, watered, maintained and protected from pests, and there is a great deal of work to be done. However, I think there is an understanding of that for anybody who plants trees. Indeed, particularly when we bring forward these bigger schemes, maintenance and all that side of it will be an important part and parcel of those projects and those schemes.
I hope that I have covered this issue quite clearly in my explanation and answered the questions, and I ask the Committee to agree that clause 100 stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 100 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clause 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 102
Conservation covenant agreements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 103 to 106 stand part.
Clause 107 stand part.
Government amendments 224 and 225.
Clause 108 stand part.
Clauses 109 to 115 stand part.
That Schedule 16 be the Sixteenth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 116 to 120 stand part.
Rebecca Pow
Can I just check that I am speaking about all those clauses in one go, because that was a lot to take in?
Rebecca Pow
Thank you. This part of the Bill is based, by and large, on the excellent work done by the Law Commission; I thank the Law Commission for the ongoing support that it has given us.
Conservation covenants are private agreements entered into voluntarily to deliver a conservation purpose for the public good. They can cover conservation of the natural or heritage features of the land; that is set out in clause 102(3). Importantly, they can bind subsequent landowners, giving them the potential to deliver lasting conservation benefits for future generations; that is referred to in clause 107.
Conservation covenants are crucial, because there is currently no simple legal tool that landowners can use to ensure that conservation benefits are maintained when land is sold or passed on. Current workarounds are costly, complex and have limitations, so opportunities to secure long-term conservation outcomes are being lost. Our consultation last year found significant support from a range of bodies, including farmers, landowners, and conservation organisations, for the whole idea of conservation covenants. The covenants will provide a way of giving biodiversity net gain sites and other key areas for nature the long-term conservation management that they need, and will make it easier for businesses and others to fund nature recovery.
Dr Whitehead
We have no feelings this afternoon that we want to oppose these clauses. On the contrary, we think that the establishment of conservation covenants is a good idea, provided that those covenants can really last in the way they work. The Minister has given a good account of how the covenants will work and can be enforced. Although this is a lengthy number of clauses in a lengthy part of the Bill, I hope hon. Members will not feel that we have failed to examine it. Indeed, having examined it, we think that these are a proper series of measures to take, and we hope that conservation covenants will, as the Minister mentioned, be an important part of the process in years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 102 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 103 to 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 107
Benefit and burden of obligation of landowner
Amendment made: 224, in clause 107, page 105, line 10, after “1975” insert
“(as substituted by paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Infrastructure Act 2015)”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment clarifies that the reference in clause 107(6) to section 3 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 is to the text as substituted by the Infrastructure Act 2015 and not the original text. The original text still has effect in certain local authority areas to which the new text does not yet apply.
Clause 107, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 108 to 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Clause 116
Power of responsible body to appoint replacement
Amendment made: 225, in clause 116, page 109, line 13, after “1975” insert
“(as substituted by paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Infrastructure Act 2015)”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment clarifies that the reference in clause 116(4) to section 3 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 is to the text as substituted by the Infrastructure Act 2015 and not the original text. The original text still has effect in certain local authority areas to which the new text does not yet apply.
Clause 116, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 117 to 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121
Duty of responsible bodies to make annual return
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 121, page 111, line 17, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
I will be brief. This is a further clause concerning mays and musts. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge will be fascinated by this clause. He will observe that, in the clause, two musts are cancelled out by one may. The clause states that a designated body must make an annual return to the Secretary of State and that the annual return must give any information that is prescribed under subsection (4). However, that subsection states that the Secretary of State may by regulations make that provision in the first place. Basically, clause 121(1) and (3) put in two musts and, indeed, there are further musts below that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to reflect that in his calculations on these matters in the future. Perhaps there will be further opportunities to reflect further as the Bill progresses, but I do not want to press the amendment to a Division. I merely wish to point out that the musts and mays continue in substantial numbers as we progress through the Bill.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for welcoming the conservation covenant, and I am tempted to ask whether it has driven him to excitement.
Dr Whitehead
Steady on. I would not go quite that far. I am sort of elevated.
The Chair
Order. This is all very entertaining, but it is not getting us any further with the Bill.
Rebecca Pow
Sorry, Sir George. I could not resist it, because we were referring to the hon. Member’s excitement on Tuesday. I thank him for his proposed amendment.
Clause 121 places a duty on responsible bodies to make an annual return to the Secretary of State. The return must state whether they held any conservation covenants during the relevant period, the number of covenants and the area of land that each one covers. As the duty is already on the face of the Bill, in clause 121, no regulations will be needed to require responsible bodies to provide that information. However, conservation covenants are a tool that are intended to be used over the long term. It is therefore important that the Secretary of State should be able to obtain additional information in annual returns, if that proves necessary in the future.
Consequently, the clause also provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations about the annual returns. That power can be used, if needed, to require from responsible bodies more information than that already required by the Bill. I cannot anticipate at this point what such additional information might be, but any information required to be provided must be about, or connected with, the responsible body, its activities, any conservation covenant that it held during the relevant period, or the land covered by any such covenant.
As I have previously explained about similar amendments, it is therefore entirely appropriate to provide the Secretary of State with flexibility as to when and how the regulation-making provision is given effect. Primary legislation consistently takes such an approach to the balance between powers, which are mays, and duties, which are musts. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw what I think is just a probing amendment anyway.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 17
Application of Part 7 to Crown land
Rebecca Pow
I beg to move amendment 71, in schedule 17, page 222, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 223 and insert—
“Demesne land
3 (1) Where land belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Crown but is not held for an estate in fee simple absolute in possession—
(a) Her Majesty in right of the Crown is to be regarded for the purposes of Part 7 and this Schedule as holding an estate in fee simple absolute in possession in the land, and
(b) any estate granted or created out of the land is to be regarded for those purposes as derived from that estate in fee simple.
(2) The land referred to in sub-paragraph (1) does not include land which becomes subject to escheat on the determination of an estate in fee simple absolute in possession in the land if—
(a) it is land to which an obligation under a conservation covenant related when the estate determined, or
(b) it is not land to which such an obligation related at that time and Her Majesty in right of the Crown has not taken possession or control of the land, or entered into occupation of it.
Land subject to escheat
3A (1) This paragraph applies where land becomes subject to escheat on the determination of an estate in fee simple absolute in possession in land to which an obligation under a conservation covenant relates.
(2) The conservation covenant is not terminated on the determination of that estate, even though the appropriate authority has no liability in respect of the obligation unless and until the Crown—
(a) takes possession or control of the land, or enters into occupation of it, or
(b) becomes the holder of—
(i) an estate granted by the Crown out of the land, or
(ii) an estate in land derived (whether immediately or otherwise) from an estate falling within sub-paragraph (i).
(3) If the Crown takes possession or control of the land, or enters into occupation of it—
(a) the Crown is to be regarded for the purposes of Part 7 and this Schedule as holding an estate in fee simple in possession in the land, and
(b) that estate is to be regarded for those purposes as immediately derived from the determined estate.
(4) If the Crown grants an estate out of the land after having previously taken possession or control of the land, or entered into occupation of it, the estate is to be regarded for the purposes of Part 7 and this Schedule as immediately derived from the estate mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a).
(5) But if the Crown grants an estate out of the land without having previously taken possession or control of the land, or entered into occupation of it—
(a) the acts of the Crown in granting that estate are not to be regarded for the purposes of Part 7 and this Schedule as taking possession or control of the land, or entering into occupation of it, and
(b) the new estate is to be regarded for those purposes as immediately derived from the determined estate.
(6) In this paragraph and paragraph 3B ‘the Crown’ means Her Majesty in right of the Crown or of the Duchy of Lancaster, or the Duchy of Cornwall, as the case may be.
Bona vacantia
3B (1) This paragraph applies where an estate in land to which an obligation of the landowner under a conservation covenant relates vests in the Crown as bona vacantia.
(2) The appropriate authority has no liability in respect of the obligation in relation to any period before the Crown takes possession or control of the land or enters into occupation of it.”
This amendment replaces paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 17 with three new paragraphs. Paragraph 3A is new and deals with the application of Part 7 to land to which a conservation covenant relates which becomes subject to escheat to the Crown (for example where the land is disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy). Paragraphs 3 and 3B are derived from the current paragraph 3, subject to some minor changes arising from consideration of paragraph 3A.
This amendment ensures that conservation covenants survive when land passes to the Crown through a process known as escheat. Doing so provides consistency in our overall policy on conservation covenants, which is to ensure that they can continue to affect land when it changes hands. The Bill as introduced has the effect that conservation covenants survive when land passes to the Crown as bona vacantia, or ownerless property. Land passes on bona vacantia in various circumstances, such as—in some cases—when a person dies without a will. That actually happened to the house I bought: they could not find who the house was left to in a will, so it went to the Crown and was sold by auction. This Government amendment replicates that effect for land that passes to the Crown by virtue of a process known as escheat. That can happen in a range of circumstances—for example, when a liquidator disclaims freehold land that belonged to a company that is wound up. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, in those circumstances, the conservation covenant is not extinguished by the escheat of the land.
Amendment 71 agreed to.
Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 123 and 124 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 18 agreed to.
Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 187, in schedule 19, page 229, line 9, at end insert—
“provided that such regulations do not regress upon the scope or purpose of REACH regulations as applied prior to the amended regulations being enacted”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in schedule 19, page 229, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations made under this paragraph must not regress upon the protections or standards of any Article or Annex of the REACH Regulation.
(1B) Subject to sub-paragraph (1A), the Secretary of State—
(a) must make regulations under this paragraph to maintain, and
(b) may make regulations under this paragraph to exceed parity of all protections and standards of chemical regulation with any new or amended regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the regulation of chemicals.”
This amendment would set a minimum of protections under REACH and remove the possibility that a Secretary of State might lower standards than are in place currently, whilst reserving the right for them to set higher standards should they choose.
Amendment 198, in schedule 19, page 229, line 13, at end insert—
“both in general and, in particular, the precautionary principle referred to in Article 1(3).”
This amendment would require Ministers, in considering consistency with Article 1 of the REACH Regulation, to pay specific attention to the precautionary principle.
Amendment 174, in schedule 19, page 229, line 32, at end insert—
“provided that such regulations do not regress upon the scope or purpose of the REACH enforcement regulations as applied prior to the amended regulations being enacted”.
New clause 11—Ongoing relationship with EU-REACH—
“(1) The Secretary of State must not use regulations under Schedule 19 to diminish protections provided by REACH legislation.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations seek to maintain regulatory parity with any new or amended regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the regulation of chemicals after IP completion day.
(3) It is an objective of Her Majesty’s Government as part of any trade negotiations with the European Union to seek to secure associate membership of the European Chemicals Agency for the United Kingdom after IP completion day to enable it to continue to participate in the EU-REACH framework.
(4) Regulations under subsection (2) are subject to the affirmative procedure.
(5) In this section, ‘IP completion day’ has the same meaning as in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”
This new clause would require continued parity with REACH.
Dr Whitehead
As you have indicated, Sir George, amendment 187 is being dealt with alongside a number of other amendments, in my name and those of other Opposition Members, and a new clause, which we fully support, in the names of a number of Members who were on the Committee but are on it no longer.
Hon. Members will be aware that we have now moved away from conservation covenants, trees and biodiversity towards a very important new issue: chemical regulation, imports, exports and trading in this country post January 2021. The amendments, and indeed the schedule that they amend, deal with a particularly perverse decision by Her Majesty’s Government upon leaving the EU. They do not wish to have a negotiation or a discussion with the ECHA, the European Chemicals Agency, about associate membership of the agency, under which the REACH regulations—on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—sit, and I will come to that in a moment. Instead, they wish to wholly recreate a UK series of REACH regulations to be regulated by the Health and Safety Executive rather than the ECHA.
The REACH regulations are one of the substantial achievements of the EU. They are a series of regulations that comprehensively sort out the transportation, trade, appearance on particular markets, and safety of chemicals across the EU. They also provide a comprehensive regime for identifying chemicals—a sort of institutional memory of what has gone on with chemicals. Companies that deal with chemicals have to systematically provide additions to the European database of chemicals, which now stands at something like 23,000 different chemicals. That database is available to all EU member states to inform their policies relating to what they consider acceptable for chemical trade and chemicals landing in their countries, what they can avoid bringing into their countries, and what safety regulations should be applied to the chemicals. All of that has a tremendously advantageous effect on how we steward our environment.
I would go so far as to say that the REACH regulations have played a tremendous role in protecting Europe from all sorts of chemical harm, chemical malpractice and dumping of chemicals in markets an. It is generally environmentally advantageous to have regulations in such a good form, in such a comprehensive way and available for all to look at.
I might add that the REACH regulations were brought about in the EU substantially through the agency of the UK. It was UK regulations and the advance of the situation that we had in the UK at the time that persuaded those involved and assisted the development of the REACH regulations. What we did for European chemical safety is something we can proud of.
One might think that one threw all that away at one’s peril, but that is precisely what the Government have just done. They have decided that, despite quite strong indications that the UK could have engineered an associate relationship with the ECHA. The EU would have been happy for that to proceed, not least because a close, harmonious relationship in dealing with activities relating to various chemicals across Europe is a great advantage for everybody across Europe. Close harmony on chemical standards is beneficial all round. Frankly, the Government have made a perverse decision, which I cannot fully understand, to effectively completely recreate everything that was in EU REACH on a free-standing basis, subsequent to the HSE in the UK.
Ruth Jones
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and important point from a safety perspective. Does he agree that it is odd that the Government have yet to provide a single good practical reason or advantage for severing ties with the world-leading EU chemicals system?
Dr Whitehead
Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right. I have not found anyone who has said what the reason is for doing it. On the contrary, every professional body and every joint industry body in this country—all the bodies concerned with chemicals; there is not one dissenter—has said that a close relationship with the EU and a continuing close association with or within the REACH regulations would be immeasurably to the UK’s advantage, and, indeed, would be an advantage all round.
Hon. Members might say, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” because the estimated cost of the industry variously accommodating itself to the new duplicate regulations in the way that is proposed is about £1 billion. That is damaging to our economy, and needless expenditure for a lot of people. Not only that, but it is needless expenditure for what appears to be, in the Bill at the moment, a substantially deficient system in the UK.
Among other things, the suggested system does not take account of a lot of the checks and balances and arrangements in the original REACH articles, which we will come to later. The database that I have talked about, if it is recreated in the UK, will take an estimated six, seven or eight years to get to a position where it will be even remotely comprehensive regarding chemical lists. Again, that is a huge amount of work for no purpose, other than us apparently having a sovereign REACH—now known in the trade as British REACH or BREACH. I think that describes fairly well what it looks like there will be in the UK REACH arrangements as set out in the Bill.
The amendments that we will put forward this afternoon would not on their own make up for the Government’s calamitous decision to go their own way on REACH in the UK, but would at least ameliorate some of the worst effects of that changeover. I will not speak to the amendments in the first group individually, but they seek, in different ways, to try to make sure that the starting point for UK REACH is that we do not, at least consciously, regress from what there was before, so that its starting framework is as close as possible, including those articles, to what REACH consists of at the moment. Yes, that does mean we would be duplicating something, but at least it would be duplicated properly, with a number of safeguards and checks and balances. I will come later to protected and non-protected articles, which, frankly, the Government appear to want to play games with.
The Chair
I can put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest. His memory was not defective: he has attached his name to new clause 11.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. Like him, I take this whole area extremely seriously. It is imperative that we establish our own independent chemicals regulatory framework for Great Britain, UK REACH, and that we do not diverge in terms of our standards. I must say that EU REACH will continue to apply in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol.
We are absolutely committed to maintaining high standards of protection for the environment, consumers and workers, but we want the autonomy to decide how best to achieve that for Great Britain. We will consider the best ideas from both inside and outside the EU, alongside the best evidence within the UK, but there are no plans to diverge from EU REACH for the sake of it.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we were instrumental in designing the whole process in the first place, which we kicked off during our presidency in 1990. That should provide some reassurance about how seriously we take this and how there is no intention to regress. I assure stakeholders that our regulatory system will be developed and managed in line with what is best for the UK and reflect our commitment to high levels of environmental protections.
I understand what hon. Members are aiming for in amendments 187, 3, 198 and 174 and new clause 11 as regards not reducing standards of protection, but I do not believe that the amendments are necessary. There are already a number of safeguards in schedule 19. Any changes to REACH must be consistent with article 1, which includes the purpose of ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment. We are not moving away from that and schedule 19 clarifies that.
There are 23 protected provisions—principles that cannot be changed. These include provisions relating to the fundamental principles of REACH, such as the progressive replacement of substances of very high concern. I think the hon. Member is going to deal with those shortly, so I will not go into any more detail about them yet. The Secretary of State must also consult on any proposed amendments and obtain the consent of the devolved Administrations in respect of devolved matters.
I particularly do not agree with amendment 3 or new clause 11(2). What they seek to do is impose dynamic alignment with the EU going forward. They would lock the UK into the EU’s orbit. We must be able to follow the evidence and have the freedom to adopt approaches that are the most appropriate for us. We should be able to look inside this country and elsewhere in the world, not just in the EU, for the best ideas.
New clause 11 goes further still. It would require the Government to seek to negotiate associate membership of the European Chemicals Agency, ECHA. We continue to push for a chemicals annex to a free trade agreement to enable data sharing, but the Government have been clear that the UK will not agree to any outcomes that bring with them an obligation to align with EU laws or give jurisdiction to any EU institutions, including EU agencies or the European Court of Justice. Associate membership of ECHA would bring all of those consequences with it.
Dr Whitehead
I want to tease out what the Minister is saying about the fact that there is a proposal to try to get some data sharing under way with the EU. I presume she is referring to access to the wonderful database of 23,000 products that ECHA controls. The Minister appears to be saying, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we had access to that database, without any of the obligations that go with maintaining the database in the first place?” I would not have thought it likely that anyone would agree to that in a hurry. Would she agree with it, if it were the other way around? I do not think so. Surely that is not a serious proposal and should only go ahead on the basis that some sort of obligation sharing was also part of the offer.
Rebecca Pow
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that long intervention.
Rebecca Pow
It was short for the shadow Minister. The Government’s approach to negotiating a future relationship with the EU includes a proposal for a chemicals annex as part of the EU free trade agreement. I thought the hon. Member for Southampton, Test might welcome that. A deal on data sharing with the EU could mitigate the need for industry to provide full-data packages. If that were to happen, we would be responsible for the updating of this as it went along. That is a clear direction of travel.
We continue to push for that, but the EU continues to reject any sectoral annexes. However, securing the chemicals annex is still our preferred outcome. It would obviously be in the interests of both UK and EU businesses, including those that will want to continue selling their chemicals into the GB market. The EU must, though, respect the UK’s position on no ECJ jurisdiction and no alignment.
As regards amendment 198, I recognise the importance of the precautionary principle for each, but I do not believe the amendment is necessary or desirable. Article 1 states that REACH is underpinned by the precautionary principle: that means that it is firmly bound into the safeguards I have already described. However, emphasising the precautionary principle could also have unintended consequences. It risks creating uncertainty about how to interpret article 1 as a whole. This is because article 1 sets out a series of overarching aims for REACH, as well as underpinning it with the precautionary principle, so I do not believe that such a consequence would be desirable.
Amendment 174 moves on from REACH itself to the UK REACH enforcement regulations. Paragraph 2(2) of schedule 19 says that any amendments must be “necessary or appropriate” for the enforcement of REACH. Taken with the protections in paragraph 1 of the schedule, I believe we are already providing what the hon. Member actually wants. There is a lot of detail there, but I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw these amendments.
Dr Whitehead
Well, the hon. Member is certainly not going to withdraw these amendments, because we think they are crucial to the establishment of any reasonable REACH regime in the UK. In a minute, we will come to some further particularly bad elements of schedule 19, which even allow the Secretary of State to chip away at protected areas that are in that schedule in the first place. What we are doing is laying down a marker that seeks to hold a line somewhere, as far as diminution and dilution of REACH regulations in future are concerned, so it is important that we put these amendments to a Division. We would particularly like to ensure that amendments 187, 198 and 174 and proposed new clause 11 are all recorded as a divided vote this afternoon.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 107, in schedule 19, page 229, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
This amendment removes the high degree of discretion when setting REACH Chemical regulations afforded the Secretary of State by Clause 127 in the Bill. Without this amendment the Secretary of State is able to make wide provisions to chemical regulations.
This amendment illustrates the continuing problem we perceive with the way that the REACH regulations— or the breach regulations, as I call them—are to be set out in the Bill and implemented as the new regime. Paragraph 1(3) of schedule 19 refers to
“protected provision of the REACH Regulation”,
which are set out in the schedule. Having indicated that there are protected provisions in the REACH regulations, sub-paragraph (4) states that there is nothing to
“prevent any protected provision…being amended by provision made under this paragraph by virtue of section 127(1)(a).”
What appears to be the case here is like other elements of the Bill. The protected provisions of the REACH regulations under paragraph 6 of the schedule include the articles that deal with its principles and scope, animal testing, information for workers, and so on. By the way, we shall later consider the fact that a number of the articles that we think should be protected do not appear in the list, and our amendments would include them in it. However, we must first address the point that the list, even once it is agreed, seems to be infinitely malleable.
I wonder what is the purpose of our agreeing the protected list this afternoon if there will continue to be a sub-paragraph in the schedule stating that if someone decides in future that they do not particularly like it, they can zap particular protected provisions, which will no longer be protected. That is a rather cavalier way, at the very least, of going about translating protections that were in the REACH regulations into a UK equivalent. It must be apparent to anyone that the measure is not, aside from the good intentions of present Ministers, worth the paper it is written on for recreating a REACH regime with similar standards to the previous EU ones.
If paragraph 1(4) is left in the schedule, we will simply be digging a hole in which to bury the protected clauses for the future. They will not really be protected, and we shall not be able to refer to them in the long term as the substance of the REACH regulations in the UK. The amendment would simply remove the sub-paragraph so that the protected provisions would actually be protected, as they should be. The Secretary of State would not have the ability to remove the protected articles.
The Minister has already referred to several assurances that can be based on the fact that article 1 is protected. It is, indeed, in the list of protected articles, but it is not exempt from the Secretary of State’s ability to remove articles. It is nonsense, to be honest, and pretty shabby nonsense, looked at in any reasonable way.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. I find myself wondering what he thinks the purpose of all that is. He sets out clearly that the protections we have now can be swept away. Who benefits from that?
Dr Whitehead
I presume it would be someone at a future date who did not particularly like the idea that we should have high standards of chemical protection, perhaps because they thought we should have a let-it-all-hang-out, free trade, laissez-faire arrangement that would let all sorts of stuff come in from all over the world that was not subject to that high standard of chemical protection—someone who would be quite happy for those items to flood into the country at a future date—and there would be nothing we could do about it, because our protections would have been knocked over by our own Government.
Rebecca Pow
Amendment 107 relates to provisions that are listed in the table in paragraph 6 of schedule 19. If I hold up my copy of the Bill—it is slightly disintegrating through overuse—Members will see that I have highlighted the table, which lists different articles relating to the protected provisions. I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test about the importance of the provisions, which enshrine the fundamental aims and principles of REACH. That is why we have set out a sizeable list of them and they will not change.
It may be helpful if I explain the reason for sub-paragraph (4). An ability to make
“supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving”
provisions is a standard provision in legislation. The aim is to make sure we avoid inconsistencies, discrepancies or overlaps developing in the statute book, but it would not enable us to make wholesale changes to the protected provisions. I honestly believe that the hon. Gentleman is seeing shadows. He is seeing malign opportunities and things that will occur in the future, when they are not there.
Article 1 of the REACH provisions, on aim and scope, sets out the purpose as ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment, promoting alternatives to animal testing and the principles that are primarily responsible for the chemicals that are sold and used. REACH is underpinned by the precautionary principle.
I want to pick out a number of the provisions—hon. Members may wish to turn to page 231 of the Bill. Article 5 is on the “no data, no market” principle. Access to the market is dependent on registering the chemical with the Health and Safety Executive. Article 25(1) is the principle that animal testing should be carried out only as a last resort. Article 35 covers the right of workers to access information received by their employers concerning the safety of chemical substances or mixtures. Article 55 covers the aim of the authorisation process to progressively replace substances of very high concern. Article 4A covers the principle that decisions that affect devolved matters can be taken only with the consent of devolved Administrations. Article 109 covers the duty on HSE to adopt operational rules to ensure transparency in matters of chemical safety. None of those things is going to change. They are all in there. The annexes are included among the protected provisions, as REACH already contains all the necessary powers to amend them. Duplicating powers in the Bill would cause legal confusion and uncertainty.
I want to give an explanation of where a little bit of tweaking might be required, as an example of how we could use the consequential amendment power, which I think is what the hon. Gentleman is worried about. One of the REACH protected provisions, article 35, states that workers and their representatives shall be granted access by their employer to the information they receive on chemical safety under articles 31 and 32. However, articles 31 and 32 apply only to substances such as individual chemicals and mixtures of chemicals—for example, commercial preparations such as paints and cleaning fluids. They do not apply to substances in what are called articles—for example, toxic heavy metals that might have been used in a piece of electronic equipment. The worker does not have that knowledge at this date in time.
If we decided to expand articles 31 and 32, so that information on dangerous substances in items such as electrical products must be sent down the supply chain, we would want to make consequential amendments to article 35, so that workers would have the right to access that information. As we gather more evidence and science moves on, more comes to light about all those different chemicals and whether, for example, something used in my hairdryer, which I use every other day, is damaging me. We want the right to amend that so that the people who produce those items, and everybody else, would know.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister is making quite a substantial case. She is stating that the apparent contradiction between paragraphs 1(3) and 1(4) of schedule 19 is resolved by reference to clause 127(1)(a), which includes
“supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision”,
meaning that those protected articles could be amended so that, at a subsequent date, they would do what they are supposed to do rather better. Clause 127(1)(b), however, states:
“A power to make regulations under any provision of this Act includes power to make…different provision for different purposes or areas.”
Will the Minister explain how that complete power to do something different if she feels like it does not undermine the idea that amendments should only be
“supplementary, incidental, transition or saving provision”?
The Chair
Order. I have been very tolerant of the length of interventions, because I genuinely believe that sometimes an intervention can help to progress the discussion. I make no criticism of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, but I hope that future interventions will be kept to a single point and will be as brief as possible.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you, Sir George. It was a detailed intervention. I reiterate what I said about the purpose of the consequential amendments and how useful they will be. I will not run through the whole example again, but there are others like it. Those provisions are in the Bill with a view to protecting people, not to undermine or regress.
Richard Graham
I was not going to come in on the point about hairdryers, which we do not all use. The general element of scaremongering from the Opposition effectively amounts to a feeling that once we are out of reach of the REACH regulation, we are going to be vulnerable to all sorts of horrors. In fact, pages 187 and 188 of the explanatory notes are clear that the Bill allows the Secretary of State the future power to amend the REACH regulation, but only in very specific ways, and almost everything currently in those regulations will be recreated under a UK banner. Does the Minister agree that we should be more confident of what the future will look like?
Rebecca Pow
I wholeheartedly agree. That is what I was trying to get at in the beginning: given that we basically helped to set up those regulations in the first place, we are hardly likely to want to lower standards. Indeed, I would say that we might want to raise them. That will all have to be done on the advice of the experts and the rest. We have no intention whatsoever of lowering our standards.
Ruth Jones
The Minister says that the Government have no intention of lowering standards, but the ECHA—the European Chemicals Agency—has an annual budget of approximately £100 million and 400 staff, while the Government have promised only £13 million to cover those costs. How can that be commensurate with the protection that we need?
Rebecca Pow
In the chuntering from the Back Benches, some sensible points are being made. Work is ongoing, but given that we were so influential on this in the first place, we have a lot of specialists and experts who are and will be engaged in setting up the system.
I am going to wind up now, Sir George. I think I have addressed all the points I wanted to address, and given quite a detailed explanation. I ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test if he will kindly withdraw amendment 107, but I am not holding out much hope.
Dr Whitehead
We will not withdraw this amendment. The Minister’s attempted explanation has increased our resolve, because I do not think it took account of what is in the legislation. By the way, explanatory notes are not legislation—we ought to bear that in mind.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 227, in schedule 19, page 231, line 22, at end insert
“and take account of all relevant scientific evidence and advice through the Agency’s science advice mechanisms”.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State and any relevant devolved authority to take into account the relevant independent scientific advice when making decisions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 228, in schedule 19, page 231, line 30, at end insert
“take account of all relevant scientific evidence and advice through the Agency’s science advice mechanisms, and”.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State and any relevant devolved authority to take into account the relevant independent scientific advice when making decisions.
Dr Whitehead
These two amendments are what one might call blindingly obvious amendments. They seek to ensure that, before making regulations, the Secretary of State should not only consult with the bodies and persons indicated, but
“take account of all relevant scientific evidence and advice through the Agency’s science advice mechanisms”.
Be guided by the science, quite simply. That might be quite important in terms of some of our concerns about other clauses.
That is why we have tabled the amendments. I fear that they will not get a very positive hearing, but I feel sure that the Minister will agree with the sentiments behind them. I would not like us to end up as Trumptown-on-Sea and go in the opposite direction. I offer the amendments for the purpose of elucidation. We think that it is a very important principle, albeit a rather obvious one, and will therefore divide the Committee if the Minister is unable to take the amendments on board. It would be nice if she took some amendments on board, given that they are meant in the best possible way, but I fear that that will not be the case.
Rebecca Pow
I understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled amendments 227 and 228. It is obviously really important that decisions in the field of chemicals regulation are based on strong science and robust evidence. That is a no-brainer. That is why any proposals to amend REACH in the future must be subject to consultation, and the agency in particular must always be consulted. We are absolutely in agreement on that. It is up to the agency to decide how to mobilise its various scientific advice mechanisms and then reflect the opinions that emerge in its consultation response. That is the role of the Health and Safety Executive, as it has the necessary expertise and experience. The Government will of course take the agency’s considered advice into account.
To that extent the amendment is necessary, but it goes beyond that, requiring the Government to go back and take those opinions into account directly. That would require the Secretary of State to bypass the agency’s expert assessment and potentially replace it with his own interpretation. Perhaps the current Secretary of State would be quite capable of that, but who is going to come along afterwards? We do not want that to happen, and I do not believe that it would be a desirable outcome or a good use of HSE’s scientific expertise.
Amendment 228 has the same aim, but in respect of the REACH enforcement regulations. Again, I understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled the amendment. Obviously, I absolutely agree with him about the importance of science and the evidence, but the amendment risks the same undesirable consequences as amendment 227. I am sure that that is not really his intention, and therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I am sorry to have to do this again, but we do not think that such an obvious addition can be subject to the undesirable side-effects in the way that the Minister describes. We think that the amendments should simply be added to the Bill and we wish to emphasise that by dividing the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 229, in schedule 19, page 231, line 31, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State, or any relevant devolved authority, shall make transparent the reasons for all decisions taken under this regulation by publishing this information in the public domain.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State, or any relevant devolved authority, to publish an explanation as to how they reached a decision.
Although the amendments are set out for individual debate, they all refer in one way or another to a requirement to operate the UK REACH regulations transparently, publicly and openly. They mandate giving access to information by providing requirements to publish and for Ministers to report. Later amendments address the question of why the elements that are in the REACH articles at the moment are not included in the protected articles that the Minister has already talked about—articles concerned with the right to know, the publication of material and so on.
The question we want to ask through these amendments is related to basic issues around transporting chemicals, the harm that they might do and what might happen to people if they ingest products that have not been properly certified—all those things. Why are protections in terms of the publication of documents or decisions and the public right to have access to the decision-making process all missing from this part of the Bill? I would have thought that the Minister would agree that they should be present in some form or other. I do not know whether it has just been overlooked or whether there is any reason—I am jumping forward a little—why the very good protections in terms of transparency, public access and so on in the original REACH articles should not be translated directly into protected articles in the UK.
We will seek to divide the Committee on some of the amendments. In different ways, they are designed to place in the UK REACH regulations those issues of the right to know, public access and the interrogation of decisions. I am sorry that they are not in there. They should be. I do not think, Sir George, that we need separate debates on all these amendments, because they all address that principle in different ways and, for that reason, they should all be supported.
The Chair
I will have to take the further amendments the hon. Gentleman refers to, because they are all on the amendment paper, but if Members do not want to proceed with them, that is relatively easily dealt with—if nobody wishes to speak to them or move them, they effectively fall.
Rebecca Pow
I understand why the hon. Member for Southampton, Test tabled amendment 229, which I will talk to now. The amendment calls for transparency in decision making, which I completely support, but I do not think that the amendment is necessary. There must be consultation on any proposals under these provisions, as set out in paragraph 5 of schedule 19. The timely publication of responses is a fundamental part of the Government’s consultation principles. Any legislative changes as a result of that consultation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which gives the opportunity for explanation and scrutiny, which I know the hon. Gentleman will welcome.
There is an important difference in procedure between the powers in the Bill and decision making under REACH. The Secretary of State’s decisions under REACH are given effect through a statutory instrument using the negative procedure or through Executive action, whereas powers in the Bill are exercised through the affirmative procedure, with the higher levels of explanation and scrutiny that that entails. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I am anxious not to overthrow procedure completely, but it might be acceptable to the Committee if we were able to indicate that we would, in principle, wish to divide the Committee on a number of amendments that we feel particularly strongly about, without actually proceeding to divide the Committee. Might the Committee think that that was an acceptable procedure at this time in the afternoon?
The Chair
I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman proposes. Can he be a bit clearer?
Dr Whitehead
Yes, I can. We face a debate on essentially the same points about transparency, public access and so on, which we feel strongly about. We particularly want the Minister to explain why articles are missing from that list of potential REACH articles. We may have a brief debate about that subsequently. However, we intend, in principle, to divide the Committee on all these amendments, which would of course take quite a while to complete. However, if we were able to state that, in principle, we wish to divide the Committee on those amendments, we could perhaps have an indicative Division on this this particular amendment.
The Chair
I think I now understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It would be an ingenious new addition to the rules of the House, but I am afraid that that is way above my pay grade.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir George. Would it be helpful to suggest to the shadow Minister that we debate the current amendment, but that he does not press the subsequent amendments to a Division?
The Chair
The situation is straightforward. If the hon. Member for Southampton, Test wants to make his point about the issue, the best way to do it is to have a Division on the lead amendment. When we come to the subsequent amendments, it is a question of saying, “Not moved,” or of saying, “Moved formally” and we will then take a vote. There will have to be some sort of Division, but the hon. Member for Southampton, Test does not have to take part in it if he feels that the point he is trying to make has already been established with regard to the lead amendment.
Dr Whitehead
Thank you, Sir George. We wish to seek a Division on this amendment, and we may seek a Division on subsequent lead amendments when they come up.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 108, in schedule 19, page 231, line 37, at end insert—
“Article 13 (General requirements for generation of information on intrinsic properties of substances)”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 109, in schedule 19, page 231, line 38, at end insert—
“Article 26 (Duty to inquire prior to registration)
Article 27 (Sharing of existing data in the case of registered substances)
Article 30 (sharing of information involving tests)”.
Amendment 176, in schedule 19, page 231, line 38, at end insert—
“Articles 32, 33 and 34 (communication in the supply chain & a right to know for consumers)”.
This amendment includes Article 32, 33 and 34 of REACH (communication in the supply chain & a right to know for consumers) in the “protected provisions” that may not be amended under Schedule 19.
Amendment 110, in schedule 19, page 231, line 39, at end insert—
“Article 40(2) (third party information)”.
Amendment 111, in schedule 19, page 232, line 25, at end insert—
“save insofar as they contain endpoints for tests using animals”.
Dr Whitehead
As I said, these amendments deal with elements of the REACH articles as they stand that we would seek to be protected in the translation into UK jurisdiction. We are concerned that the articles mentioned in the amendments have been left out, all of which are concerned, one way or another, with public access, the right to know and transparency. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney may say a few words on that in a minute, so I will restrict my remarks to that.
I also indicate to you, Sir George, that although we would in principle seek to divide on all the amendments if the Minister is not able to accept them or to give a fully satisfactory explanation, we will seek to divide on the lead amendment only.
Fleur Anderson
The Bill gives the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the power to amend UK REACH and the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008—REACH being the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, for the benefit of those reading in Hansard. However, specified elements of REACH are excluded, as we said earlier, from the Secretary of State’s amending power. We are referred to the table that the Minister mentioned earlier and told, “It is all there and included.” It is not all there and included.
We would like to highlight some articles that have not been included in the protected provisions—specifically, article 13 in amendment 108, articles 26, 27 and 30 in amendment 109 and—an interesting set of articles—articles 32, 33 and 34 in amendment 176, which are highly important to the REACH regulations actually working for consumers and those within the supply chain of chemicals. The provisions refer to everyday products that we and our constituents would all use, including paints, cleaning products, clothes, furniture, electrical appliances and, as already mentioned, hairdryers.
In article 32, which I would argue should be a protected principle, there is the duty to communicate information down the supply chain free of charge and without delay. In article 33, the duty is to communicate information on substances in articles for the consumer free of charge within 45 days. In article 34, the duty is to communicate information on substances and preparations up the supply chain.
There are duties up the supply chain, down the supply chain and to the consumer. That is all protected, and it absolutely should happen to ensure that, as the Minister has said, when more information, science and data come to light as we go along with new products and chemicals, the consumer and all of those in the supply chain have a right to know what that new information is, and what is up and down the supply chain. The consumer should know what is in the products that we consume.
Under article 33, suppliers of articles that contain a substance of very high concern are required to provide sufficient information in response to consumer requests about those products to allow their safe use, including disclosing the name of the substance that is used. However, that will be taken out of a protected requirement. There are substances that, for example, meet the criteria for classification as carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic to reproduction and persistent bioaccumulative toxic. This is an essential public policy safeguard, and it is unclear why the Government wish to exclude it from the list of protected provisions. Other things are included in that list. It is seen as beneficial to have a list of protected provisions. Why are those provisions not protected?
That is the question we are asking by tabling these amendments. We are saying that it is important to the whole of the REACH regulation that these things are included and cannot be subject to change by the Secretary of State.
Rebecca Pow
I thank hon. Members for amendments 108, 109, 176, 110 and 111. I understand the desire to protect further provisions of UK REACH in the Environment Bill. However, I do not believe that these amendments are necessary or, in many cases, desirable—shock, horror!
The protected provisions of REACH are intended to ensure that the fundamental principles of REACH cannot be changed, while allowing a flexibility to ensure UK REACH remains fit for purpose. The intention is not to freeze detailed processes. Any proposed amendments by the Secretary of State are subject to consultation, to the consent of the devolved Administrations in respect of devolved matters and to the affirmative procedure, ensuring a full debate in Parliament, which I know Opposition Members will welcome.
Amendment 108 applies to article 13 of REACH, which sets out detailed provisions about alternatives to animal testing, including when animal tests can be waived—I think the hon. Member for Putney was referring to that. She wants us to avoid unnecessary animal testing and to promote alternative approaches. We agree with that aim, but adding this article to the list of protected provisions could make that more difficult. For example, it could prevent us from extending the range of tests for animal testing that may be omitted where there is appropriate justification.
The same objections apply to the articles that would be affected by amendment 109, that is, articles 26, 27 and 30, and by amendment 176, that is, articles 32, 33 and 34. These articles are not just about the principles of information sharing. They also include prescriptive details about how information should be shared with the REACH supply chain and how the agency should deal with inquiries. We should not bind ourselves to these detailed procedures going forward but instead remain free to adopt new ways of working that draw on our experience of applying REACH in the UK. The whole idea is that we will improve and benefit.
Amendment 110 would protect REACH article 40(2). Again, the point is that we do not want to freeze the detail of how REACH operates. Instead, we need the flexibility to amend REACH, to ensure that it works for the UK. In this case, article 40(2) includes specific details, such as timescales for publishing information.
I do not believe that amendment 111 is necessary or desirable. I agree that we may consider it appropriate to amend the REACH annexes to drive the use of non-animal alternatives, but the power to amend the REACH annexes is already within REACH itself, which makes it unnecessary to add an overlapping power to the Bill.
I therefore ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to consider withdrawing his amendments.
Dr Whitehead
I think I have already indicated that although we do not wish to withdraw these amendments, we will seek—for the purpose of the record, as it were—an indicative division on amendment 108. However, the fact that we will not press all the subsequent amendments to a vote does not mean that we would not ideally like to divide on them. However, we are doing this for the sake of the comfort and sanity of the Committee this afternoon, and I hope that will be appreciated.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Before I put the question on amendment 109, which again was tabled by Dr Whitehead, I wonder if it would be helpful if I try to explain the hon. Gentleman can achieve what he wants to achieve. With advice, I think there are two options, which apply to amendments 109, 176 and 110. I take it that the hon. Gentleman, in principle, does not want to have a Division, but does not want to concede the principle; I think that that is approximately his position. When I call each amendment and he says, “Not moved”, then there would not be a Division. The other option is that he can move each amendment, but then simply remain silent when I put the question. So, when I say, “As many of that opinion say aye”, he should just not say anything and then there will not be a Division in that instance either. Those are the only two options available to the hon. Gentleman, so I will leave them with him. The advice I have given is intended to be helpful to him and to the Committee.
Amendment proposed: 109, in schedule 19, page 231, line 38, at end insert—
“Article 26 (Duty to inquire prior to registration)
Article 27 (Sharing of existing data in the case of registered substances)
Article 30 (sharing of information involving tests)”.—(Dr Whitehead.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Amendment proposed: 176, in schedule 19, page 231, line 38, at end insert—
“Articles 32, 33 and 34 (communication in the supply chain & a right to know for consumers)”.
This amendment includes Article 32, 33 and 34 of REACH (communication in the supply chain & a right to know for consumers) in the “protected provisions” that may not be amended under Schedule 19.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Amendment proposed: 110, in schedule 19, page 231, line 39, at end insert—
“Article 40(2) (third party information)”.—(Dr Whitehead.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Amendment proposed: 111, in schedule 19, page 232, line 25, at end insert—
“save insofar as they contain endpoints for tests using animals”.—(Dr Whitehead.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Schedule 19 agreed to.
Clause 126
Consequential provision
Amendments made: 58, in clause 126, page 113, line 28, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.
Amendment 59, in clause 126, page 113, line 36, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.
Amendment 60, in clause 126, page 113, line 37, leave out “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
Clause 126, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 127
Regulations
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 149, in clause 127, page 114, line 11, leave out subsection (1)(b).
I have alluded to this amendment previously. I must admit that, having read the clause on a number of occasions for different purposes, I cannot come to any other conclusion than that subsection (1)(b) is a serious attempt to destabilise what happens before it in the clause. One has to read it differently from common English to conclude that
“different provision for different purposes or areas”
means anything other than that the Minister can do what he or she wants. That should not have a place in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain briefly—I mean briefly—why that is in the Bill. We do not intend to divide the Committee, but we would like to hear something from the Minister to that purpose.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution on this matter. Clause 127 sets out the scope of regulation-making powers as well as the procedures to be used when making those regulations. Subsection (1)(b) makes it clear that regulations made under the Bill are able to make
“different provision for different purposes or areas.”
That is a standard provision that has been used for many years in any Bill that includes delegated powers. It is necessary to provide clarification as to the flexibility of the delegated powers. Different circumstances may require different provisions. The amendment would remove necessary, proportionate and appropriate flexibility from the delegated powers, making it more difficult to deliver the ambitions set out in the Bill, including setting targets, creating deposit return schemes or delivering biodiversity net gain. I hope that was brief enough to clarify what is meant. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 61, in clause 127, page 114, leave out line 32 and insert “Senedd Cymru”
See Amendment 28.
Amendment 62, in clause 127, page 114, line 35, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
Clause 127, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 128 and 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned—(Leo Docherty.)
Environment Bill (Twentieth sitting)
Tuesday 24th November 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 November 2020 - (24 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
This may be entirely disorderly, but to give the shadow Minister time to collect his thoughts, I am delighted to be able to advise the Committee that my first grandson, Frederick Evelyn Gray Barker, was born this morning at 6 o’clock. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is something that can go into Hansard and it can be put on his nursery wall.
Clause 130
Extent
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move amendment 231, in clause 130, page 116, line 31, at end insert
“except that section (Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity) and Schedule (Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity) (use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity) extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”
This amendment provides that NC31 and NS1 extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 31—Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity.
Government new schedule 1—Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity.
Rebecca Pow
May I be the first to congratulate you on becoming a grandfather, Mr Gray, and to welcome Frederick to the world? He has arrived on a really auspicious day for our global footprint. I hope that he will be very proud when he is a bit more grown-up and reads in Hansard what his grandpa said—hopefully he might just read long enough to read this speech as well. I think that he will be rather proud also that his grandpa was part of this Committee.
Rebecca Pow
I am delighted to discuss amendment 231, new clause 31 and new schedule 1. Consumers in this country are increasingly concerned that they are contributing to environmental destruction overseas, and they are right to be concerned: almost 80% of deforestation is caused by agriculture, including produce that we use here in the UK. Globally, half of all recent tropical deforestation was the result of illegal clearance for commercial agriculture and timber plantations. Shockingly, the figure increases to 90% in some of the world’s most biodiverse forests, including parts of the Amazon.
We will be the first country in the world to legislate to tackle this illegal deforestation by setting a framework of requirements on business. Businesses will be prohibited from using forest risk commodities produced on land that was illegally occupied or used. They will be required to establish a due diligence system for regulated commodities to ensure that their supply chains do not support illegal deforestation, and will have to report annually on that exercise. If businesses do not comply, they should be subject to fines. The measures will extend across the whole of the UK, so that we can work across our nations to tackle illegal deforestation.
As the first country in the world to legislate on this issue, we want to continue to lead the way internationally. Therefore, the measures also require us to review the law’s effectiveness every two years. The review will set out any steps that we intend to take as a result, ensuring that we will take action if we do not see progress. The enabling powers in the framework allow us to adjust certain aspects as deforestation patterns change and technology advances.
The law before us today is not only a win for the environment. It is a win for UK consumers, who will have confidence that the food they eat and the products they use have been produced responsibly. It is a win for responsible businesses in the UK, which will no longer be undercut by those who do not follow the rules. And it is a win for our international partners in producer countries, because this approach will deliver for trade and economic development as well as for the environment. We have seen that in Indonesia, where the introduction of a timber licensing scheme meant that confidence in the provenance of its timber grew, leading to an increase in trade. The value of Indonesia’s worldwide exports of timber products doubled from $6 billion in 2013 to nearly $12 billion in 2019.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
As the Prime Minister’s trade envoy for Indonesia, I had the great pleasure of working closely with colleagues from the Department for International Development and in our embassy in Jakarta on helping the Indonesians to find a solution to what was a significant problem for them. Does the Minister agree with me that this measure shows what the UK can do abroad on our environmental policies, as well as at home?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend so much for his intervention, because he is right to point that out. I must applaud him for the work he did with the UK Government. It was a tricky issue. Timber is an important export for Indonesia, but that must not come at the expense of cutting down its precious rainforests and other forests, with all the knock-on effects that brings for the wider environment. We have the solution for timber, with sustainable timber regulations sorted out, and we are now working on other products. My hon. Friend is right to point out how beneficial that can be all around, with the knock-on effects, and I thank him for that.
As a result of that work in Indonesia, the amount of money made went up, as I said, and deforestation rates were three times lower in areas producing timber covered by the scheme than in other areas, so it worked all around. That shows how driving demand for sustainable products helps not just the people there but nature and the climate—it is an all-round win.
I assure the Committee that the Government intend to move swiftly to bring legislation forward and will lay the necessary secondary legislation shortly after COP26, which we will hold in Glasgow next November. We will consult again to gather views as we develop secondary legislation, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise many of the regulations.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
At the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr Gray, I will add my congratulations to those of the Minister on the birth of your grandson. I observe that your grandson shares a name with an esteemed public servant in my city of Southampton, and I trust he will live up to the achievements of that individual even if he does not indeed pursue a great career in environmental conservation and management, which perhaps would be appropriate to today’s proceedings. That is all I am going to say.
The Chair
Order. I am most grateful to everyone, but no more congratulations. Thank you. But he was born in Brighton, just down the road from Southampton, so pretty close by.
Dr Whitehead
There we are: the coincidences are raining on each other now.
The Government new clause and new schedule represent a tremendous step forward in action not only in the UK but, as the hon. Member for Gloucester said, abroad. That demonstrates how we can reach beyond our shores in environmental protection and action, as well as in due diligence for conservation, environmental management and climate change purposes. The Opposition wholly welcome these measures. However, why were they so late in coming?
I think we can claim we nudged the Government a little in that direction, because our due diligence new clause, which we will discuss later, is about the wider subject that the Minister mentioned in her remarks and points the way. We hope that the Government will go beyond forestry products and into other areas. We tabled our new clause, which substantially anticipated the Government’s action, before Parliament went into recess for the lockdown. Can the Minister reflect on why these measures were as late as they were? In her opinion, did the nudging of not only Labour but also a large number of national and international environmental groups, who banded together to develop the due diligence way of doing things, have a substantial hand in making sure—albeit a little late in the day—that these new clauses came into being? It was just in time because the Bill will now have these clauses in it, and I hope they will fully survive the rigours of the Bill’s passage through the House and come to be a substantial part of it. I think it will be a very welcome and progressive part of the Bill.
Rebecca Pow
I welcome the fact that the Opposition are in agreement and welcome this. Nobody in their right minds would think this is a bad idea. I welcome that and we do share a good relationship, so I thank them for that. Yes, the amendment was tabled and we all listened to it, and indeed we had plenty of people on our side pushing for it as well. This is a global issue. Let us tackle it together globally, which I think the hon. Gentleman will agree is what we are doing.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
While we are singing from the same hymn sheet and all in harmony, would the Minister agree with over 90% of respondents to the public consultation—there were 63,000 respondents, which is a fantastic result— who felt the legislation could go further and that local law should be strengthened?
Rebecca Pow
A great deal of consultation went into this and all of those views were looked at, and then it was considered what would be the best and most positive way forward. Tackling this issue is not straightforward and requires dealing with other governments around the world. One has to tread a careful path, and I believe we have come up with a really workable solution.
To answer the comment by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test about why we did not do this more quickly, the consultation took a long time and we had to take into account a great many views and discussions. We must remember that a lot of this originated from the work done by Sir Ian Cheshire and the Global Resource Initiative. We referenced that way back in March, when I was being asked why the Government were not doing this fast enough. We had the GRI’s summary and we were working up how we could continue to work from its recommendations. That is where we engaged with so many NGOs, particularly the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and WWF, because they are valued partners with a great deal of experience. They have been helpful in inputting into what we have come up with. I hope that is helpful to the shadow Minister and I think we will have a bit more discussion about this later, but I will leave it there.
Amendment 231 agreed to.
Clause 130, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 131
Commencement
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 131, page 117, line 21, leave out “on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint” and insert
“at the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.
This amendment seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from choosing not to enact parts of the Bill. Currently multiple provisions including the whole of Part 1 (environmental governance), Part 6 (nature and biodiversity) and Part 7 (Conservation Covenants) could never be enacted, even after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 151, in clause 131, page 118, line 2, leave out “on such day as the Welsh Ministers may by regulations appoint” and insert
“at the end of a period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.
Amendment 152, in clause 131, page 118, line 23, leave out “on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations appoint” and insert
“at the end of a period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.
Amendment 153, in clause 131, page 118, line 29, leave out “on such day as the Department of Agriculture Environment and Rural affairs in Northern Ireland may appoint” and insert
“at the end of a period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.
Dr Whitehead
The amendments all essentially say the same thing, but face towards different Secretaries of State. They refer to the back of the Bill, which we are now considering. I recommend to those Members who perhaps have not ventured to look at the backs of Bills to any great extent in their time in this House to have a good look at the back of this Bill and any Bill that comes before the House. If hon. Members are on Committees on future Bills, it is always worth having a look at the back of the Bill to see what is intended for all the legislation that has been drafted and discussed assiduously. What I mean by that is that the back of the Bill is where things actually happen or do not.
For this Bill, it is more than important that what we have discussed and made passionate speeches about actually happens, and the provisions come into force in good time, so that our intentions are carried out. The problem with intentions on many occasions is that they are not actually reflected on the back of the Bill. What happens is that the ability to implement a part of the legislation is reserved to the Minister by regulation. For people who want to take their search of the back of the Bill seriously, the statute books apparently include a large amount of legislation which just has not been enacted—a complete education Bill, for example, from a while ago. None of it has been enacted, because what is on the back of the Bill has simply not taken place.
I mentioned earlier the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets regulations and the Energy Act 2013. Why is that important? Well, part 5 of the 2013 Act, as hon. Members will recall, was about the designation of a statement on policy for Ofgem, concerning the environment and climate change. We tabled an amendment suggesting that the Government should press Ofgem to revise its mandate to ensure that it has the environment and climate change at its heart. What hon. Members might be surprised to know, and I do not recall if it was specifically mentioned when we moved that amendment, is that already in legislation is a complete section of a Bill—not just a clause—saying that the Government should introduce a strategy and policy statement requiring Ofgem to have an environmental and climate change brief.
That was agreed by a similar Committee to this one, thinking in 2013 that that was going to happen. It has not happened, simply because, on the back of the Bill is a provision that section 5 of the 2013 Act comes into force when the Secretary of State by regulation decides. Ofgem has never had such a brief in its armoury because Ministers have simply declined to implement that bit of the 2013 Act. They have sat on their hands and not carried out the work necessary to implement it. We are trying to ensure that those important parts of this Bill, which we have laboured mightily over, come into force and do what we think they will do in reasonably good order.
Rebecca Pow
I support the shadow Minister in urging me to look at the back of the Bill. What goes on at the back of a Bill is the powerhouse, and I have become terribly interested in that. One must look at the back of the Bill, as he says. I must say, however, that I think he is being terribly negative. First, these measures will be in legislation. Secondly, the strength of feeling about improving the environment is now so strong, not just among our super keen Committee members, who are stalwarts in this area, but among everybody out there—we only have to look at Twitter. I want these measures as much as he does.
I thank the hon. Member for the raft of amendments on the same point, which would have the effect, six months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, of commencing all the remaining provisions of the Bill that can be commenced by the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.
That one-size-fits-all approach would cause very serious problems when the Bill is implemented following Royal Assent. For example, if the amendment were to be accepted, it would very likely delay the establishment of the Office for Environmental Protection by nine months. We have already launched and concluded a recruitment campaign for the chair of the OEP. Far from not doing anything, we have already started, and I hope the hon. Member will commend that.
Many parts of the Bill will be at least partially commenced much earlier than six months after Royal Assent, and other provisions will need at least in part to be commenced somewhat later, requiring further evidence gathering and public consultation, for example. That is not to mention the impact on local authorities. We will have to work very carefully and closely with them, because they are absolutely key to implementing quite a number of measures, not least in terms of biodiversity, as well as the waste measures.
I assure the hon. Member that the Government have not brought this vital piece of legislation to this House only for it to languish uncommenced in a cupboard. He gave an example of another piece of legislation. The Bill will not be like that, particularly not after all the time that has been invested in it. It has gone on for the whole year of my life as the Environment Minister. It has come and gone, and it has returned, and it is the stronger for it. It is certainly not going to languish.
We are setting ourselves legally binding targets under part 1 of the Bill, and we will need all the tools later in the Bill to support the delivery of those targets. The targets are legally binding—that is what the Bill says. Work is already going on with many organisations and the Department to work out how we will devise the targets, what the best targets to start with would be, and what later targets would be. An awful lot of work needs to go on—consultations, further detailed guidance and then new regulations—as I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate.
As we have said, we will bring forward at least one target in each of the four priority areas as well as a target for fine particulate matter, PM2.5, by the Bill’s 31 October 2022 deadline. All that work has to take place before that. Every time I speak on air quality—the hon. Member will understand this point—we are being held to account. We need to do this and we will do it. He asked whether we would trigger any of the work and the measures. We published the targets policy paper on 19 August, detailing the roadmap for delivering the targets.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that we are demonstrating that this will not be a Bill that sits in a cupboard getting dusty. Ministers in devolved Administrations need a measure of flexibility in commencing the provisions in many parts of the Bill as well. Other parts of the Bill can safely be commenced on Royal Assent or two months later. Hon. Members will know that that is the customary approach for Bills. Therefore, the commencement of provisions in the Bill already strikes the right balance between automatic commencement and providing the necessary flexibility to Ministers. I hope that clarifies the position, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
We do not want to divide the Committee on the amendments. I welcome the Minister’s enthusiastic intimation that she has no intention that this Bill should sit on a covered shelf. I am sure she is right on that, given her commitment so far to making this Bill work, and the effort that she has put into ensuring that we move forward. Indeed, I welcome her indication that action has already started on ensuring that these provisions work. However, that does not undermine the fundamental point about the legislation, namely that it is possible for Ministers who are less dedicated than she is simply to sit on their hands. That is the central concern behind our amendments. I strongly take on board her point that she is not a Minister who is going to sit on her hands.
I wonder whether she has considered the green Cabinet Sub-Committee as part of her approach. I am not sure whether she sits on it, but if she or a colleague of hers does, she might take the opportunity gently to remind the Ministers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that they also have a responsibility to implement legislation, and that the fact that they have not done so has a substantial effect on some of the things that we want to do in this Bill. She might take the opportunity to say, “Get on with it—seven years down the road, you ought to have implemented this.”
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I was not specifically going to comment on that, but I am sure he will agree that as a result of the Bill, other Departments will have to look at what they do on the environment. Many already do, but there will now be much more of a requirement that they do so. Does he agree that one reason why we must bring forward a lot of these measures, particularly on diversity, is that they will dovetail with the new agricultural land management system? It is important that the two schemes work together.
Dr Whitehead
I very much take on board the fact that the Bill is primarily about DEFRA, but it cannot work properly unless all other Departments play their part in ensuring that that happens. That point is very well made, and it underlines my request for the Minister to have a quiet word with another Department to suggest that it does as she intends, as far as this Bill as this concerned, with its areas of responsibility in relation to environmental and climate change outcomes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 131 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 132
Transitional or saving provision
Amendments made: 63, in clause 132, page 119, line 38, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.
Amendment 64, in clause 132, page 119, line 39, leave out “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
Clause 132, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 4
Memorandum of understanding
“(1) The OEP and the Committee on Climate Change must prepare a memorandum of understanding.
(2) The memorandum must set out how the OEP and the Committee intend to co-operate with one another and avoid overlap between the exercise by the OEP of its functions and the exercise by the Committee of its functions.”—(Rebecca Pow.)
This new clause requires the OEP and the Committee on Climate Change to prepare a memorandum of understanding, setting out how they will co-operate with one another and avoid overlap in the exercise of their functions.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 24
Guidance on OEP’s enforcement policy and functions
‘(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in section 22(6) (OEP’s enforcement policy).
(2) The OEP must have regard to the guidance in—
(a) preparing its enforcement policy, and
(b) exercising its enforcement functions.
(3) The Secretary of State may revise the guidance at any time.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, the guidance (and any revised guidance).
(5) The OEP’s “enforcement functions” are its functions under sections 29 to 38.’—(Rebecca Pow.)
This new clause provides that the Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in clause 22(6) (OEP’s enforcement policy). The OEP must have regard to the guidance in preparing its enforcement policy and exercising its enforcement functions.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 25
Species conservation strategies
‘(1) Natural England may prepare and publish a strategy for improving the conservation status of any species of fauna or flora.
(2) A strategy under subsection (1) is called a “species conservation strategy”.
(3) A species conservation strategy must relate to an area (the “strategy area”) consisting of—
(a) England, or
(b) any part of England.
(4) A species conservation strategy for a species may in particular—
(a) identify areas or features in the strategy area which are of importance to the conservation of the species,
(b) identify priorities in relation to the creation or enhancement of habitat for the purpose of improving the conservation status of the species in the strategy area,
(c) set out how Natural England proposes to exercise its functions in relation to the species across the whole of the strategy area or in any part of it for the purpose of improving the conservation status of the species in the strategy area,
(d) include Natural England’s opinion on the giving by any other public authority of consents or approvals which might affect the conservation status of the species in the strategy area, and
(e) include Natural England’s opinion on measures that it would be appropriate to take to avoid, mitigate or compensate for any adverse impact on the conservation status of the species in the strategy area that may arise from a plan, project or other activity.
(5) Natural England may, from time to time, amend a species conservation strategy.
(6) A local planning authority in England and any prescribed authority must co-operate with Natural England in the preparation and implementation of a species conservation strategy so far as relevant to the authority’s functions.
(7) The Secretary of State may give guidance to local planning authorities in England and to prescribed authorities as to how to discharge the duty in subsection (6).
(8) A local planning authority in England and any prescribed authority must in the exercise of its functions have regard to a species conservation strategy so far as relevant to its functions.
(9) In this section—
“England” includes the territorial sea adjacent to England, which for this purpose does not include—
(a) any part of the territorial sea adjacent to Wales for the general or residual purposes of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (see section 158 of that Act), or
(b) any part of the territorial sea adjacent to Scotland for the general or residual purposes of the Scotland Act 1998 (see section 126 of that Act);
“local planning authority” means a person who is a local planning authority for the purposes of any provision of Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
“prescribed authority” means an authority exercising functions of a public nature in England which is specified for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(10) Regulations under subsection (9) are subject to the negative procedure.’—(Rebecca Pow.)
This new clause gives Natural England the function of producing species conservation strategies and makes related provision.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 26
Protected site strategies
‘(1) Natural England may prepare and publish a strategy for—
(a) improving the conservation and management of a protected site, and
(b) managing the impact of plans, projects or other activities (wherever undertaken) on the conservation and management of the protected site.
(2) A strategy under subsection (1) is called a “protected site strategy”.
(3) A “protected site” means—
(a) a European site,
(b) a site of special scientific interest, or
(c) a marine conservation zone,
to the extent the site or zone is within England.
(4) A protected site strategy for a protected site may in particular—
(a) include an assessment of the impact that any plan, project or other activity may have on the conservation or management of the protected site (whether assessed individually or cumulatively with other activities),
(b) include Natural England’s opinion on measures that it would be appropriate to take to avoid, mitigate or compensate for any adverse impact on the conservation or management of the protected site that may arise from a plan, project or other activity,
(c) identify any plan, project or other activity that Natural England considers is necessary for the purposes of the conservation or management of the protected site, and
(d) cover any other matter which Natural England considers is relevant to the conservation or management of the protected site.
(5) In preparing a protected site strategy for a protected site, Natural England must consult—
(a) any local planning authority in England which exercises functions in respect of an area—
(i) within which any part of the protected site is located, or
(ii) within which a plan, project or other activity that Natural England considers may have an adverse impact on the conservation or management of the protected site is being, or is proposed to be, undertaken,
(b) any public authority in England—
(i) that is undertaking, or proposing to undertake, a plan, project or other activity that Natural England considers may have an adverse impact on the conservation or management of the protected site,
(ii) the consent or approval of which is required in respect of a plan, project or other activity that Natural England considers may have an adverse impact on the conservation or management of the protected site, or
(iii) that Natural England considers may otherwise be affected by the strategy,
(c) any IFC authority in England which exercises functions in respect of an area—
(i) the conservation or management of which Natural England considers may be affected by the strategy, or
(ii) the sea fisheries resources of which Natural England considers may be affected by the strategy,
(d) the Marine Management Organisation, where—
(i) any part of the protected site is within the MMO’s area, or
(ii) Natural England considers any part of the MMO’s area may otherwise be affected by the strategy,
(e) the Environment Agency,
(f) the Secretary of State, and
(g) any other person that Natural England considers should be consulted in respect of the strategy, including the general public or any section of it.
(6) In subsections (4) and (5), a reference to an adverse impact on the conservation or management of a protected site includes—
(a) in relation to a European site, anything which adversely affects the integrity of the site,
(b) in relation to a site of special scientific interest, anything which is likely to adversely affect the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special interest,
(c) in relation to a marine conservation zone, anything which hinders the conservation objectives stated for the zone pursuant to section 117(2) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and
(d) any other thing which causes deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species in the protected site, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the conservation or management of the protected site.
(7) A person whom Natural England consults under subsection (5)(a) to (e) must co-operate with Natural England in the preparation of a protected site strategy so far as relevant to the person’s functions.
(8) The Secretary of State may give guidance as to how to discharge the duty in subsection (7).
(9) A person must have regard to a protected site strategy so far as relevant to any duty which the person has under—
(a) the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012),
(b) sections 28G to 28I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or
(c) sections 125 to 128 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
(10) Natural England may, from time to time, amend a protected site strategy.
(11) The duty to consult a person under subsection (5) also applies when Natural England amends a protected site strategy under subsection (10) so far as the amendment is relevant to the person’s functions.
(12) In this section—
“England” has the meaning given in section (Species conservation strategies);
“European site” has the meaning given in regulation 8 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017;
“IFA authority” means an inshore fisheries and conservation authority created under section 150 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;
“local planning authority” has the meaning given in section (Species conservation strategies);
“marine conservation zone” means an area designated as a marine conservation zone under section 116(1) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;
“MMO’s area” has the meaning given in section 2(12) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;
“public authority” has the meaning given in section 40(4) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006;
“sea fisheries resources” has the meaning given in section 153(10) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;
“site of special scientific interest” means an area notified under section 28(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.” —(Rebecca Pow.)
This new clause gives Natural England the function of producing protected site strategies and makes related provision.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 27
Wildlife conservation: licences
‘(1) In section 10 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (exceptions to section 9 of that Act), in subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a), omit the final “or”;
(b) at the end insert “or
(c) anything done in relation to an animal of any species pursuant to a licence granted by Natural England under regulation 55 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012) in respect of an animal or animals of that species”.
(2) In section 16 of that Act (power to grant licences), in subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (h), omit the final “or”;
(b) at the end insert “or
(j) in England, for reasons of overriding public interest”.
(3) In that section, after subsection (3A) insert—
“(3B) In England, the appropriate authority shall not grant a licence under subsection (3) unless it is satisfied—
(a) that there is no other satisfactory solution, and
(b) that the grant of the licence is not detrimental to the survival of any population of the species of animal or plant to which the licence relates.”
(4) In that section, in subsections (5A)(c) and (6)(b), after “two years,” insert “or in the case of a licence granted by Natural England five years,”.
(5) In that section, in subsection (9)(c), after “to (e)” insert “or (j)”.
(6) In the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012), in regulation 55(10), for “two years” substitute—
“(a) five years, in the case of a licence granted by Natural England, or
(b) two years, in any other case.”’ —(Rebecca Pow.)
This new clause makes provision relating to licences granted under regulation 55 of the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2017 and section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 31
Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity
‘(1) In Schedule (Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity)—
(a) Part 1 makes provision about the use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity,
(b) Part 2 makes provision about enforcement, and
(c) Part 3 contains general provisions.
(2) Regulations under the following provisions of Schedule (Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity) are subject to the affirmative procedure—
(a) paragraph 1;
(b) paragraph 2(4)(c);
(c) paragraph 5 (except for paragraph 5(2)(b) and (5));
(d) paragraph 7;
(e) Part 2.
(3) Regulations under the following provisions of Schedule (Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity) are subject to the negative procedure—
(a) paragraph 3;
(b) paragraph 4;
(c) paragraph 5(2)(b) and (5).”—(Rebecca Pow.)
This new clause inserts NS1 and specifies the Parliamentary procedure for making regulations under that Schedule.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 1
The environmental objective
‘(1) The environmental objective is to achieve and maintain a healthy natural environment.
(2) Any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures arising from this Act must be enforced, allowed and followed for the purpose of contributing to achievement of the environmental objective.’—(Dr Whitehead.)
This new clause is intended to aid coherence in the Bill by tying together separate parts under a unifying aim. It strengthens links between the target setting framework and the delivery mechanisms to focus delivery on targets.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The clock is ticking: we are only five weeks away from the end of the famous implementation period. This amendment seeks to freeze that in time and say that in five weeks’ time there will be no regression or diminution in any protection afforded by any environmental standard effective in UK domestic law. Surely that is the most important part of the Bill. At least we could say that the Environment Bill is being brought forward to replace, renew and look beyond all the environmental protections that we will not have when we are not an EU member: that we will do better than that—or at least, not regress. If the amendment is not agreed to, we are worried that we will not have that safeguard.
The Government have frequently stated their desire to improve the quality of our environment and protect our existing environmental standards. Why, then, do they stop short of enacting an unambiguous and binding requirement not to regress on existing rules, as would be enacted through the amendment? This is not about staying tied to EU rules. As the shadow Minister says, we are not re-enacting Brexit at all; rather, we are ensuring that the UK rules get better and better over time and are protected from deregulatory pressure.
Non-regression is an exciting and emerging norm of environmental law, and we need to harness its potential. That requires a positive trajectory for environmental standards, with the ultimate goal of progressively improving the health of people and the planet. There is a precedent, as was mentioned, in other international laws and instruments. Non-regression can be found explicitly in international instruments, such as the 2015 International Union for Conservation of Nature draft international covenant on environment and development, the 2017 draft global pact for the environment and the 2018 Escazú agreement, which mirrors the Aarhus convention for the Americas. It is important to mention those because there is precedent. We cannot say that such a provision is unnecessary and does not need to be done. It should be added to the Bill.
To underscore why we, as the Opposition, feel so strongly about the issue, one need only look at how much the UK’s environment has benefited from the EU framework that the Bill is replacing. In the 1970s, we pumped untreated sewage straight into the sea, but EU laws and the threat of fines, as well as good enforcement, forced us to clean up our act. Now, more than 90% of our beaches are considered clean enough to bathe off. I have yet to hear a meaningful reason why the Government would not at least commit to the new clause. To say that it is not necessary is just bluster and evades the issue, and it is just not good enough.
If we are to put our money with our mouth is, the new clause should be added to the Bill, especially because it would match our ambition as we host COP26 next year. It would be a meaningful legal commitment to non-regression, and in turn a powerful endorsement of the Government’s stated ambitions to be world leaders on environmental matters. It would create an authoritative platform from which the UK could seek to improve global green governance. There is nothing to lose by adopting the new clause and everything to gain.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Putney for their input. The hon. Member for Cambridge seemed to suggest that my optimism and enthusiasm are negative assets, but I would never even have started my journey to this place if I had not had such optimism and enthusiasm; I am sure the same could be said of every Member here.
I vowed all that time ago that I would engage with environmental issues should I ever make it to Parliament. Lo and behold, here we are discussing the Environment Bill. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very passionate about the environment, and I like to think that he is just teasing me, because he knows that while I and my colleagues are in office, we will stand up for everything in the Bill. We hope that future Governments will do the same, because that is the purpose of the legislation.
The new clause, which aims to tie the UK to EU law at the end of the transition period, is unnecessary. To put it simply, we have left the EU and we should not bind ourselves to the legislative systems of the past. The Government made it very clear that the UK will continue to be a global leader, championing the most effective policies and legislation to achieve our environmental ambitions. I believe that we have demonstrated that even today with the due diligence clause. We will continue to improve on our environmental standards, building on existing legislation as we do so.
Ruth Jones
The Minister is making some interesting points, but does she agree that this is not about staying tied to the EU’s apron strings but about UK rules getting better and better? The new clause provides us with a baseline to improve on.
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Lady leads me neatly on to say that the UK does not need the EU to improve the environment; our high regulatory standards on environmental protection are not dependent on EU membership. Rightly, one could say that over the years we have taken on board standards, such as those governing sewage in water, but we have actually influenced a lot of European policy. Now we are going further. We often led the way, as members of the EU will acknowledge.
To continue with the same approach as the EU is not good enough. I know that many members of the Committee are well aware of the damaging effects of some EU policies, in particular the common agricultural policy. The thought behind it was good, but the environmental consequences are not necessarily to be lauded. That is why we now have this great opportunity to change it, as we must. We will do better.
Lest everyone always thinks that the EU offers some gold-plated system, let me give some examples of where we have already gone ahead of it. For a start, we were the first major economy to legislate for net-zero emissions by 2050. Another good example is the UK’s landfill tax, which is one of the highest in Europe and has been effective in reducing waste disposal and increasing recycling. The UK has also introduced one of the world’s strictest ivory bans to protect elephants from poaching, whereas the EU has yet to legislate on that. Similarly, our clean air strategy has been applauded by the World Health Organisation as an example for the rest of the world to follow.
I must also mention the UK’s microbeads ban, which shows the power of the Back Benchers who worked on it; just the other day, my involvement and that of many others was cited in the Chamber. That ban came into effect in 2018, but the EU did not move to introduce an equivalent ban until a year later. Those are just a few examples, not to mention our recent ban on single-use plastics—plastic straws, drink stirrers and cotton buds—coming into force in October 2022. We are ahead in many cases.
There are concerns about non-regression, but surely, after we have sat here for weeks going through the Bill with a fine-toothed comb, it is obvious that we have a real, detailed framework of targets, monitoring and reporting. We are then to be held to account on whether the improvement is actually occurring: Parliament will be able to scrutinise. There will be a closer watch on these things than ever before, which is a good thing. The Secretary of State is required to report to Parliament every two years on what is happening on the environmental front internationally—to look at the new environmental laws being introduced, sift through them and work out which ones would benefit us.
Dr Whitehead
Would the Minister at least agree that nothing in the new clause suggests that we should be pegged to EU law, as we were in the past? It simply says that a snapshot should be taken at the point of departure, so that there is something to stand on when it comes to things that we wish to carry out in the future. Far from pegging us back, it actually supports the sort of thing the Minister is suggesting.
Rebecca Pow
We have reached that point already. We have been in the EU, so have had all the same laws. We are not going to sweep them all away, but we will build on them. When that review of international law is done, the EU laws will also be looked at.
I think we have covered what the hon. Member for Cambridge is asking for. On the SI points—I am very interested that the hon. Gentleman has looked at that report about the SIs—I should say that, three to five years after Royal Assent, the responsible Department must submit a memorandum to the relevant Commons departmental Select Committee, published as a Command Paper. The memorandum will include a preliminary assessment of how the Act has worked in practice, relative to objectives and benchmarks identified during the passage of the Bill and in supporting documentation.
The Select Committee, or potentially another Committee, will then decide whether it wishes to conduct a further post-legislative inquiry into the Act. Perhaps we should send that to the authors of that report, because perhaps they were not aware of it. I think it is really helpful, and I hope that it helps.
I have not yet mentioned the OEP, which will help to uphold our standards as well. It will be absolutely essential, ensuring Governments are held to account for the environmental performance I mentioned before. All that goes further than the EU’s environmental governance framework, with stronger binding remedies available to the courts and a wider scope to hold all public authorities to account on the environment. It is much wider.
Our sovereign Parliament must be able to fully realise the benefits of regulatory autonomy in order to take action on improving environmental protections in the future. To support parliamentary scrutiny of our ambitions, the Bill contains provisions in clause 19 that allow Parliament to hold the Government to account on delivering their commitments to improving environmental protections, and where a new Bill contains environmental provisions, the Ministers in charge of that Bill—who will potentially be Ministers in other Departments—will be required to make a statement confirming whether it maintains the level of environmental protection in place at the time of the Bill’s introduction. I hope that has been helpful, and I ask the Opposition if they now might withdraw the new clause.
Daniel Zeichner
I do not think the Minister will be surprised to hear that I am not convinced and will not be withdrawing the amendment. The reason we are not convinced is that there is nothing wrong with optimism, but it has to be tempered by realism, and frankly, as we have seen at the very top of this Government over the past few months, optimism does not always produce results. Looking at the state of our economy, I suspect that we are facing a hard winter and the pressures that will be put on environmental protections will be intense. It is not unreasonable for us on the Opposition Benches to once again remind Government Members about comments made by the current Prime Minister and previous Conservative leaders. The green crap is still the green crap, as far as some are concerned—[Interruption.] That was said by a Conservative Prime Minister.
Rebecca Pow
I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark and stop referring to that. We have moved echelons from there, and it is really unfair that this keeps being dredged up by the Opposition, who themselves do not have a great record on the environment. Does he agree?
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister might well wish it had not been said, and I wish it had not been said, but it was.
Richard Graham
On a point of order, Sir George. Is it appropriate in this Environment Bill Committee, where we are discussing serious issues, for a Member, however well intentioned, to raise a supposed quote by a former Prime Minister from several years ago, which he certainly never heard—none of us heard it—in language that is arguably not particularly parliamentary?
Daniel Zeichner
The point I am making is that all Governments will face a dilemma and a pressure when it comes to economic imperatives and environmental protection. We have seen as much in the response to questions I raised about the impact of the planning White Paper, which have not been addressed by the Government. I understand why they have not been addressed—because they are not addressable. There is a tension, and the question we are asking is: when those pressures come—as they will—is this legislation strong enough to protect our environment? The Minister says it is; I say it is not, and that is the difference. I am sure the hon. Member for Gloucester appreciates the point I am making, because it can hardly be denied that there is a tension. If he thinks there is not a tension, that is great, but that is a different world from the one I am living in.
The non-regression issues go beyond the EU question. The point we are making is that a worldwide set of negotiations will continue, hopefully in a more positive way with the new American Administration, and non-regression will be part of those wider discussions. Exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test has said, this new clause does no more than establish a baseline from which we believe we should be moving, and we see no reason to not put it in the Bill.
I hear what the Minister says about the review and revision clauses that were in the transposed legislation, but I gently say that when that comes up, it will be a very big piece of work, given the number of statutory instruments we have been discussing. In fact, as I think most of us appreciate, once we start digging into them, it often opens up a cornucopia of riches in terms of issues to look at, and we see that what looked like a very simple transposition is actually extremely complicated. We think non-regression is really important, and that is why we intend to press this new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause concerns well consents for hydraulic fracking: cessation of issue and termination. Hon. Members may ask themselves, “What has fracking got to do with this Bill? Why is there a new clause about fracking when we are talking about other issues entirely?” I would contend that fracking, or potential fracking, is central to many of the issues that we have discussed. The current fracking regime and whether or not wells are being fracked cut across, potentially considerably so, the Bill’s protections and provisions relating to the natural environment, biodiversity and various other issues. There are a number of worrying issues relating to how fracking is carried out, how its consequences are dealt with, and how its by-products come about and are or are not disposed of.
I am sure that hon. Members will have access to a fair amount of information about the fracking process and that they will be aware that, as far as this country is concerned, it has not got very far. The Cuadrilla well in Preston was paused on the grounds that it caused earthquakes when the fracking process began. Although the then BEIS Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), used a provision to direct that that particular drilling company should not proceeded, that provision also allowed for corners to be cut on standards, so that it could get going with the fracking process. The standard relating to seismic disturbance was only a small part of the substantial environmental consequences to which the widespread introduction of fracking would give rise.
Mercifully, fracking is not used substantially in this country, but it is in other countries. When I visited Texas some time ago, I went to Austin, which is right in the middle of the fracking industry, in the large, relatively easy-to-access basin that covers a lot of Texas and in which a lot of fracking wells have been drilled. As we came into the airport, we could see ahead of us what looked like a moonscape. There was a large number of circular pads with extraction equipment covering the landscape as far as the eye could see. It also glinted in the sun, inasmuch as attached to those fracking pads were a number of what looked like ponds or small lakes. It looked like a landscape of lakes, but it was not. It was a landscape of tailing ponds associated with the fracking pads, and in which were placed the results of the fracking process—the fracking fluid that had been used to blast the rocks apart, which contained substantial chemicals to assist in that process. If they were to be produced in this country in the quantities suggested—at least 10,000 or so cubic metres of fluid per fracking pad—they would be classed as hazardous waste and would need to be disposed of very carefully. There are actually very few hazardous waste sites in this country that can take that kind of waste. The solution in the United States was that, on some occasions, they injected the waste back down into deep basins, which is not ideal. Alternatively, they just kept it on the surface in tailing ponds on the landscape. That could be the future for us, if we were to develop fracking to any great extent.
As I say, we have had only two goes at fracking in this country so far. They happened to be in two areas of the UK that contain the seams from which gas can be extracted through the fracking process. One is the Bowland shale in the north-west of the country, which happens to encompass the Lake District national park. The other is across the Weald and into South Downs national park, an area of outstanding natural beauty that goes across Sussex and into Hampshire. If we had a substantial fracking industry in the UK, wells would be drilled in those two concentrated areas. There would be a concentration of wells in that precious landscape, possibly like the concentration that I saw in Austin, Texas.
The Infrastructure Act 2015 placed restrictions on where fracking can take place, but it did not have a great deal of traction in this country. Modern fracking can proceed by diagonal drilling; it does not have to involve drilling down. An interesting discussion emerged about the extent to which parts of the country could be declared to be surfaces on which fracking should not take place. The Government of the day identified some areas of outstanding beauty and national parks as areas where fracking should not take place, but all people need to do is set up a fracking plant right on the boundaries of a national park and drill diagonally.
Fleur Anderson
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the new clause is not agreed to and fracking is not stopped, that will undermine a lot of the biodiversity and ecosystem protection elsewhere in the Bill? It is bad for the climate, the environment and pollution, and local people do not want it either.
Dr Whitehead
I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend about a regime of substantial fracking. All that has happened at the moment is that fracking has been paused. All the infrastructure requirements and legislation allowing fracking on a reasonably unrestrained basis are still in place, so it is more than possible that a future Government, or indeed this Government, might decide that they no longer wish to pause fracking. Everything is ready to go. As she said, this raises the question not only of what happens to the fracking fluid but of the escape of fugitive emissions between the well being produced and the gas being conveyed. Indeed, it is the practice, when fracking has been completed, to have a so-called flare-off to clean the well’s tubes, as it were. Enormous amounts of gas mixed with elements of the fracking fluid are released into the atmosphere and simply flared.
We understand that fracking sites will have multiple wells drilled with a very large amount of transport involved, with traffic coming to remote countryside areas, the levelling of an area several football pitches wide to make the pad, and a host of other things that result in environmental despoliation in pursuit of fracking. There are also the long-term consequences when the well is depleted: will it be re-fracked? If it is depleted, will it be properly capped off? One of the problems in Texas now is that the fracking wells have not proved to be as bountiful as had been thought––what a surprise––and several have simply been abandoned with little done to cap them off. There can be a regime for doing that properly, but in the countryside where the fracking has taken place, there is continuing danger and concern in respect of surface water and water in seams underground.
Ruth Jones
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that it is the unforeseen consequences that are so dangerous with fracking? We do not know what we do not yet know. In the mining industry near my constituency, we have mountain-top villages that are at risk of subsidence because of the extensive mine workings underneath. We need to be very careful about what we wish on future generations.
Dr Whitehead
That is an important point. These things do not appear and simply go away. An example of something that does appear and then go away is onshore wind. When the turbine’s life is up, it can simply be taken away. That is an advantage of that form of power, but this form of power leaves in its wake enormous environmental scars and a substantial legacy of worry for the communities in which it has taken place, even after it has finished its life. If the well is to be properly exploited, there is the potential legacy of re-fracking on several occasions when all that stuff starts again to keep the well producing. It is a grubby, dirty, environmentally unfriendly, legacy-rich business that we surely should not be inflicting upon ourselves in pursuit of something that we should leave in the ground anyway.
In an era when we say that our dependence on fossil fuel will greatly decrease—indeed, companies such as British Petroleum have said that they will cut down substantially the amount of oil that they get out of the ground, and that they will move into different areas—it does seem strange for us to be encouraging an activity that involves trying to locate the most securely fastened bits of climate-damaging hydrocarbons from the soil, blast them out of solid rock and bring them to the surface to use for fossil fuel activities. As far as this is concerned, I think the watchword is, “Just leave it in the ground.”
That is why we have given the Bill an opportunity to include protection against that happening—and, indeed, protection against the conflict that I believe exists between the Infrastructure Act 2015 and this Bill, in terms of which permissions override which protections, particularly as far as fracking is concerned. We have an opportunity to set out in the Bill that no well consents will be given, and that fracking will not take place in this country. The new clause essentially says that the Oil and Gas Authority will not issue well consents, with all the consequences that I have set out; and that permits that have been given should lapse over a period of time and the work should not be undertaken.
This is a serious issue for the future of our environment and for environmental protection, and we have the ability, literally at the stroke of a pen, to put it right in this Bill. We can put it beyond doubt that—no matter whether there is a pause, whether there are concerns about earthquakes, or whether there are concerns about the environmental consequences of wells drilled in particular places—we will grasp the issue firmly by the scruff of the neck and say, “No more. We are not doing this. It is not good for our environment, and we won’t have it anymore.”
I hope that hon. Members across the Committee will join us in making sure that that is part of the clean, safe and enjoyable environmental future that we all want to strive for, by agreeing to add the new clause to the Bill.
Rebecca Pow
In the last 25 minutes, we have been all the way to Texas and back, we have been up north and we have been all over the place. I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for his proposed amendment. The Government continue to recognise the importance of natural gas as a source of secure and affordable energy as we aim to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Natural gas still makes up around a third of our current energy usage, and we will need it for many years to come, even as we decarbonise. I know that the shadow Minister has a great deal of knowledge and interest in the energy sector, but I am sure he understands that.
The Government have always been clear that the development of domestic energy sources, including shale gas, must be safe for local communities and for the environment. With regard to fracking and shale gas development, the Government have taken a science-led approach to exploring the potential of the industry, underpinned by world-leading environmental and safety regulations. In addition to a traffic light system to monitor real-time seismic activity during operations—with a clear framework of stopping operations in the event of specified levels of seismic activity—the Government also introduced tighter controls over the shale gas industry through the Infrastructure Act 2015.
A well consent is essentially permission to drill an oil or gas well, and it is required from the Oil and Gas Authority before an operator can explore for oil and gas onshore in the UK. All well consents issued by the OGA on or after 6 April 2016 contain a further requirement for operators to obtain hydraulic fracturing consent from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy before carrying out any associated hydraulic fracturing. That consent ensures that all necessary environmental and health and safety permits have been obtained before activities can commence.
The current definition of “associated hydraulic fracturing” is based on the approach taken by the European Commission, which I am sure the shadow Minister welcomes. Using that definition sets the right balance between capturing hydraulic fracturing operations and not capturing techniques used by conventional oil and gas operations, or more widely in the water industry, where processes such as acidisation are commonly used to clean wells after drilling.
The Environment Agency reviews any proposal involving the use of acid on a site-specific basis before deciding whether the activity is acceptable. The agency’s regulatory controls are in place to protect people and the environment, quite clearly. If the proposed activity poses an unacceptable risk, a permit will not be granted.
We have had such an eloquent description of what goes on in the US. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test paints a very clear picture of that lovely trip—although, it was probably not all that lovely, seeing that moonscape. Comparisons are not necessarily helpful because, of course, in the UK we have an entirely different regulatory system. Construction standards in the UK are robust and regulators have the tools to ensure that the risk of pollutants entering groundwater is minimised.
The EA also assesses the hazards presented by fracking fluid additives on a case-by-case basis and will not allow hazardous substances to be used where they may enter the groundwater and cause pollution. The EA has the power to restrict or prohibit the use of any substances where they pose an environmental risk. The shadow Minister touched on hazardous waste and flow-back fluids, which include fracking fluids. They are deemed to be mining waste and require an environmental permit for management onsite. Disposal of flow-back fluids must be at a regulated waste treatment works, which are also regulated by the EA. Shale gas operators must demonstrate that where any chemicals are left in the waste frack fluid, it will not lead to pollution in groundwater. I think it is quite clear that we have a very tight system already in place, which will address many of the issues raised by the shadow Minister.
Let us move on to what has happened recently, when I was involved as a Back Bencher, as were many colleagues. The Government announced in November 2019 that, although any application would be considered on its merits, in the absence of compelling new evidence, they will take a presumption against issuing any further consents for hydraulic fracturing for shale gas extraction, creating a moratorium.
The Government set out their position in full via a written statement to the House on 4 November 2019, and we are satisfied that the current regulations ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place. We therefore have no plans to repeal sections 4A and 4B of the Petroleum Act 1998, as inserted by section 50 of the Infrastructure Act 2015, and nor will we direct the OGA to withhold well consents that include provisions for associated hydraulic fracturing.
There are no plans to turn the moratorium on shale gas extraction into a ban. The moratorium will be maintained unless—this is absolutely crucial—compelling new evidence is provided to address the concerns about the prediction and management of induced seismicity. Such evidence is, it must be said, yet to be presented. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister has kindly and gently made quite a good case on our behalf. She has confirmed what we have said: in the UK, we are not talking about an end to or a ban on fracking, or indeed a resiling from the circumstances under which fracking was set up as an activity in the UK. The word “moratorium” means a pause; it does not mean the end of anything. It can be a more or less lengthy pause, as the Minister suggested, but it is still a pause, so the way is open for fracking to come back to this country if, as the Minister said, the circumstances permit that.
I agree with the Minister that the regimes in this country and in the US are not the same. The moonscape near Austin that I mentioned is a worse-case scenario—that is true—but even in the early applications for fracking in this country, there was pressure on the Government to cut corners. There were applications for tailing ponds, however briefly they would have been in place. A number of the environmental issues around fracking that I have mentioned would come to this country—not to the same extent as in the US, but they certainly would be part of the fracking process were it to recommence.
There are other differences between the US and the UK in terms of who owns the surface of the land. In this country, the Queen effectively has a hand in the ownership of the surface of the land, while in America, people can buy the rights to what is underneath someone’s land, drive a truck on to it and start drilling, because they have the right of access through the land to what is underneath it. That is not the case in this country. Indeed, as the Minister set out, the Infrastructure Act 2015 introduced a number of constraints on what can and cannot be done, and what cannot be done is along the lines of exactly what is done in America. The Government have nevertheless put forward, in a number of papers that they have published, a prospectus on how much fracking there would be in this country and where it would be undertaken. That would have a substantial impact on the environment in a country that is nothing like Texas.
Texas is enormous and, as everyone knows, this country is not. Not only is this country not enormous, but the shale to frack is specified as being concentrated in particular parts of it. Those areas, as I have emphasised, cover some of the most precious and beautiful parts of our country, and we should really go out of our way to preserve them and ensure that they continue, as much as possible, in their present state.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
To some extent, this is part 2 of a discussion that we had a little earlier. The new clause was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), former Committee members who have now gone on to other, greater things—perhaps not greater, but different. I am delighted to move it on their behalf. Opposition Members give it our full support.
My hon. Friends were very far-sighted, in the sense that they tabled the new clause before the Government came up with their own proposals. However, the new clause goes further, which is why we believe it is worth pursuing. I will go back to why this matters. Greener UK tells us that about 28% of the UK’s overseas land footprint—nearly 6 million hectares—is in countries at high or very high risk of deforestation and which often have weak governance and poor labour standards. At the same time, about 1.6 billion people depend directly on forests to secure their livelihoods. The food and everyday products that we buy could be destroying habitats for endangered wildlife and impacting livelihoods overseas. This is a big issue, which I think we all agree on, on the basis not only of the discussion this morning but of those facts.
The new clause would create a duty on the Government to publish draft due diligence legislation within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, consistent with our earlier discussion, covering all environmental and human rights risks and addressing the impacts associated with the activities of specified bodies, including within business, finance and public authorities. It is the human rights risks and finance issues that we particularly add to the earlier discussion. The new clause would require any goods placed on the UK market to have fully traceable and transparent supply chains and to not cause adverse environmental and human rights impacts, including deforestation, forest degradation and ecosystem conversion and degradation.
Since the new clause was first tabled, as the Minister mentioned earlier and as my hon. Friends have also referenced, there has been a consultation on whether the UK Government should introduce a new law designed to prevent forests and other important natural areas from being converted illegally to agricultural land. As the Minister reported, there is strong support for action, with 99% of respondents agreeing that there should be legislation to make forest risk commodities more sustainable. The Government were good to their word and have introduced new schedule 1 and the associated clauses, which we discussed and agreed to earlier. However, we think this new clause would go further. Its scope is wider, which means it would have a greater impact and would do more to tackle what we sadly see as our complicity in deforestation.
The evidence base is there. The Global Resource Initiative taskforce recommended back in March that:
“The government urgently introduces a mandatory due diligence obligation on companies that place commodities and derived products that contribute to deforestation”—
whether that is legal or just illegal under local laws, which is an important distinction—
“on the UK market and to take action to ensure similar principles are applied to the finance industry.”
The financial industry can be supportive in those markets. That, again, goes further than new schedule 1.
We think that a mandatory due diligence framework would formalise and obligate responsible practices throughout the UK market-related supply chains and could ensure comprehensive accountability and help prevent deforestation and other global environmental damage. The Government are right to set their sights high. We had discussions earlier about how ambitious—or not—the legislation is. We think we should be world leaders; the problem is that we are not entirely convinced that this does enough.
Greener UK says of what we have already agreed in the Bill:
“This does not accord with the urgency needed to tackle deforestation and falls short of the government’s ambition for a world leading approach.”
That is the view of the major environmental organisations. They also think—and we reflect this point—that there should be more dialogue, both with themselves and others who understand how the processes emerge. They are also concerned that, because this was a late addition to the Bill that came in through a Government amendment, it would have been helpful to have produced more detailed explanatory notes as to how it should work. They have a range of detailed questions, which I will not trouble the Committee with this morning. However, it suggests to me that there is more work to be done and that our new clause would help with much of that.
We hope the Government will go further in future, but it is striking that, Greener UK draws a comparison between the due diligence system and the approach taken to the EU timber regulation, which we have brought across through secondary legislation. It thinks that our approach is weaker by comparison.
That feeds into my overall sense of what is happening with the Bill: sadly, the rhetoric is good but the delivery and actuality is weaker. We wish to make the Bill stronger. Again, this is an important point for us so we want to divide on it, but I want to hear why the Minister thinks we should not be strengthening in that kind of way.
Rebecca Pow
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are already one step ahead and, in fact, voted to include the world-leading legislation in the Environment Bill this very morning. We are making more progress than any other country. I understand his sentiments but, yet again, he is being negative about the enormous step we are taking.
Our amendments will help us protect the world’s most precious forests. They will allow us to set mandatory requirements on businesses that use agricultural commodities associated with deforestation. As we have said before, there are other regulations that deal with timber; our amendments will deal with other products where trees are cut down to grow crops such as palm oil, soya, rubber, beef and the associated leather, and cocoa. The hon. Gentleman will agree that those are crucial crops to be looking at as we proceed, and that that will make a genuinely big difference. We have heard the great example of what happened in Indonesia when timber was tackled. The same thing could happen with other crops in reducing the cutting down of forests. I have seen some of those on my travels.
Our framework is designed to work with Governments around the world, who are the custodians of the world’s precious forests, by requiring businesses to ensure that commodities they use have been produced on land that is legally occupied and used. I have pointed out previously how so many countries are not even adhering to their own legislation, so that is the crux of where we are placing our intentions. Our amendments will become part of the Bill now, allowing us to act quickly on this important issue, as opposed to within six months of Royal Assent, as in the new clause.
The hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned the consultation, which had a fantastic response. It highlighted that we need to act urgently, which is why we are taking action. That is in line with the recommendation of the Global Resource Initiative to introduce due diligence legislation. That is what we are doing urgently, as was called for. We are listening to feedback and I reassure the Committee that we intend to move swiftly to take forward this legislation, laying the necessary secondary legislation shortly after COP26. We hope that our setting this path will be a big talking point at COP26, potentially encouraging others to follow.
The hon. Gentleman made a sound point on human rights. We agree that, in some circumstances, there is a relationship between commodity production and human rights. It does not necessarily follow that the best solution is to tackle those two issues at the same time. Tackling human rights abuses requires an approach that is tailored for that purpose, rather than through the narrow lens of the subset of commodities, examples of which I have just listed, chosen for their impact on forests.
The Government support the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights—an internationally agreed framework for addressing human rights risks in all kinds of business activities. Those principles encourage businesses to adopt due diligence approaches and to address any negative impacts, where appropriate. The UK was the first state to produce a national action plan for the guiding principles, and we have already announced measures to strengthen the approach of the UK’s Modern Slavery Act 2015, as part of that plan. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of that really important step.
The hon. Member for Cambridge touched briefly on finances. I want to clarify that the due diligence legislation is designed for a specific purpose, which is to ensure that companies in the UK are not using products that have come from illegally used or occupied land. We anticipate that information included in the reports published by the regulator will provide data, which others, including the finance sector, can use, thus helping inform investors of the extent to which the companies they invest in are involved in illegal deforestation. That is the way in to what the hon. Gentleman was addressing. I hope that is helpful. I will wind up and ask the hon. Gentleman, in the light of my assurances, to withdraw his proposed new clause.
Daniel Zeichner
Frankly, I do not think that the Government are one step ahead, given that our proposal was tabled long in advance and is far more extensive and far reaching. I heard what the Minister said, and I know she is very proud of what is being done. We just need to go further.
I gently point out that I am not the one saying that what is being done is not achieving what was hoped for. It is many environmental organisations, some of which the Minister cited earlier. I suspect she will find that the debate will continue. No one is saying the matter is easy; it is complicated and difficult, and this has to be done in some cases through international negotiation. We understand and appreciate that, but we believe it is better to be more optimistic and ambitious.
Again, I heard what the Minister said on the linkage to human rights, but the evidence is pretty clear that environmental degradation and disrespect for human rights go hand in hand. That is why we believe the new clause would give a sensible way forward. On that basis, Mr Gray, we will divide the Committee.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As we approach the end of Committee stage of this important Bill, I rise to speak to new clause 7, which appears in my name and those of my hon. Friends here in the Committee Room, but also, more importantly, those of colleagues from right across the House. This is a cross-party new clause and an important addition to the Bill; I hope Ministers will recognise that it will simply enhance the scope and reach of the Bill and take it closer to being fit for purpose.
The new clause calls on the Secretary of State for action and leadership, introducing a requirement for them to maintain,
“a register of the end use of all recycled waste created, collected or disposed of in England.”
As things stand, only voluntary policies exist for monitoring the end use of recycled material, and that approach fails to provide sufficient data to understand recycling rates and end markets.
Like many Opposition colleagues, I commend the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on its recent inquiry into food and drink packaging. It was a thorough and comprehensive review and I hope it will influence what we do and how we do it. As part of that review, the EFRA Committee highlighted the lack of data, stating:
“In order to make evidence-based policies and assess their impact, the Government needs access to reliable data. It is shocking that it does not know how much plastic packaging is placed on market in the UK, nor how much is really recycled. ”
A new end use register for recycled waste would improve existing data. That is important, because it would mean that the Government—whichever Government, of whichever party—were able to deliver evidence-based policies and to better understand the end use of recycled material. The information gathered from and by the register that this new clause provides for could help to improve transparency, reduce waste and, in turn, increase public confidence in the recycling system.
That confidence is a key point, and I want the Minister and her colleagues to think about it. We will not get the buy-in we need from residents across England if we do not ensure that we can point to crude, hard facts. As Greener UK pointed out in a typically helpful and comprehensive briefing, that public confidence has been
“damaged by growing awareness of waste exports”—
I have spoken about those previously, for instance in the Sri Lankan debacle—
“and confusion caused by inconsistent recycling schemes across England.”
In other words, the new clause would help any Minister with responsibility for recycling to get the job done, and it would help to ensure that our country takes all the steps necessary to tackle the climate emergency and preserve our planet.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for the new clause and join her in thanking the EFRA Committee; the Committee does a lot of really helpful inquiries, and the waste and packaging one helps to add to the weight of knowledge and information. As hon. Members will know, I was on that Committee for a long time, and one does feel that the recommendations that come out of those inquiries are often useful and can help in that whole mix of listening, consulting and reporting.
The Government are absolutely committed to monitoring waste throughout its journey by improving the data captured on the generation, treatment and end use of waste. As I have said numerous times, I am keen to see improved transparency in where waste is ending up and to make that information more accessible to and usable for businesses, regulators and Government as well as the public. As the hon. Member said, people do want information and to understand, and that is why our labelling requirements—another measure introduced through the Bill—will be so helpful.
Waste tracking is reliant on largely paper-based record keeping, making it difficult to track waste effectively and providing organised criminals with the opportunity to hide evidence of the systematic mishandling of waste. That is why clauses 55 and 56 provide the regulation-making powers needed to introduce mandatory electronic waste tracking across the UK. The powers, which I know the green NGOs will welcome, will enable us to monitor waste through its entire journey from production to end use. The hon. Member was slightly critical about some of the NGOs’ comments, but actually those measures met with a great deal of positivity. The clauses will enable us to track all controlled waste and waste from mines and quarries, and that will include information on waste that is being recycled as well as on products and materials produced from waste.
I am pleased to confirm that we will consult on the design of a waste tracking system next year and that the consultation will address both access to and use of waste tracking data as suggested by the new clause. I therefore do not consider it necessary to introduce a separate clause placing a duty on the Government to launch a specific register for the end use of recycled waste, as that would duplicate effort for both public authorities and businesses.
The new clause would place a further duty on the Secretary of State to introduce the measures in England only, but clauses 55 and 56 give us the necessary powers to establish a system that covers the whole of the UK. We are working closely with the devolved Administrations—that includes the Scottish Government —to develop that. While I support the intention behind the new clause, I consider it unnecessary and ask the hon. Member kindly not to press it.
Ruth Jones
I am glad that the Minister agrees with the comments of the EFRA Committee about the lack of hard data. That is why we need a register, and that is why we tabled the new clause. I am also glad that she acknowledged the importance of ensuring we bring the public with us. Public confidence is so important; otherwise, they will not buy into any new recycling schemes.
The Minister mentioned mandatory electronic waste tracking, which is to be welcomed. However, the new clause is not about having an either/or system; it would enhance the system. The register would be a useful addition to that electronic waste tracking system.
Rebecca Pow
Is the hon. Member aware—I touched on it in my speech—that local authorities already collect and report data on their waste and many publish information about recycling performance? Information reported to local authorities is published, including on the destination of recyclable material where available. Does she agree that one does not want to put extra burdens on local authorities when they are already dealing with a lot of what she is arguing for?
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her comments. The problem is that we have a voluntary code with some taking part and others not. That is the issue. No one wants duplication of anything, but we do want to reinforce and enhance the current system so that we have a coherent and comprehensive system across England and—she mentioned the devolved nations—for all areas.
The Minister mentioned the public consultation, and I take that on board. My only worry is that such consultations have been known to be a cause for people to drag their feet. We urge her to ensure that the consultation is speedy, with suitable results at the end of it. I will not press the new clause, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
I suspect that no one wishes to move new clause 8, unless I hear to the contrary.
Rebecca Pow
On a point of order, Mr Gray. New clause 8 is the weeds one, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I know she has a great interest in these things, and we acknowledge that. As a gardener, I am a great weeds person—a weed is just a plant in the wrong place—and I thank her for her continued work on pollinators.
The Chair
The Committee has already sent the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford our warmest and best wishes in the current circumstances, and we can add the Minister’s words to that.
Environment Bill (Twenty First sitting)
Tuesday 24th November 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 November 2020 - (24 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am honoured to be called to speak about this important new clause. Indeed, it is so reasonable that at this stage of this iteration of the Environment Bill Committee, the seventh day, this might be the new clause that is agreed by all its members. We are not setting specific targets; we only ask that targets be set. We are not saying how they should be measured; we are just saying that measurements should be done. It is a new clause, surely, that must be agreed by all.
The issue is not only of concern to constituents across the country and to members of the Committee, it is a huge concern to my constituents. More than 200 people have taken the additional time and effort to write to their MP about animal welfare issues, from testing to warfare experiments and sentencing. I have long believed that the UK should lead the world with high animal welfare standards. I am proud that the UK banned cosmetic testing on animals back in 1997 and extended that to cosmetic ingredients in 1998. I was one of those who had been campaigning since the 1980s for that. We have made some good progress and agreeing on the new clause and putting it into the legislation would entrench those gains and make sure we go further.
It is welcome that animal testing practices have improved and advanced greatly over recent years, and non-animal methods for research have also developed and improved over time. However, I remain concerned at the lack of transparency around animal testing project licence applications, as well as the continued permissibility of severe suffering as defined in UK law. Again, the new clause does not aim to be entirely prescriptive about the conclusions of that—it leaves that for secondary legislation—but it asks for it to be included and considered.
Animal testing is not the answer to protecting people and the planet from potentially harmful chemicals. Tests on animals are unreliable and their value is increasingly being questioned in scientific literature. It is a matter of corporate pride for many businesses to say that they have animal cruelty-free products, because that is increasingly what the public wants.
There are better ways to ensure chemical safety and better assess risks to environmental and human health while also reducing and eliminating the cruel suffering of animals in laboratories. Cruelty Free International estimates that since 2006 more than 2.6 million animals have been used in chemical tests across the EU, including the UK, with many more tests planned. The UK reports conducting more animal tests than any other country in Europe. EU chemical legislation—the REACH legislation—already discussed in Committee, has resulted in a huge increase in the use of animals in European and UK laboratories. Now is our chance to be better and to provide that world-leading legislation. We need a proactive plan to reduce and replace chemical tests on animals. If the UK is serious about its commitment to animal protection, the Government must adopt a forward-looking Environment Bill that moves away from cruel and ineffective animal testing and write into law a target-based, science-led strategy for reduction and replacement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I agree with what the hon. Member for Putney wants to achieve in new clause 9. Just like her, I am an animal lover. As a former chair of the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare, I think I speak for everyone on the Committee in terms of being animal lovers. The UK was consistently one of the strongest voices in the EU, applying downward pressure on animal testing—I am sure the hon. Lady is well aware of that—including changes to REACH to enforce the use of alternatives. The UK’s presidency of the European Council in the late 1990s was one of the driving forces behind the reform of the chemicals regulations and we referred to that in a previous session. We are continuing with that clear aim now that we have left the EU, and we are already enshrining the last resort principle as one of the protective provisions in the Bill. Under article 138(9) of REACH, the Secretary of State will also be under a duty to review the testing requirements on reproductive toxicity within 18 months of the end of the transition period. That review must be carried out in the light of the objective of reducing the use of animal testing.
In addition, the powers in schedule 19 of the Bill to amend REACH would enable us to build such targets into REACH, if that were felt to be appropriate. Any amendment would have to be consulted on and to be consistent with the aims and the principles of REACH as set out in article 1, including that we must maintain a high level of protection for human health and the environment, seek alternatives to animal testing, and that REACH is underpinned by the precautionary principle. I believe that would be the better route, if we conclude that targets are desirable. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw new clause 9.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the Minister for looking into the issue and for some assurances that targets could be included in future, and that we will be seeking alternatives. I note the concerns and considerations that we all want the same thing, which is stronger animal welfare. I am disappointed that we will not agree on this matter this afternoon, but I will not press it to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
OEP: Penalty notices
‘(1) If the OEP is satisfied that a public authority has failed to comply with a decision notice, the OEP may, by written notice (a “penalty notice”) require the public authority to pay to the OEP an amount in sterling specified in the notice.
(2) When deciding whether to give a penalty notice to a public authority and determining the amount of the penalty, the OEP must have regard to the matters listed in subsection (3).
(3) Those matters are—
(a) the nature, gravity and duration of the failure;
(b) the intentional or negligent character of the failure;
(c) any relevant previous failures by the public authority;
(d) the degree of co-operation with the Commissioner, in order to remedy the failure and mitigate the possible adverse effects of the failure;
(e) the manner in which the infringement became known to the OEP, including whether, and if so to what extent, the public authority notified the OEP of the failure;
(f) the extent to which the public authority has complied with previous enforcement notices or penalty notices;
(g) whether the penalty would be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
(4) Once collected, penalties must be distributed to the NHS and local authorities to be used for pollution reduction measures.
(5) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, set the minimum and maximum amount of penalty.
(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”—(Dr Whitehead.)
This new clause would allow the OEP to impose fines.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This proposed new clause was originally put forward in the names of my hon. Friends the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who no longer sit on the Committee. With our names added, we certainly support the sentiment.
The proposed new clause contains a simple proposition relating to the Office for Environmental Protection and its functions. Hon. Members will recall that we have had substantial discussions about the extent to which the OEP has powers to make its functions work well. It is a question of giving it not just general authority but enforcement powers, notices and so on, which we have debated. As the Bill stands, although the OEP would have a number of powers concerning notices and the ability to bring court proceedings, it would not have the power to levy fines.
That argument is sometimes raised where a no-fine outcome is concerned, when the question arises regarding the bodies on which the OEP would levy fines. That would, by and large, be public authorities. The argument then runs about what it would mean to levy a fine on public authorities. I remind hon. Members that that was not the case before we took powers over from the EU, in running our own environmental importance. Nor is it something that other agencies do not have as shots in their locker.
The clean air regime, for example, allowed the EU Commission the power to levy fines on infracting countries. In the case of clean air regulations, there was a suggestion that the fines that the EU authorities had the power to levy could be applied to infracting local authorities that were not adhering to clean air regulations. Indeed, there was quite a to-ing and fro-ing between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and local authorities, because it was suggested that authorities that had been identified as infracting, and therefore needed to draw up clean air plans, would bear the brunt of the fines, rather than the UK Government. The UK Government were the public authority that was infracting, but they had passed on their infraction responsibilities to other public authorities, so those public authorities would be fined. That was a real issue with regards to clean air just a little while ago, but it has not been passed on to the Office for Environmental Protection, which would be the agency in that instance with UK powers.
Similarly, Ofgem has considerable powers to fine companies that do not undertake proper management of their customer bills or their responsibilities for energy supply. Indeed, a considerable number of fines have been levied, running to millions of pounds, on energy companies. Ofgem has that clear and workable power to levy fines, but the OEP does not.
We are saying that the OEP should have the power to fine. Indeed, the new clause would give it that power. The other part of the problem is what the agency would do with the fines once they have been collected—is it not just a circular process? The new clause states that, once collected, penalties must be distributed to the NHS and local authorities to be used for pollution reduction measures. The fines would be recycled, but in a positive way for environmental management and improvement.
Having that power to fine, and being able to publicly state that authorities had been fined, are potentially strong weapons in the OEP’s locker, not necessarily because the fines would be punitive in their own right, but because they would be a mark against that public authority and because, through the transfer of the fine payments, the sins of that public authority would be effectively transferred into positive action on environmental improvement in other areas.
We think the new clause is a sensible, straightforward measure that would generally improve the efficacy of the OEP. The fact that nothing like it was thought about emphasises the general theme that we have been talking about in Committee of the power, independence and force of the OEP being downgraded through a number of Government amendments that have been made as we have gone through the Bill. This would be one back for the OEP, so I hope the Committee will view it in a favourable light.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for the intention behind tabling the new clause. The Government completely agree that effective enforcement of public authorities’ compliance with environmental law is vital. That is why we are establishing the OEP to hold public authorities to account, as we have clearly talked about many times in Committee. However, in our domestic legal system it is unnecessary to make specific provisions for fines to achieve that.
Fines play an important role in the EU infraction process, as the hon. Member points out, but only because the Court of Justice of the European Union is unable to compel member states to take a specific course of action through a court order. It is the only penalty that it has in its armoury. It is therefore reliant on the significantly less effective approach of penalising the member state until they take some form of remedial action, although the UK has never been fined for an environmental infraction.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a strong case as to why it is much more effective that the OEP works with public authorities to try to make the sort of environmental improvements that everybody here wants to see, rather than acting as a fining mechanism. Does she agree with me that on this occasion unfortunately the Opposition have confused trying to replicate a European measure with a much better way of doing things here in the UK?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for making my case for me. A great deal of thought has gone into it, which I was going to come to at the end. The shadow Minister suggests that this has not been thought about; I think those were his exact words. To reiterate what my hon. Friend said, this has been thought about in great detail, to come up with a system that will be better at solving problems and improving the environment than the one the EU has on offer.
Furthermore, the Committee might wish to note that this new clause would give the OEP powers that even the European Commission does not have, so it cannot claim to be ensuring equivalence between the OEP and the European Commission. The European Commission cannot fine a member state government, only the Court of Justice of the European Union can do so, a point that really needs clarifying with the shadow Minister. As I have already mentioned, we have stronger remedies than the CJEU. It would be wholly inappropriate for the OEP to directly impose fines. Effectively that would mean the OEP could prematurely sanction public authorities, without reference to the courts, and with no appeals mechanism for the public authority to challenge the decision.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that enabling the OEP to issue penalty notices would help to give its investigatory work a degree of clout, and serve as a meaningful contribution to efforts to improve public authorities’ compliance with environmental law?
Rebecca Pow
I do not think the OEP is going to have any problem at all operating its clout. We will have a new chairman and a supporting board, and that will be their raison d’être. They do not need fines. In fact, I wrote an exclamation mark as I thought it was a bit of a joke when I saw that the shadow Minister had suggested that the OEP should become a funding body. That would be a significant expansion in its scope, and not consistent with its role as a watchdog to hold Government to account.
In summary, the OEP’s enforcement framework has been designed to resolve cases as robustly, quickly and effectively as possible. The powers already available to the courts to grant and enforce remedies make a system of fines unnecessary. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for that response. There are arguable cases. What we want to see as an emphasis on enforcement is a matter of opinion as to what is most effective, rather than a fundamental discussion about having a power or not. I remind the Minister that we had a debate about the fact that OEP appears to be pushed further away from its ability to go through the courts by the debate on who should decide whether something was a serious breach, and the role of the OEP and the Minister in that. At the very least, this idea, that the OEP could introduce penalties in its own right, would be a step to rectify that particular problem.
I take what the Minister has to say about the extent to which there are, at least in principle, reasonable methods of enforcement as far as the OEP is concerned. It is not a wholly unreasonable point to make that that should not necessarily include fines. However, this is a route worth considering, and it may be that, as the OEP develops and we see how it manages to enforce things, the idea of fines might be revisited. I do not intend to press the clause to a vote this afternoon, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 12
Duty to follow recommendations
(1) A “public authority” must follow the course of action set out in a recommendation made by the OEP in a report issued under sections 25 or 26 unless the public authority has determined that there are reasons of public interest demonstrating that it is not necessary for it to do so in order to comply with the law.
(2) If the authority does not follow a recommendation, it must publish a report setting out the reasons for not doing so and set out what alternative course of action it proposes to take.
(3) In this section public authority carries the same definition as in section 28(3). —(Dr Whitehead.)
This new clause requires a public authority to whom the OEP has issued a recommendation to normally follow that recommendation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Interestingly, this new clause comes at the same point from a slightly different direction. On the basis of what the Minister had to say just a moment ago, she might consider how this clause might work in enhancing the ability of the OEP to secure importance in an appropriate and robust manner.
The new clause—and I shall not dwell on it great length—requires a public authority to whom the OEP has issued a recommendation to normally follow that recommendation. That is an onus in law, on the public authority, to follow the course of action set out in the recommendation made by the OEP. There can, of course, be exceptions to that, and there may be circumstances in which an authority considers it does not have to follow a recommendation. However, if that is the case, the new clause provides that it should publish a report setting out the reasons for not doing so and, positively, what alternative course of action it proposes to take.
The new clause would considerably enhance the power of the recommendations of the OEP as the default position would be that an authority should follow its recommendation; it could not get away with saying “Well, we don’t particularly want to do that. There are reasons for this; trust us—don’t worry. We don’t have to do it”. Instead, it would have to go public on why it could not do it, and it would have to publicly say what alternative course of action it would take, rather than taking no action.
This does not go down the fine route, but it does go down the enforcement route in a different way—a potentially equally important way—and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this particular way of further enhancing the enforcement credibility and robustness of the OEP.
Richard Graham
I am slightly concerned about the trend of the hon. Gentleman’s line of thinking, which is very authoritarian and along the lines of “Let’s have the courts say as a default that the police are normally always right; that the county council are normally always right on issues of child welfare and so on.” That is not the way that this country operates; we believe fundamentally in freedom and an objective decision by the courts on the rights and wrongs of a particular case. Surely there is no reason why the OEP should be some sort of magical exception to that overriding rule.
Dr Whitehead
If the hon. Member for Gloucester were pursuing a principled position on that, he would have to undo the whole structure of regulation in this country to ensure the freedoms and the way of life that he suggests that we should follow, because that is what regulators by and large do—they quite often produce regulatory decisions and regulatory outcomes that apply to those who are being regulated. I gave the hon. Gentleman the example of Ofgem, which levies fines on bodies that appear to transgress what Ofgem has decided as a regulator. That is not a court action but relates to how the regulator works and how those who are supervised by that regulator are expected to behave. There is a direct relationship between those two, and that is the case with a range of other regulators in all sorts of other areas. For example, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of Ofcom’s regulatory activities on a number occasions, and those of Ofwat.
I am not suggesting an exceptionally authoritarian proposal that comes out of thin air in a desire to regulate people beyond what they can bear. It is based on the relationship between the regulator and the regulated and their respective actions. Normally, those who are regulated should do what the regulator suggests should happen. To me, that is not akin to the Stasi going in to everyone’s life and regulating their private thoughts out of existence. What is proposed is a reasonably standard regulatory process, as carried out on a agreed basis in this country.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
As ever, my hon. Friend is developing an interesting argument. I suspect that in some ways it goes back to where our regulatory frameworks first emerged. He and I are probably of an age to remember those discussions, which originally arose around some of the privatisations of public authorities. A regulatory framework grew up and it was initially intended that it would melt away because the market would weave its magic. Of course it quickly became apparent that we did need regulatory authorities. Does he agree that, over the past 20 to 30 years, we have had an emerging regulatory structure that is quite different from how it was originally envisaged?
Dr Whitehead
Indeed, Mr Gray; I will not be too far tempted on to the history of regulation and privatised industries and how that has worked out, other than to say that the checks and balances of the regulator are an important part of the process. What the new clause proposes does not depart from that practice, and I really do not agree with the suggestion that it is somehow following an authoritarian course.
I have been tempted to make a lengthier speech on the new clause than I intended by the interventions from the hon. Member for Gloucester, so I will not say any more at this stage, but I hope that the Minister will react favourably to the new clause.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for tabling the new clause because it allows me to provide some detail on the OEP’s scrutiny function as well as its interactions with Government and public bodies.
The new clause refers to recommendations made under clauses 25 and 26, which cover the OEP’s scrutiny of the Government’s environmental improvement plans and targets, as well as the implementation of environmental law. Many of the OEP’s recommendations, if implemented, are likely to require changes to law and policy, and those changes need to be carefully assessed alongside many other considerations. The responsibility for making changes to policy as well as introducing changes to legislation lies firmly with the elected Government, not an independent body. That was highlighted in the interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester.
I also want to use this opportunity to explain how the OEP will interact with Government and public authorities with regard to its scrutiny function. In terms of the OEP’s report issued under clause 25, it will be addressed to the Government, as the Government are ultimately responsible for delivery of the environmental improvement plan and targets. Clearly, public authorities will help Government meet their objective of improving the natural environment, but, when the OEP makes recommendations as to how progress could be improved, Government are best placed to determine how, and by whom, those recommendations should be implemented. That is particularly important because it is the Government, obviously, who have the statutory duty to respond to the OEP’s recommendations, and are therefore held accountable. The Government must respond to the OEP’s reports; they must publish the reports and lay their responses before Parliament. That means that the Government will be held to account for their actions by the OEP, Parliament and the public.
Ruth Jones
The Minister has talked about the OEP holding the Government to account. How will it do that, as it will be part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? It will be appointed by the Government, and will, surely, be hand in glove with the Department. It is very difficult to say that it will actually be able to hold the Government to account.
Rebecca Pow
I will not go into a huge amount of detail in my answer, as it was all covered in the early stages, but I could send the hon. Lady a page on how and why the OEP will remain independent. It will be an utterly independent body, and the Secretary of State has to be mindful of the independence of the OEP; that is a crucial part of some of the detail written into the Bill, and, if she wants to be referred to those sections, I am sure that we could clarify those with her.
Clause 26 enables the OEP to assess how environmental law is implemented; it is not simply about compliance with—or deviation from—the law, but will be more about whether the law is effective and delivering its intention. The OEP will seek information from public authorities to undertake this duty but, again, its findings will be addressed to Government, and only Government are required to respond.
This will work as one big machine, and local authorities will clearly play an important part; that is not to say that public authorities cannot implement any of the OEP’s recommendations which are applicable to them, if appropriate. However, this is very different from the suggestion that public authorities must comply with the OEP’s recommendations unless they publish a report justifying an alternative approach.
For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for her reply. She will not be surprised to know that we do not entirely go along with all of it, but I appreciate what she has said. Indeed, it may be that her remarks are taken into account when we discuss the next new clause. On that basis, I have no intention of pressing this to a vote, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
OEP register
“(1) The OEP must maintain a register of communications between it and Ministers (or government departments).
(2) The OEP may omit from the register communications which it considers trivial or otherwise unlikely to be of interest to the public.
(3) The OEP must publish the register.” .—(Dr Whitehead.)
This new clause requires the OEP to keep a public register of correspondence with the Government.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is an innocuous-looking new clause, but it is potentially quite important. Indeed, we think it should be an important part of the process, precisely because of what the Minister just said in response to the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West about the stated and apparent independence of the OEP, as far as the Department is concerned.
The new clause simply states that the OEP should maintain a register of communications between it and Ministers or Government Departments. Obviously, there is a statement in that clause to say that trivial things—such as the Minister ringing up to ask whether they had a spare sandwich—should not be included in the register, but significant communications between the OEP and Ministers should be recorded in the register, and that register should be published.
What that would mean, quite simply, is that there would be on the record a transparent adumbration of the occasions on which there has been conversation between Ministers and the OEP. While obviously it is not suggested that the record should go into detail on what the communication was—it is not a public record to that extent—it would show the extent to which the OEP was acting independently or the extent to which it might be under duress, shall we say, from ministerial quarters in its doings. If the Minister is serious in what she says about the independence of the OEP, despite some of the apparent constraints placed on its independence in the Bill, I would have thought she would welcome the new clause as a pretty good way of enabling us to see on the table what was going on and enabling the OEP, if it needed to, to show that it had been placed under pressure by Ministers. If, indeed, it was placed under pressure by Ministers, that pressure would be in a public place, it would be seen by all and it could therefore be remedied.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for the new clause. I share his interest in ensuring that the OEP acts transparently in the exercise of its functions. That is why we have created, in clause 22, a duty on the OEP to have regard to the need to act transparently. We have also required the OEP, in clause 38, to make public statements when it carries out various enforcement activities. In carrying out the duty in clause 22, the OEP would normally make information about its work publicly available—perhaps the shadow Minister has missed that element.
However, there may be certain situations where it is inappropriate and unhelpful for it to do so. There is a difference between what is in the public interest and what might be of interest to the public or to some members of the public. In particular, the OEP will need to communicate with public authorities, including Departments, in the exercise of its scrutiny and enforcement functions. Those communications will require a degree of confidentiality if the OEP is to engage effectively and productively on sensitive issues with public authorities, and avoid prejudicing possible enforcement action. The effect of the new clause might be to remove that necessary confidentiality from the OEP’s interactions.
The new clause would require the OEP to maintain a continuous running commentary on its communications with Ministers and their Departments, which would be administratively burdensome and a poor use of resources, given the other provisions we have included in the Bill on transparency, reporting and public statements. The hon. Member asked whether ringing up to order a sandwich should be recorded. That is a good point, because it is not at all clear in the new clause what exactly the register would have to contain. Is it the full text of the communication? Potentially, if one was having to record everything, one would have to record those things as well. It is just a small point.
Richard Graham
The Minister is making a very good case for the new clause being entirely redundant. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, whose judgment is often very sensible, really considers that creating a register of communications, with all the arguments about what might be considered trivial or not trivial, is a good idea when setting up the very important Office for Environmental Protection. Does the Minister agree that this is another new clause that we should move on from swiftly?
Rebecca Pow
I could not agree more. I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that point, because he is absolutely on the money—not that the OEP is a fundraising body, of course.
There is nothing in the Bill, of course, to prevent the OEP from setting up a register of significant communications should it choose to do so, but we do not believe that it should be required to do so as a legal obligation. It is, after all, an independent body. To clarify how independent it is, I should say that it will obviously be operationally independent from the Government and governed by the non-executive members appointed through the regulatory public appointments process.
On the question of the OEP potentially deciding it wants to set up a register, I should mention that the Office for Budget Responsibility has a register similar to that proposed by the hon. Member. That is not a statutory requirement; rather, the OBR produces it of its own accord, and we believe it must remain for the OEP to decide how to fulfil its duty to have regard to the need for transparency. The new clause is somewhat inappropriate and unnecessary, and I ask the shadow Minister to consider withdrawing it.
Dr Whitehead
I am not sure that I will any more, actually. The Government’s suggesting that the Committee should move swiftly on because they do not particularly like an Opposition new clause does not strike me as full participation in the spirit of what we are supposed to be doing—that is, we, the Opposition, get the opportunity to put amendments forward, they are discussed and answered properly, and then we move on. That is what I hope will happen with this new clause.
I am not sure whether the Minister is saying that, if the OEP thinks it would like to set up a register—sandwiches notwithstanding—of its communications with Ministers and to publish those communications, Ministers would be happy to go along with that and would not in any way seek to impede it. Alternatively, is the Minister saying that because she thinks the correspondence and communications between Ministers and the OEP must take place in an air of confidentiality, she would discourage the OEP from doing that if it wanted to?
The new clause would clear that up; it says there should be a register. Its subsection (2) states that the OEP does have discretion, and the word “may” creeps in:
“The OEP may omit from the register communications which it considers trivial or otherwise unlikely to be of interest to the public.”
That is what you might call a sandwich clause. It does not need to put that stuff in; it merely needs to maintain a register to indicate the general degree of communication that is going on and how that communication is working.
Rebecca Pow
To clarify, there is nothing in the Bill that prevents the OEP from setting up a register. I cannot reiterate any more than I already have that it is an independent body: if it decides it wants to set up a register, that is purely up to the OEP. I reiterate again that we do not believe that that should be a legal obligation on the OEP—after all, it is an independent body and it will think through these things for itself.
Dr Whitehead
That was not quite the question that I asked the Minister. What I asked was: if the OEP did decide to set up its own independent register, what would Ministers have to say about its being a transactional register—not a register of independent actors, but a register of things happening between people, including Ministers?
Would the OEP be encouraged to do that by Ministers? Would Ministers be happy to go along with that if the OEP did it? Alternatively—we would probably never find this out because we would not know what the communications were—would Ministers say, for the reasons the Minister has outlined, “That is a pretty bad idea, OEP. You don’t really want to be doing that. We might say, in theory, that you are able to set up your own register, but we as Ministers seriously discourage you from doing it.”
We would be considerably comforted if the Minister said this afternoon that not only could the OEP set up its own register, but she would positively encourage it to do so, in the interests of transparency and of ministerial communications being as public as possible.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I am just trying to clarify something. We have had various debates on the independence of the OEP and now the hon. Gentleman is asking Ministers to give their pre-emptive influence as to whether the OEP should do one thing or another. It might just be me, but I find that the Opposition amendments and new clauses are trying to pre-empt the OEP’s own terms of reference, which it will decide for itself.
Dr Whitehead
What I was doing was engaging in a bit of what-iffery. The Minister came back to me and said that the OEP could set up its own register, if it wanted to do. That is not what we want to do in the new clause; we just want a register to be set up—that is quite clear and straightforward. The OEP would have some discretion over what it consisted of, but the register would be there on the table for public record. That system operates in a lot of other legislatures and jurisdictions, to a greater or lesser extent. It does not bring the world tumbling down; it brings transparency.
Rebecca Pow
To back up the strong point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, would the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole point about the OEP is that it is an independent body and Ministers cannot encourage it? That is the whole point of its independence.
Dr Whitehead
That is indeed absolutely what we hope will happen and what the new clause is intended to underpin. The Minister, I think, has just made a further point in favour of the new clause—the effect of her words often goes considerably beyond what she thinks. That is very good and positive.
I do not wish to say too much more about the new clause. I have been tempted by interventions to go down particular routes, but I emphasise the simple, central point. This is about fresh air, light and transparency, and actions taken by public bodies, for the public good, being available to the public. It is as simple as that. The fact that there would be a requirement does not put any constraints on anybody’s actions; it simply makes sure that the light of transparency is properly shone, and is guaranteed to be shone. That is what the public would expect to happen in the case of an independent body that nevertheless appears to have close relations with the Government, in terms of its independence.
The Chair
I am unclear as to whether the hon. Gentleman is seeking to divide the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
Sorry, Mr Gray. I have been goaded beyond endurance in this particular debate, so I ask for a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Let us see how we get on with this one, Mr Gray. Again, this is a very simple new clause; I thought the last one was simple, but there we go. It places an environmental responsibility on Ofwat—in the same way, I talked a while ago about what does not happen at the moment, but I sincerely wish would happen, with Ofgem.
The new clause sets out that the director general of water services, who is mentioned in the Water Industry Act 1991, which was put in place before modern Ofwat came into being—the director general of water services now works closely with Ofwat on regulation of the water industry—and the Minister, which is effectively Ofwat,
“contribute to achievement of any relevant environmental targets set under the Environment Act 2020.”
It would mean that any targets for water companies would have an obligation attached to them: that Ofwat must work towards those targets.
This is an important point for water regulation and, indeed, any other form of industry regulation. What regulators do is based on a brief from the Government about their overall activities. Even though it is independent, the regulator will, to a considerable extent, ensure that what it does is guided by that overall requirement.
If, for example, the general direction is simply to go for value for money for customers, important though that is, and if that is the guiding light for that particular regulator, it will stick by that at the expense of other considerations that could balance it out in the interests of, for example, environmental targets.
The new clause seeks to balance what the regulator is doing on those targets. It is quite proper that it should have an interest in the targets. Surely that is one of the aims of the targets in the Bill—to ensure that we are working together to get them achieved. If important parts of the water industry are not bound into seeking to achieve those targets, that weakens the overall push forward.
The new clause is not authoritarian. It is not trying to get anything done that should not be done. It simply tries to make sure that everyone is bound together in making sure that the targets work well in the water industry.
Rebecca Pow
The Government recognise the hon. Member’s intention that the water industry should play its role in achieving targets set under the Bill, particularly in the priority area of water, but I do not believe that the new clause is necessary, given the legislative requirement to achieve long-term environmental targets.
Clause 4 will place the Secretary of State under a duty to ensure that the targets set under clause 1 are met. At least every five years, the Government must review their environmental improvement plan and, as part of that, must consider whether further measures are needed to achieve its targets. The Government must also periodically review its long-term targets set under the Bill, alongside other statutory environmental targets, to consider whether meeting them collectively would deliver significant environmental improvement in England.
In addition, both the Secretary of State and Ofwat are already placed under environmental duties by section 3 of the Water Industry Act 1991, which was referred to by the hon. Member. Section 2A of the Water Industry Act 1991 enables the Secretary of State to set out strategic priorities and objectives for Ofwat, which we have already heard about, as it relates to water companies, wholly or mainly in England, through a strategic policy statement. In preparing that statement, the Secretary of State must already have regard to environmental matters. In future statements, those matters could include targets set under the Environment Bill.
The existing legislative framework, together with provisions in the Bill, are therefore sufficient to ensure that targets, including water targets, will be achieved. While the duty to achieve targets rests with central Government, of course public authorities, including regulators, will have their role to play. As I have pointed out, the legislative framework already in place, plus the provisions in the Bill, should drive us towards ensuring that targets will be achieved. Therefore, I ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Whitehead
The new clause specifically talks about targets, and in the 1991 Act targets did not exist. While it is true that there are general environmental obligations in that Act, they do not relate to the Bill’s aims in terms of its targets. We have already discussed that. The Minister implies that it is more than conceivable that the general framework relating to environmental considerations could be nudged towards targets, when those are in. To some extent, it is a question of looking at whether Ofwat is doing the right thing, as those targets come in.
Rebecca Pow
There are other areas that will help towards this. We need a whole range of levers to meet the targets, but the targets will be set through the Environment Bill. Thinking is already going on about the relevant targets for water and they are priorities for me, so we are moving on that.
A river-based management planning process, which the Environment Agency is currently revising, will also be a key measure and stage in identifying some of the other levers that will be needed to complement the powers over the regulatory stuff, as well as the targets in the Bill. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Dr Whitehead
Since I have only just heard that, I am not sure I can completely agree with it. The Minister is suggesting that there is a mesh of things there already, which could lead towards moves unpinning the targets. I hope the Minister is right about that process. I am not absolutely sure that they are as strong as we might like them to be in terms of what the new clause suggests, but I am sure that the Minister would be able to review that position, if it turns out that, once those targets are set, the mesh is not strong enough to impel those regulators in the direction that should be taken.
On that basis, and with confidence in the Minister’s powers of persuasion for future arrangements, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 15
Reservoirs: flood risk
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to grant the Environment Agency additional powers to require water companies and other connected agencies to manage reservoirs to mitigate flood risk.
(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”—(Fleur Anderson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Fleur Anderson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I speak as a representative of a constituency that is no stranger to flooding. In Putney, we regularly have very high tides along the river. There is even a “high tide club” of car drivers who had not realised that the water was going to come, and found themselves water logged and stranded. People love to go and take photos of them, but it is not very good for the drivers.
I rise to speak in favour of the new clause, which has an unusual range of support—perhaps it will be the first that attracts the support of the whole Committee. I hope that all Committee members have noticed that it has the support of the Conservative hon. Members for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) and the SNP hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally), alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Leeds North West and for Halifax (Holly Lynch). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax for all the work she has done championing the use of reservoirs and reservoirs management in mitigating flood risk for communities.
This Environment Bill will mean more collaboration between water companies to deliver the infrastructure we need and ensure that we have clean and plentiful water, now and for decades to come. That is in the bag. This new clause takes the Bill further in strengthening the powers of the Environment Agency to manage reservoirs to mitigate flood risks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax introduced a private Member’s Bill on this issue last year, as a result of many years of conversations and learning between agencies, including the Environment Agency, water companies and local authorities for the area of Calderdale, about what will really help to stop communities being at risk from flooding.
Currently, the legislation that underpins water companies and their regulation has a focus on mitigating drought risk rather than flood risk.
The new clause seeks to redress the balance, as is only appropriate. Reservoir management is vital to mitigation of the damage and havoc that floods can wreak on communities such as those in Calderdale, and trials of flood management are already under way in such areas as Thirlmere in Cumbria and the reservoirs in the upper Don valley. We know that it will affect reservoirs across Wales and Scotland, as well as Wessex in England.
Ruth Jones
It is a pleasure to speak in support of new clause 15 and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, who made so many powerful points in her speech.
I want to start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, who has long campaigned for action to protect communities vulnerable to flooding and for the Government to act to mitigate the risk of flooding in her constituency and across England.
She has been joined by a number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who I know supports the action to which the new clause would give effect.
On 1 May 2019, the Opposition forced the Government to agree to the UK Parliament becoming the first in the world to declare an environment and climate emergency. It was the right thing to do, and that declaration and the necessary action to tackle the emergency have underlined every word uttered by the Opposition in Committee and, importantly, influenced every single amendment and new clause. Earlier this year, we saw storms Cara, Dennis and Jorge demonstrate the reality of the climate crisis and showed that more extreme weather will happen more often and with devastating consequences for jobs, lives and communities. I saw the impact water damage can have on communities. Newport West itself had minimal damage, but we saw considerable flooding in our parks and green spaces. Sadly, other parts of south Wales were severely impacted—the Rhondda Cynon Taf area in south Wales was the scene of 25% of the UK total of homes damaged by the floods in early 2020—and there was also significant damage in places such as Shrewsbury and other small towns on the banks of the River Severn. So this is real. It is important that we get to grips with the dangers the water poses and look to adopt a policy of prevention, because that is better than cure.
I am deeply concerned by the deep, long-term cuts to Natural England and the Environment Agency that have seriously undermined their ability to tackle the environment crisis and deal with the impact of the climate emergency. That is important to note, because new clause 15 seeks to enhance the powers and reach of the Environment Agency, and we cannot do that without acknowledging the huge hit to its finances, abilities and reputation inflicted by the Government. The new clause is a focused, clear and coherent attempt at mitigating risk, but would also show that the House is determined to respond to the climate crisis, as well as to lead our way out of the many problems caused by water damage and flooding.
The amount of homes at risk of flooding has more than doubled since 2013, reaching an approximate total of 85,000 homes, so we need a joined-up approach across regional water authorities, local government and regulators to provide a single flood plan for an area to manage flood risk and better co-ordinate the response to flooding. That is why the new clause is important. It is about more than just preventing flooding from reservoirs: it should look to identify opportunities where existing and proposed reservoirs could be used to provide flood storage capacity and other benefits.
The damage caused by water has destroyed lines and, in some devastating situations, has taken lives too. This afternoon, we need to make sure that the new clause passes, because I am sure the Government share our ambition to ensure that this is enshrined in law.
Richard Graham
I rise very briefly, to my Whip’s dismay, to comment because the points raised by the hon. Member for Newport West have a lot of merit to them, as the Minister will agree. In particular, the hon. Member is not far away from the same river that has frequently flooded my own city of Gloucester, most notably in 2007. It is worth noting that we do have something called the Severn Partnership, which brings together the MPs the whole way along the river—around 40 of us—to work very closely with, for example, Shropshire County Council, the Environment Agency and other important stakeholders. Indeed, it is very important that it is a cross-border partnership, talking closely with colleagues in Wales and the authorities there.
The key point, which I am sure the Minister will touch on, is that I am not convinced the Secretary of State needs to make regulations granting the Environment Agency these additional powers. However, I do think that it is incredibly important for the Secretary of State, and his or her Ministers—the Minister in her place has already done this—to show huge commitment to encouraging and working with all those partners in order to resolve a fundamental problem in this country, which is that half of it has too much water and has floods, and the other half has too little and has droughts. If we could store water high up, in the Welsh or Shropshire hills, and avoid flooding in places such as Gloucester, we could then transfer it by pipe all the way down to Thames Water, and make a turn at the same time, which would be good news for all concerned. I am sure that the Minister will explain why she agrees with the principle but does not necessarily see the point of the amendment.
Rebecca Pow
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and particularly the hon. Member for Putney for sharing her experiences of flooding. Clearly, my sympathies lie with anyone who has experienced flooding. I saw it for myself at first hand when the Somerset levels flooded.
I want to reassure the Committee that flood risk management is a top priority for this Government. I fully recognise the desire to look at all the options, but this Bill is not the place for new flood management legislation. There are currently over 200 reservoirs operated by the Environment Agency that are used for flood risk management, and that are deliberately kept low in order to maximise the amount of rainwater they can store.
Water company reservoirs have a different purpose and play a significant role in ensuring that we have ready access to water whenever we want and need it. Indeed, water companies have statutory duties, enforceable by Ofwat and the Secretary of State, to maintain secure water supplies, under the Water Industry Act 1991. That is a key point to highlight, because the security of water is so essential. This primary purpose of water companies must be considered first, before any additional duties are placed on them, even if those duties would help with flood risk management.
However, there is nothing to stop a water company using its reservoirs for flood risk management purposes and as a risk management authority. Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, water companies have a duty to co-operate with all other risk management authorities, including the Environment Agency. I am aware that some water companies across the north of England have undertaken trials to explore how and where this approach might offer the most benefits. Those trials have shown some positive results, but they have also identified some risks, such as prolonged dry weather, which need to be fully understood.
We should not forget that not many months ago we were facing a potential drought in the north-west, and everyone was on the phone to the water Minister. That was exacerbated by unusually high demands for water, because of the hot weather and changes in people’s behaviour and routines during the pandemic, with more people using hosepipes to fill paddling pools, wash their cars and water their gardens. Similarly, in the summer of 2018 the country dealt with very dry and warm weather, with water companies experiencing high demand. We must pay as much attention to the problem of too little water as we do to too much. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Newport West highlighted, we should expect more frequent extremes of weather as a result of climate change, so that all impacts on this situation.
There is a formal agreement between the Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water in relation to Gorpley reservoir, which demonstrates that, through effective partnership working, such agreements between the different water bodies and organisations can be secured locally. I therefore believe that local agreements and partnership working form the most appropriate approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester highlighted the Severn Partnership, which involves a whole range of bodies working together, including local authorities and all the MPs representing constituencies up and down the valley. That is proving to be something of a model in driving forward the whole issue of water infrastructure, how to get water from A to B, and how to deal with the demand. That has been a voluntary arrangement.
As I have said, flood risk is a top priority for the Government. We have published our flood and coastal erosion risk management policy statement, which sets out our long-term ambition to create a nation that is more resilient to flood and coastal erosion risk.
The hon. Member for Newport West touched on funding. From 2021, the Government will double investment in flooding to £5.2 billion in the next six-year capital investment programme for flood defences. That investment will better protect 336,000 properties from flooding. Additional funding of £200 million over six years will help 25 local areas to take forward some much wider innovative approaches to improve flood resilience and coastal erosion. That touches on the whole issue of water supply.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the Minister for all those points and for her impassioned argument in favour of the new clause. The change in water use under covid has been recognised. It has been seen in London, where fewer people are working in the city and more are working at home. Better powers granted under the Bill, and local management plans, would make it possible to respond to those changes.
The Gorpley reservoir partnership is a great model of how to work together, as is the one in Calderdale that led to a private Member’s Bill last year and to this new clause. The new clause seeks only to put into legislation what is seen to be good practice. This is a top priority of the Government, so it should be in the Bill. Why would it not be? I absolutely agree that the security of water is very important, but we are asking for balance with flood mitigation.
The new clause would give specific powers to the Environment Agency and would provide joined-up legislation across the Government. The Minister has talked about the top priority of flood mitigation; the new clause balances that with the top priority of a world-leading Environment Bill. This is the right place for the new clause, so I seek to divide the Committee on the motion.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I rise to speak to new clause 16 in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test, for Cambridge, for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle). The new clause is a specific and targeted addition to the Bill, and I do not intend to speak on it for long.
As colleagues will know from our recent discussions on waste and recycling, it is important that we act as comprehensively as possible and that we show real leadership on these important issues. For us to take these matters seriously—actually and theoretically—we need the Bill, when it leaves Committee, to be made up of a comprehensive plan backed by a coherent agenda that will deliver real results now and into the future. I hope the Minister recognises that the new clause will do nothing other than enhance the scope and reach of the Bill, taking it a great deal closer to being fit for purpose.
The Minister and Government Back Benchers will know that we have not sought to divide the Committee for the sake of it in recent weeks. Truth be told, all our amendments are worthy of a vote and of being added to the Bill. Alas, the Minister and her loyal colleagues have put paid to any chance of those additions. I wish to press new clause 16 to a vote, however, for a number of reasons, the most important being that people out there need to know that although efforts to make recycling fit for purpose, to tackle waste and to fight the climate emergency head on in England were on the table, they were all rejected. I would be delighted if the Minister rose to inform the Committee that she will accept the new clause and, even at this late stage, I urge her to scrap her notes and do just that.
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that I will not be recycling my notes just yet. I thank her for tabling new clause 16, which seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State must take account of the requirements of the waste hierarchy when considering all matters relating to waste and resource efficiency. Organisations that produce or manage waste in England and Wales are already legally obliged to comply with the waste hierarchy duty, as set out in the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011—the hon. Lady is perhaps not aware of that.
The Environment Agency is responsible for enforcing that in England. Government policy in this area has, for a long time, been developed with the principles of the waste hierarchy in mind, and that commitment was affirmed in our resources and waste strategy in 2018—an excellent strategy that I urge the hon. Lady to read—which sets out our plans to move away from an inefficient “take, make, use, throw away” model, to a more circular economy that keeps products and materials in use for as long as possible. We discussed that at length in many of the earlier waste clauses.
We intend to ensure that waste is prevented in the first place and that we recycle as much as possible once waste is created. Measures in the Bill have been developed with the waste hierarchy as our guiding light. At the top of the hierarchy, clause 50 and schedule 7 allow for regulations to be made about resource efficiency requirements, to drive a shift in the market towards products that last longer and can be reused and repaired more easily, as well as towards those that can be recycled. Those regulations would be used, for example, to require fitted furniture to be easy to disassemble and reassemble, or for parts to be easily repaired or replaced. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: the public are really welcoming of such measures.
Our producer responsibility powers in clause 47 and schedule 4 can be used to help to prevent products or materials from becoming waste. By imposing obligations on food producers, for example, we can hold them responsible for surplus food and food waste. That is a huge step forward: collecting food waste but also urging people not to create so much waste in the first place.
Our other producer responsibility powers in clause 48 and schedule 5 will also help prevent waste by making producers accountable for the full cost of managing their products at the end of life. I honestly believe that that will be a game-changer in terms of the amount of waste created. As I have mentioned before, that will encourage businesses to reduce the amount of packaging that they use and to use reusable and recyclable packaging, so that less waste is produced.
Clause 54 will ensure that we make recycling simpler for households, by stipulating a consistent set of materials that must be collected from all households and businesses in England, which, as I have just mentioned, will include food waste. I can therefore reassure the hon. Lady that we do not need the new clause, having touched on everything that she raised. She said that she intended to press the new clause to a vote, but surely I have convinced her that that really is not necessary.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for those helpful comments and for raising the awareness of the importance of the 2011 legislation and the other relevant legislation which, of course, is compulsory bedtime reading on this side of the Committee.
We have discussed at length the importance of the cyclical nature of recycling, but it is so important that we begin to break it down. As the Minister rightly said, it is not just about the end product, but the starting point and how we ensure that products, when they are first created or built, are designed so that they can be fully recycled. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test spent a great deal of time explaining how car parts can be broken down and used again in different ways, and we all took that on board.
Rebecca Pow
Perhaps the hon. Lady did not register the producer responsibility, which will put the onus on the person who invents and designs the product in the first place. They will remain responsible for the cost of that product through its life and where it ends up, so that will make them think, “Goodness, I don’t want to be responsible for that, so I’ll think about how I design it in the first place,” and that will reduce waste. Maybe she missed that.
Ruth Jones
I did not miss it, and I am perfectly clear about the producer responsibility. However, I am also clear on the need for public co-operation, because all recycling and waste management begins at home. We must ensure that we have the public on board. Although we are talking about the waste hierarchy, we need to ensure that the public out there in the real world understand fully what is expected of them. We need to make it easy for them, which means that they must have clear instructions—hopefully universal instructions rather than different authorities doing different things, confusing people. On that basis, I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but I am going to press this new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Duty to prepare a Tree Strategy for England—
“(1) The Government must prepare a Tree Strategy for England as set out in subsection (2) and (3).
(2) The strategy must set out the Government’s vision, objectives, priorities and policies for trees in England including individual trees, woodland and forestry, and may set out other matters with respect to the promotion of sustainable management of trees in these contexts.
(3) The Tree Strategy for England must include the Government’s targets and interim targets with respect to—
(a) the percentage of England under tree cover;
(b) hectares of new native woodland creation achieved by tree planting;
(c) hectares of new native woodland creation achieved by natural regeneration;
(d) the percentage of native woodland in favourable ecological condition; and
(e) hectares of Plantation on Ancient Woodland (PAWS) undergoing restoration.
(4) The Government must keep the Tree Strategy for England under review, and may, if they consider it appropriate to do so, revise the strategy.
(5) If the Government has not revised the Tree Strategy for England within the period of 10 years beginning with the day on which the strategy was last published, they must revise the strategy.”
The aim of this new clause is to ensure that the Government prepares a tree strategy for England. It will ensure that the Government has to produce targets for the protection, restoration and expansion of trees and woodland in England.
Dr Whitehead
Hon. Members will recall that we heralded the arrival of this debate on new clauses 17 and 19 a little while ago in our debates, when we drew attention to clause 100, which comes under the strange heading of “Tree felling and planting” because “planting” does not appear in the text of the clause. New clauses 17 and 19 are similar—new clause 17 has more detail in the numbers—and seek to ensure that a proper strategy for tree planting is in place and that that strategy bears some relation to the reality of the numbers that will be required if we are actually to have a real effect on this country’s emissions, particularly our net negative emissions as we go towards our net zero target, which the Minister and I have already mentioned in Committee on several occasions.
We all agreed that we were to move towards a net zero target for emissions by 2050, and trees play an incredibly important part in that net zero target, because they are nature’s almost perfect method of carbon sequestration. Particularly as trees grow from their sapling stage to their mature stage, they have a burst of sequestration. Fortunately for us, that burst of carbon sequestration as the new trees grow exactly coincides with the period ahead of us up to 2050, when we have to get to our net zero target.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Across the whole UK, there are about 17.6 million hectares of productive agricultural land. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that it is about striking the correct balance? With the Prime Minister announcing 30,000 hectares for tree planting annually, does he agree that that will contribute towards reaching the target? It is about striking a balance.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and may well have anticipated my next comments. He referred to his miniature oracle—the mobile phone—to look up the number of hectares in productive use in the UK. In a tree strategy, it is important not to substitute productive land for tree cover if that can be avoided. We must ensure that marginal land, or land that is not in particularly productive use, can be afforested, and that land that is in productive use or has a high yield can continue to operate on that basis. We should not try to sequester land that could be used for other purposes to put trees on.
On the overall target, we must ask ourselves—indeed, the Committee on Climate Change has asked itself—whether it is possible to get that number of trees on the land in the UK, bearing in mind the constraints that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The answer is yes, absolutely, it is possible. The Forestry Commission and Forest Research have done a lot of research on the amount of marginal land in the UK that could have forest cover without impinging on grade 1 agricultural land, national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and so on. The answer is that roughly 5 million hectares are available in England for that sort of activity. There is land available.
A tree strategy would have to take account of the point that the hon. Member for Keighley made about what land was available and how it might be afforested, as well as the incentives that might be needed to do that because a lot of that land is in private ownership and some might be purchased for forestation and made available to the public. Other land could be made available through covenants, which the Minister mentioned. But overall, the purpose would be to ensure forestation that increases overall forest cover while making room for the various things that need to be done on the land up to 2050.
I want to come to the 30,000 hectares, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and which we have recently heard about in the press. One is not entirely clear what that figure means. A blog from the DEFRA press office on 12 June was headed—I am not sure about the grammar here—“Tree planting on the up in England”. Actually, it talked about tree planting not being particularly on the up in England, because not only have present targets been missed by up to 70% in recent years, but although total new planting in 2019-20 was indeed up, it was only up to 2,330 hectares, which is a tiny proportion of what is required annually to get anywhere near that figure by 2050.
Indeed, the figure very much squeezes the definition of what has been planted by taking into account the total number planted with Government support over the last three financial years and those hectares that the Department thinks have been planted without support—because people like planting trees. It suggests that total new planting, taking into account everything in the UK—Scotland and England as well—comes to about 13,000 hectares altogether. Therefore, even by squeezing the statistics as hard as we can, we still get a pretty low version of that tree planting figure.
Nor is it clear from that press release whether the 30,000 hectares of trees that we hear mentioned is an annual tree planting target or a target up to 2025. It states that
“tree planting in England increased last year but was below the rate needed to reach the manifesto commitment to plant 30,000 hectares of trees across the UK by 2025.”
That is very different from 30,000 a year. If the target is indeed 30,000 a year, that goes some way towards beginning to meet what the Committee on Climate Change has said is the imperative for planting up to 2050, but only halfway. We would probably need to plant about 50,000 to 60,000 hectares a year if we are to reach Committee on Climate Change target.
That is why the new clause sets out targets with particular percentages, because that is the key point: the percentage of land in the UK under woodland or forest cover, now and up to 2050. That is what the target effectively works around. We also need to understand clearly that the target has to be met between Governments, because half of the UK’s new trees were planted in Scotland last year and a substantial amount of the overall UK forest cover target would have to be met there. Therefore, not only would the target have to relate to English planting; it would have to relate to mutual action and discussions between the UK Government and the Scottish Government—and indeed the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly—about what is to be done on tree planting in the UK as a whole. As a matter of interest, Wales comes somewhere between Scotland and England in terms of its percentage of forest cover. Northern Ireland is very bad in its forest cover, so there are further areas to be made up in that context.
Fleur Anderson
I feel as though this is the tree strategy support group part two. As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, we talked about it in our discussion of clause 100, which was very disappointing. For anyone reading this debate in Hansard, I recommend that they go back and discover the length and breadth of clause 100, which is headed “Tree felling and planting”, but talks only about tree felling.
New clause 19 is specifically about a tree strategy, tree planting and tree conservation. As I said last week, putting an English tree strategy on a statutory footing is key to delivering the commitments in the 25-year environment plan alongside which the Bill sits. My hon. Friend has been through the many reasons why we need this strategy. It is therefore hugely disappointing to those who have a stake in our woodlands—and knowing how much the Minister is a tree person—that the Bill fails to deliver one. There have been no new clauses from the Government to set right this gap in the Bill. In the previous sitting, I heard several Conservative Members rightly praising and waxing lyrical about the Woodland Trust’s work, about which they were very appreciative. Despite their admiration, however, they have seemingly ignored exactly what the Woodland Trust has called for, which is contained in new clause 19; the new clause has the Woodland Trust’s full support.
I note and appreciate what the Minister said last week, namely that the long-awaited and much talked-about tree strategy is under production and will be launched in the spring of 2021. Given how long this Bill Committee seems to be going on, that feels very close. The tree strategy contains what the Government believe are ambitious commitments, and we all look forward to it. I welcome that, and I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the submissions made to their consultation. However, by refusing to give an England tree strategy a statutory footing, the Government risk seriously undermining their progress.
We know that there is a long way to go. Without a provision such as new clause 19, there is no formal way in England to set targets for a tree strategy. The new clause offers the opportunity to correct this, and it will ensure that the England tree strategy has the status it needs to protect, restore and expand trees and woodland in England. It is amazing; there were almost 3,000 submissions to the Government’s consultation from Woodland Trust supporters, and many wanted an England tree strategy to be put on a statutory footing. Supporting the new clause would ensure that their voices were heard and make the strategy’s targets meaningful, binding and much more likely to achieve their effect. The Woodland Trust has said:
“The amendment is strongly consistent with the Environment Bill’s aims of restoring and enhancing green spaces. It also complements the existing tree clauses, and reflects recent legislation in Scotland, important given the UK wide focus on increasing tree cover as part of the UK’s global climate and biodiversity commitments.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test has outlined, this really is a no-brainer.
We can learn from other countries that have put tree strategies into legislation and reaped the rewards. I have been careful, in looking at the Bill, to find out which other countries have brought in similar Bills. Have they introduced environmental legislation, and what have they learned from it? What good practice do we want to take from countries that have gone before us, with similar legislative and regulatory bodies, and what has not worked out very well for the environment? We do not have time for second chances when it comes to the environment.
I will take one example from Norway. We might think of Norway as a massively tree-covered country that does not need any help, but its 2005 Forestry Act was brought up to date to promote sustainable forest management, taking into consideration important environmental values, wildlife habitat, the storage of carbon and other essential functions of forests. Norway’s 2009 Nature Diversity Act ensured that forestry regulation complied with the legislation contained in that Act. Norway put forestry regulation on a statutory footing. It was probably littered with “musts”, and had hardly any “mays”—I can picture it now.
The success of Norway’s model and accompanying legislation speaks for itself. In 1920, Norwegian forests consisted of approximately 300 million cubic metres of standing timber. Today, the volume of standing timber is soon expected to exceed 1 billion cubic metres. It was on a downward trajectory, but it has tripled since the second world war, enhanced by the legislation that Norway has put in on a statutory footing.
New clause 19 is a “no regrets” commitment. I urge colleagues to reconsider their opposition to it, to stand up for trees and to stand up for the ambitious scale of tree planting and conservation that we need to meet our carbon targets, that we need for biodiversity and our own mental health, and that the public overwhelmingly want.
Rebecca Pow
I would like to think that the shadow Minister was going to branch out and not press this new clause to a Division.
I share everybody’s desire to deliver on a tree-planting commitment. The Government are mindful of that and are not wasting time. We are working to increase planting across the UK to 30,000 hectares per year by 2025—the figure which has been quoted and which is in line with the CCC recommendations. We are taking those recommendations extremely seriously. Forestry is devolved, so we are working closely with the devolved Administrations to meet that commitment. To increase planting in England, we have announced a £640 million nature for climate fund. In our England tree strategy, which will be published in early 2021, we will set out further plans for how a lot of the money will be used to fuel all the tree planting we need.
New clause 17 would set a UK-wide target, but as I just said, forestry is devolved, so the Bill is not the place to establish targets for the UK overall. The shadow Minister quoted some statistics—from a blog, I think—about 2,300 hectares of planting. That was an England-only figure for 2019; it was part of UK-wide planting of 13,400 hectares. Our manifesto commitment is to a UK goal, but the Bill is not the place to establish UK targets.
The new clause also proposes a specific England-only target, but significant woodland cover targets in legislation would have a major impact on land. Ours is a small island and therefore we have a limited resource for planting. It is not helpful to make comparisons with a country such as France, which is five times the size of the UK and has a much smaller population. I applaud what the Norwegians have done, but they have terrain that is much more suited to growing trees and, to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, they have fewer choices to make about prime agricultural land. We must and will strike a careful balance on where we put the trees.
Extending our 2025 commitment to 2050 would result in 17% tree cover, which is an enormous increase, but the new clause proposes 19%, which would require us to think seriously about the possible extent of woodland cover and how it would affect our prime agricultural land and land for housing and so on. I am sure the shadow Minister is completely aware of that. In a policy paper this summer, we set out our intention to explore whether legislative tree-planting targets would be appropriate under the target-setting procedure in the Bill. Before that process is complete, we should not set specific targets in legislation. Setting potentially unachievable targets, as proposed in the new clause, could lead to trees being planted in the wrong places for the wrong reasons, which could harm food production and sensitive habitats, or even increase carbon emissions. There are lots of things to consider.
New clause 19 proposes a duty to prepare a tree strategy for England and sub-sectoral targets. We know that a major increase in planting is needed—nobody denies that, and it is a manifesto commitment. That is why we have launched the consultation on a new England tree strategy. The strategy will be published in 2021; it will set out a clear vision, objectives and policies for trees in England, covering trees, woodlands and forests. There was great involvement in the consultation and some interesting ideas and proposals were advanced.
Daniel Zeichner
I appreciate the Minister’s great enthusiasm for trees. Will she join me in supporting and celebrating tree charter day, which is this Saturday, and congratulate the young plantscapers of Mayfield Primary School in Cambridge, who created a tree hanging especially for me to celebrate it?
Rebecca Pow
Of course I would like to celebrate that. I commend the school for its work. It is a brilliant thing to engage young people in nature and everything about trees, including ancient trees. That can only bring benefits to people’s lives. Well done to them for engaging.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister, as she has managed to do on several occasions, presents a powerful speech in favour of a proposition from the Opposition, and then says, “Well, it is not necessary and should not be supported.”
We can all agree that the Minister is a powerful advocate of trees; she has been for a long time and I do not doubt for a minute that she will continue to be so. I hope she appreciates that that is how I characterise myself. However, she also said—we are to take this on trust—that the Government are undertaking a review of trees. I hope they are, and that they will in due course produce something that will, among other things, lead to a considerable increase in tree planting in the way that I have described and the way in which she would advocate. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, none of that is statutory. Now is absolutely the right time to make sure that there is a statutory provision to frame the way forward.
I urge the Government to accept the provisions of new clause 17, which sets out the sort of targets we should adopt. They could be incorporated into a statutory strategy that the Government might produce. I think we are creeping towards agreement not only on how this should be done, but on the imperative to achieve or get close to those sorts of targets—the sort of thing the CCC was talking about—to ensure that we really make a difference as far as trees in the UK are concerned, subject to all the considerations that the Minister mentioned.
We want to ensure that any target is achieved in a sustainable way, without prejudice to other forms of land use in the UK, and in this case in England. Indeed, the Committee on Climate Change discussed in its report what sort of land uses should be maintained in the UK. It was very clear that we should not do something that undermines something else, but should try to move forward with a unified strategy that gives room for crop land, grassland, rough grazing and forestry, and that takes into account the fact that we are an densely populated country—one that, I would add, has succeeded in chopping down pretty much every tree in sight over the past 500 years. We have reflected on the change in land use that has come about as a result.
I recall mentioning a little while ago that the New Forest, which is near me, is a changed landscape. It is called the New Forest, but it is actually a substantially non-tree landscape that has been changed by humans over time, and the habitat has changed as a result. In and around the Minister’s constituency, there was a broad swathe of lowland forest and hilltops without trees on them. That is why a number of the dolmens, menhirs and standing stones are in their positions: they were ways of guiding people across forest areas to get to different places because the country was so heavily forested. We have wiped all that out over successive generations.
I do not think it is a case of trying to fit in a few trees to make enough progress on the margins while the rest of the country remains treeless. We need a wholesale project of restoring the tree heritage that Britain once had, while ensuring that that tree heritage can live alongside the other uses that we have brought about. That is a complicated thing to achieve.
Rebecca Pow
Given that the hon. Gentleman wants all this tree planting, does he welcome the great Northumberland forest, which is expanding forestry right across the landscape in the north-east, and the fact that we are kickstarting the planting of the new northern forest with a £5.7 million investment? I think he is agreeing with everything that I have said. We have said that we are ramping up tree planting to meet the advice of the Committee on Climate Change.
The Chair
Perhaps you can answer briefly, Dr Whitehead. It has been quite a long debate so far.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed. Yes, not only do I welcome those forests but I positively embrace the fact that they are being established. When we look at the older midlands forests that have arisen around Sherwood, we can see how more tree plantation can sit in the landscape alongside other uses. That is exactly what is being tried in the northern forest at the moment, so I understand and welcome that.
New clause 19, however, just says, “Get on with a tree strategy. You can put all these targets in it, but it has to be statutory so that we make sure it works properly.” I do not wish to press new clause 17 to a Division, because I accept that it includes targets that, although I think they are very important, the Minister may think might be mediated by other factors. However, it is important that we put on record that there should be a statutory tree target in the Bill and that we should get on with that strategy now. I will therefore put new clause 19 to a Division, to test whether the Committee agrees with that notion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 18
Policy statement on environmental principles: effect
“When exercising any function of a public nature that could affect the achievement of—
(a) any targets set under sections 1 or 2;
(b) interim targets set under section 10; or
(c) any other targets that meet the conditions in section 6(8)
public authorities must act compatibly with and, where appropriate, contribute to the achievement of those targets and the implementation of the environmental improvement plan.”.—(Daniel Zeichner.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
After the drama and passion of the trees debate, I am happy to inform you, Mr Gray, that the next few new clauses are a touch drier and return to issues of environmental law and the philosophical underpinnings of the Bill. They are important none the less.
New clause 18 would introduce a new duty on all public authorities to ensure that all levels and arms of government play their part in achieving the environmental targets. The new clause would give the air quality, water, waste and biodiversity targets we established at the outset real relevance and meaningful drive from day one, and it would bolster the effects of clause 4. Our concern is that, as it stands, the Bill does not require or sufficiently clarify the need for action across all levels of government and other public bodies.
I will give one example, on air quality. Although part 4 of the Bill provides welcome new powers for local authorities and some useful clarification of their existing responsibilities, it does not do enough to ensure that a comprehensive approach is taken across all levels of public decision making; in fact, it rather risks putting the burden of responsibility solely on local authorities. As we know, air pollution does not respect boundaries, and action by local authorities alone will not be enough to tackle all the sources of air pollution. The new clause would help to spread that burden across central and local government and other significant public bodies in this space, requiring them to contribute to providing solutions on a national and regional scale. We fear that, without something like this, progress will be too slow. The same would be true of the other priority areas as well.
We will not push the new clause to a Division, you will be pleased to hear, Mr Gray, but we would like to hear what the Minister has to say about how those targets can be achieved, which we all want, without this kind of wider environmental duty.
Rebecca Pow
The legal obligation to achieve the long-term target set by central Government properly rests with central Government, and it is for central Government to create the right natural policy frameworks in which other public bodies can best contribute to our environmental goals alongside their own priorities and legal obligations. We will report annually on the implementation of the environmental improvement plan, on improvements in the natural environment and on progress towards the targets, which will provide an opportunity to identify how these national policy frameworks are contributing to environmental improvement. The Office for Environmental Protection will respond to the Government’s annual report with its own independent report. That covers everything that I have been pointing out from the beginning about the whole process of monitoring and reporting.
Where necessary, the Government could change these national policy frameworks, as we are doing through the Bill by making improvements to the local air quality management framework; the hon. Gentleman touched on air, but this measure, already outlined, will do exactly that. Changes would need to be made, following proper consultation with affected bodies, having due regard to the environmental principles policy statement. Local authorities, as I said, have an important role to play in delivering environmental improvement, including through some of the measures in the Bill. Long-term, legally binding targets will set the trajectory for driving long-term improvements in our natural environment.
Public authorities, in particular local authorities, have an important role to play in delivering these improvements, and measures in the Bill will help to drive that action on the ground. For example, the nature section of the Bill strengthens the existing biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Public authorities will have to act to conserve and enhance biodiversity, while taking account of local nature recovery strategies. We have covered all that in great detail. There will be a groundswell from the bottom up; local authorities will be hugely involved.
Clear accountability at central Government level provides clarity and avoids additional burdens on hard-working public bodies. Were the new clause to be accepted, the shadow Minister would be placing many more burdens on local authorities. We are at pains to make sure that we do not overburden them, but what they do is an essential part of the whole system, with the Government up there at the top, being held to account and playing their role. I think the hon. Member for Cambridge said he was not going to press the clause. If that is the case, I thank him for it.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister is right; we are not going to press the motion, but I would say that I think we are repeating some of the arguments we had on earlier clauses. We are somewhat sceptical that the Minister’s noble hopes will be realised. I entirely agree that the Government are expecting a lot from local authorities, but we think that it is not only local authorities that will have to step up. I hear what the Minister says and we shall see how it plays out. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 19
Duty to prepare a Tree Strategy for England
“(1) The Government must prepare a Tree Strategy for England as set out in subsection (2) and (3).
(2) The strategy must set out the Government’s vision, objectives, priorities and policies for trees in England including individual trees, woodland and forestry, and may set out other matters with respect to the promotion of sustainable management of trees in these contexts.
(3) The Tree Strategy for England must include the Government’s targets and interim targets with respect to—
(a) the percentage of England under tree cover;
(b) hectares of new native woodland creation achieved by tree planting;
(c) hectares of new native woodland creation achieved by natural regeneration;
(d) the percentage of native woodland in favourable ecological condition; and
(e) hectares of Plantation on Ancient Woodland (PAWS) undergoing restoration.
(4) The Government must keep the Tree Strategy for England under review, and may, if they consider it appropriate to do so, revise the strategy.
(5) If the Government has not revised the Tree Strategy for England within the period of 10 years beginning with the day on which the strategy was last published, they must revise the strategy.”.—(Dr Whitehead.)
The aim of this new clause is to ensure that the Government prepares a tree strategy for England. It will ensure that the Government has to produce targets for the protection, restoration and expansion of trees and woodland in England.”
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
After the Government’s majority was slashed at the last vote, I am hugely excited. If only there were a Liberal Democrat bar chart to hand, we could see the swing. I am quite excited about new clause 20 and I am glad the Committee has come back to life. I am so sorry that some hon. Members failed to witness the excitement.
The new clause brings us back to the discussions that the Minister and I had about the state of nature. We think that we need to turn the Government’s rhetoric into reality by setting out a target for reversing the decline of nature, in time to play a leadership role as we head to COP15. COP15 is delayed—it would have been happening about now—and is now set for late spring next year, in Kunming, China. The hope is for a new set of global goals for 2030 to replace the 2020 Aichi biodiversity targets, which, as we all know, the world has sadly not done too well on.
I think we can all agree it is vital that the next decade sees much more success than we have managed collectively to achieve in the recent past. As a driving force of the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature, which commits to reversing biodiversity loss by 2030, the UK is in a really good place to be a key advocate for leading on these matters. The Bill contains a framework for setting long-term legally binding targets, but it seems to us that the timeframe does not sit comfortably with the 2030 goal. New clause 20 would require the setting of a state-of-nature target that takes account of what needs to be done domestically to contribute to improving the global state of nature.
Looking back at the document on environmental targets from late August, we see that, interesting reading though much of it is, it seems almost like at discursive paper. In my city we are familiar with interesting, discursive papers, but this goes back to the may/must argument. There are plenty of fine intentions, such as:
“Natural England is currently working on a programme to improve monitoring of our protected sites”
That is great, but it is not necessarily mean that it is doing something.
The paper also states:
“A legally binding target for Marine Protected Areas could complement and bolster this on-going work.”
And, sadly:
“Trends show that overall, species populations have declined over the last 40 years. Whilst these losses have slowed down, there is still work to do.”
That simply describes a state of decline.
The document continues:
“Our most comprehensive species data is about the abundance of species. Using this, we could set a target”.
They could set a target, or they might not. It continues:
“It will be difficult to predict how species populations will change over time—including as a result of implementing new policies—as we consider whether to develop a target or targets for species.”
That is all worthy stuff, but it is not the stuff of leadership.
On habitat restoration, the paper states that
“the Environment Bill lays the foundation for the Nature Recovery Network that will complement plans for a new Environmental Land Management scheme.”
Again, that is a description of an aspiration. Frankly, we know how difficult it will be to do some of this stuff. The document states:
“We are currently developing an indicator to directly monitor.”
As I say, it is all aspirational stuff and, I am afraid, all too vague.
The section on nature finishes by saying:
“We are currently undertaking the following steps to increase planting in England”—
this goes back to trees—
“developing a new England Tree Strategy…developing plans to deploy the £640 million Nature for Climate Fund”.
That is all part of a wish list, but it really does not add up to a leadership strategy.
We think the strategy needs to be much stronger and more ambitious. New clause 20 would signal the intention to set a target in domestic legislation. That would allow us, in advance of next year’s very important international summit, to set a lead such that we would truly be able to say that we were world leading. Frankly, that section of the paper seems a bit fluffy to me.
Rebecca Pow
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the UK is committed to playing a leading role in developing an ambitious and transformative post-2020 framework for global biodiversity under the convention on biological diversity. The UK Government already support a global target to protect at least 30% of the global ocean by 2030, and 32 countries have joined our global ocean alliance in support of the target. We really are forging ahead on this issue. At the end of September, the Prime Minister committed to extend that commitment to land—indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred to that.
Together with the European Commission and Costa Rica, the UK was instrumental in crafting the leaders’ pledge for nature, a leader-level voluntary declaration that was launched at the United Nations General Assembly on 28 October. The pledge sets out 10 urgent actions to put biodiversity on a path to recovery by 2030. If that is not ambitious, I do not know what is.
Our international aims on biodiversity must be underpinned by credible action at home—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. Indeed, it is something that I keep saying as the Minister. Following agreement of the post-2020 framework, we will publish a new strategy for nature in England that will outline how we will implement the CBD’s new global targets domestically and meet our 25-year environmental goals for nature at the same time. We recognise the importance of setting legally binding targets to support our ambitions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill includes a requirement to set at least one long-term, legally binding target in relation to biodiversity, as well as targets for air quality, water and resource efficiency, and waste reduction. Our recently published policy paper on environmental targets sets out the areas under consideration for targets, including on species and habitats. So there could and will undoubtedly be myriad targets in future years that will affect the space of biodiversity to which he refers.
The Government will determine the specific areas in which targets will be set via the robust and transparent target-setting, monitoring and reporting process that the Bill sets in train. Advice from independent experts will be sought during the target-setting process, and stakeholders and the public will also have an opportunity to provide input as to what they think is the right level. Targets will be based on scientifically credible evidence, as well as economic analysis. We do not want to prejudge the specific targets that will emerge from this process. Indeed, scientists and academics very much support this thinking and way of operating. I have made it clear that there is enough in the Bill without the proposed new clause, so I ask the hon. Gentleman—who, as ever, makes an eloquent point—to withdraw it.
Daniel Zeichner
On this occasion, I am afraid I will have to disappoint. The Minister has wheeled out a veritable forest of aspirational opportunities, but we think that the Bill needs to be clearer in its ambition. If that were the case, we would be in a stronger position going into COP26 next year. I suspect this debate will continue over the coming months, but in the meantime we would like to put our position on the record by forcing a Division and—who knows?—perhaps a great victory.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The proposed new clause concerns collaboration with the various devolved authorities and Governments of the UK. It sets out a number of things that need to be done, but I suspect the Minister will say that they are already in the Bill. I hope she will give us good reasons for why what is in the Bill allows for that co-operation to take place. If she can do that, I am sure this particular proposed new clause will not go to a vote.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to reiterate this Government’s strong commitment to a strong Union and to strong co-operation among the four nations in respect of the devolution settlements. How the OEP and equivalent bodies in the devolved Administrations co-operate will be a prime example of that. Co-operation between the OEP and equivalent devolved bodies is fundamental to ensuring that cross-border issues and matters that concern both devolved and reserved environmental law are dealt with effectively. However, the proposed new clause would not achieve this desirable objective.
First, the proposed new clause would place an absolute, unilateral duty on the OEP to co-operate with equivalent bodies in devolved Administrations. That would be an imbalanced and disproportionate approach, particularly as the specifics of environmental governance arrangements are yet to be confirmed across the Union. Secondly, effective co-operation requires flexibility and agency, something that the proposed new clause’s over-specific definition of co-operation would prevent. The Bill already requires the OEP to consult devolved environmental bodies on environmental governance matters that would be of relevance to them. That is covered and I hope the shadow Minister will welcome that.
Dr Whitehead
I am sure the Minister will thank us for giving her the opportunity to read out that pellucid note, which puts on the record the intention to, through the OEP, collaborate fully with the Governments of the UK. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 22
Application of environmental principles
“(1) A public authority must apply the environmental principles in section 16 in the exercise of its functions.
(2) In this section ‘public authority’ has the same meaning as in section 28(3).”—(Daniel Zeichner.)
This new clause requires public authorities to apply the environmental principles.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 22 takes us back almost to the beginning of our deliberations and to environmental principles. The December 2018 policy statement on environmental principles set out five important principles in law: integration, prevention, precaution, rectification and polluter pays. There has been wide discussion in this area, including a lot of work by the Environmental Audit Committee, which came up with about 55 recommendations. Here we are, at the tail end of our discussions about the Bill, going back to some of those points. Concerns have been raised by environmental lawyers through Greener UK. After all this discussion, their view is that the Bill
“does not yet provide an adequate route to ensuring that those important legal principles fully function to achieve”
the aims set out by the Bill.
This is important because, when matters are tested in court, this is what people will look at. Much more learned people than me have pored over these issues and these are some of the conclusions they have come to. They feel that clauses on environmental principles have not changed much since the December 2018 document. Despite discussions in pre-legislative scrutiny and on Select Committees, the expert conclusion is that the Bill
“does not maintain the legal status of environmental principles as they have come to apply through EU law.”
That is, of course, one of the crunch issues of the entire discussion around the Bill.
I will not go through in detail the fine points that they make, but they do say that
“environmental principles have been binding on all public authorities including in individual administrative decisions. This legal obligation on all public authorities to apply the principles, whenever relevant, will be undermined through the bill.”
That is a strong concern, which reflects our continuing worry that, despite the ambitions, rhetoric and optimism displayed by the Minister, when we dig down into the detail of the Bill, we see that it does not provide the same level of protection that we have enjoyed before. Sadly, that takes us back. I am sure the Minister will disagree, and we will listen to the reasons why, but we will not press this to a Division.
Rebecca Pow
The Government are fully committed to ensuring that environmental protection sits at the heart of the policies that we will bring forward. However, the new clause would place significant—I would say huge—burdens on Government and public authorities, without adding any additional environmental benefit. Moreover, the Government already implement these considerations in other ways. Central Government develop strategic environmental policies and set the strategy and approach for any key decisions taken by public bodies. It, therefore, makes sense for the new environmental principles duty to sit with Ministers.
To use the example of a planning application for a shed, it seems wholly unreasonable for a public authority to be obliged to prove the principles have been considered, when the strategic framework, in such case the national planning policy framework, should embed these expectations. To be clear, strategies set by central Government, such as the NPPF, will have been developed in line with the principles policy statement. Placing a legal duty on Ministers to
“have due regard to the policy statement”,
as we have done in clause 18, enables the provision of clear guidance to Departments to ensure an efficient policy-making process.
The policy statement will set out the details on the application and the interpretation of the principles. This would not be clear if the duty were directly on the principles themselves, as primary legislation cannot go into the necessary detail. In a similar vein, the proposal to alter the environmental principles duty from “have due regard” to “must apply” would be extremely burdensome and would have unintended consequences.
The new clause would also extend the scope of the principles duty from being limited to policy making to covering all functions administered by all public authorities, which would result in a massive, unnecessary burden. The new clause would create a significant additional and excessive burden on public services, while duplicating existing provisions, without any clear environmental benefit or purpose.
I think the hon. Member for Cambridge touched on the lowering of standards relating to the EU. The EU only has principles and it does not have a policy statement to explain how to use them. We have taken a big step further than that and it is much clearer, I would say. I hope that gives this complicated process a bit of clarity. I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
On this occasion, I am happy to oblige, not least because I suspect we will want to go away and look very carefully at the Minister’s words. I think there is quite an important set of issues here. We are not necessarily convinced that this strengthens our environmental protections. A planning application for a shed was a slightly unfortunate example to give, given that under the proposals in the planning White Paper, there will be whole swathes of the country where no planning application will be needed in future at all. That is exactly the force of our arguments. While we remain concerned, we will not pursue it any further this evening, because 20 minutes to 5 is not the time for this. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)
Environment Bill (Twenty Second sitting)
Thursday 26th November 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 November 2020 - (26 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Welcome to this penultimate, or possibly ultimate—we hope—sitting of the Committee. I think that everybody is observing social distancing today, but the Speaker has made it perfectly clear that we must be very strict about this. For this last—or second last—event, please try to remember that.
New Clause 23
Reduction of lead poisoning from shot
(1) The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After section 5(c)(viii) insert—
“(ix) any form of lead ammunition used in a shotgun.”
(3) After section 11 (1)(d) insert—
“(e) uses lead ammunition in a shotgun for the purposes of killing or taking any wild animal”.
(4) The provisions in this section come into force on 1 January 2023.
This new clause intends to provide an effective regulation to protect wildlife, the environment and human health by replacing widely-used toxic lead gunshot with alternatives. It intends to ensure a supply of healthy game for the market, whilst meeting societal requirements and those of shooting, food retail and conservation stakeholders.—(Fleur Anderson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is an honour to stand in this last sitting of our Environment Bill Committee consideration, which began 261 days ago. I have been disappointed, so far, by the lack of agreement over the amendments proposed by Opposition Members.
I hope today will see a sea change; that this new clause is the one that we can all accept, agreeing that lead shot is highly toxic, should not be in our system, is bad for the environment, bad for wildlife, bad for children, bad for adults—bad for everyone. Its days can now be hastily numbered, and we can support the shooting community in their efforts to get rid of lead shot from our environment, our ecosystem and our agriculture.
Lead shot is highly toxic and is easily absorbed into the bloodstream. Birds eat it as they mistake it for grit—which they eat for digestion—and it then gets absorbed into their bodies. It is also highly toxic for children; there is no minimum amount of lead, in any system, that is safe for children.
I am no urban MP, standing up for a city constituency, with no idea of what goes on in the country, because I was raised in Wiltshire, where my father was a rural vicar. Every Christmas, some of our presents would not be wrapped up, but would be hung up outside our door, as they would be a brace of pheasants. I do understand what happens in the shooting community.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Will the vicar’s daughter give way?
Bim Afolami
Could the hon. Lady outline the differential impacts of steel and lead shot, as that is something that many in the shooting community are interested in and will carefully consider?
Fleur Anderson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and for his interest in this subject, which I have become much more interested in since researching it and talking to relevant bodies.
Steel is considered to be safe, as are tungsten alloys and tin, so there are alternatives out there. There is obviously an issue with single-use plastics, which would currently have to be used with alternatives to lead. However, I believe that with the inspiration and impetus from this amendment, the whole shooting community—including manufacturers of alternatives to lead shot—would be encouraged to use and produce ammunition that was far, far safer than lead shot.
Lead does not need to be used; non-toxic ammunition is widely available, effective, and comparably priced. The hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden may be interested to know that Denmark and the Netherlands banned the use of all lead shot in the 1990s; they have proved that changing to safer ammunition is entirely possible.
Why do we need to do this new clause? We know that 8.7% of ducks and geese across Europe die every year from eating lead shot; this includes 23% of pochard, which is a species threatened with global extinction, and 31% of pintail ducks. Lead poisoning from ammunition kills an estimated 75,000 water birds each year, as well as other birds and mammals.
Through ingestion by cattle—which then results in food-safety issues as it enters their system—lead can end up in restaurants and retail outlets; in our food. It also seeps into land, including wetlands, and creates toxic grounds; wetlands have been found to be peppered with lead shot.
Lead is dangerous for people’s health, as lead shot often fragments and is ingested in game meat. Children and pregnant women are particularly at risk due to the negative impact of lead on the developing brain, which has led to Waitrose labelling its game meat products as not safe for pregnant women and children.
Lead is not something we should allow into our food system. Somewhere in the order of 10,000 children from the UK hunting community are estimated to be at risk of negative impacts on IQ due to household consumption of game meat. If the effects were immediate and something happened to us that caused an immediate breakdown of our health, we would have stopped this years ago, but because lead has a subtle effect on our health—on our brain development and IQ—it has been allowed to carry on for too long.
The new clause has not just been dreamed up in the past few months; it is the result of the Government engaging with this issue since 1991. There have been stakeholder groups, compliance studies, risk assessments and reviews, but the stars are now aligned. We cannot any longer say that the new clause is not needed. I know that the British Association for Shooting and Conservation is moving towards a ban on lead shot, which I welcome. It wants to take action within the next five years to see a change. There is clearly appetite in the shooting world to accomplish what is set out in the new clause by banning lead shot. However, things are not moving fast enough. We cannot entirely rely on that compliance, but the new clause would take us where the shooting community seems to want us to go.
The stars are aligned, and it is time for the new clause. There is a limited ban at the moment, focused on wetland birds, but it is widely flouted and there has been only one prosecution, which is another reason why we need to have the new clause in the legislation. The partial regulation focused on protecting wetland birds, and similar regulations in other home nations, have been ineffective in reducing lead poisoning in water birds because there has been a high level of non-compliance. Birds feeding in terrestrial habitats, where most of the lead shot is legally deposited, are also affected. Moreover, enforcement of the limited regulation has been negligible so far, and human and livestock health have not been protected. Two large-scale restriction proposals are currently being progressed in the EU under REACH, which will bring about a total ban and additional benefits to law enforcement. Let us pre-empt that and go one step further in the UK.
This is the right time for policy change. The coinciding of the new Environment Bill and proposed policy change on lead shot is opportune. The nine main UK shooting organisations recognise the risk from lead ammunition. There is no debate about that. The imminent impacts of regulation on lead ammunition in the EU, and the likely impacts on UK markets for game meat, all need to be considered. Hence, on 22 February, the move to a voluntary phase-out of lead shot within five years was announced. That has already prepared the UK’s shooting community for change, and I have seen that the media narratives around shooting have changed to reflect that.
To date, however, voluntary bans on lead shot have always failed, so to say that the new clause is unnecessary is just not good enough. Denmark, which has gone ahead of us on this issue—we can learn from them—banned all lead shot in 1996. Hunters accept that it was because a progressive Government took such a step that they now lead the world in the control of lead poisoning from shot.
Although there is a desire for change within hunting organisations, there also remains a tradition of resisting regulation, which might just roll on and on over the next five years.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I want to pick up on that point. It is not only BASC but the Moorland Association, the National Gamekeepers Organisation and the Country Land and Business Association that are behind the transition. They are actually going further than what the hon. Lady is asking for, by asking for a ban on single-use plastics in the cartridges, but what they are clearly asking for is a period of smooth transition over five years. Does the hon. Member not agree that that is more appropriate?
Fleur Anderson
I agree, and I thank the hon. Member for pointing out the wide support for a move in this direction, but if we can ensure it is in legislation, the move will go further, it will be deeper and it will be guaranteed to happen. Given the high toxicity of lead, we cannot just leave this issue to voluntary moves by all those organisations. Let us go with the flow and accept their willingness to change, but let us underpin that with legislative change, which moves it on faster. These issues have already been under negotiation. The smooth transition is happening. I am not asking for this to happen on 1 January—the proposal is to give another year. There is time to move forward; the new clause is very reasonable. If we want to go further and talk more about single-use plastics, that will happen in time, and this proposal will enable manufacturers to do that.
Only regulation will provide a guaranteed market for ammunition manufacturers. Moving all users of ammunition through these changes, all at once, will enable ammunition manufacturers to make the change that we all surely want to see, and will ensure the provision of game free from lead ammunition for the retail market. It will enable cost-effective enforcement and protect wildlife and human health much earlier than in five years. Why would we want lead shot in our food for another five years? Why would we want to kill all those birds for another five years?
Action on this issue was recommended in 1983 in the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on lead in the environment. It has been long enough. It is long overdue. Now, at last, is the time to act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I thank the hon. Member for Putney for the new clause and for highlighting her eating of pheasant as a child. I, too, have had many a pheasant hanging in my garage. Indeed, we had roast pheasant for lunch this Sunday. It was absolutely delicious, covered in bacon. It was really nice.
I reassure the hon. Lady that this Government support the principle of addressing the impacts of lead shot. Evidence published by the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust suggests that, as she pointed out, tens of thousands of wildfowl die from lead poisoning each year and many more birds, including scavengers and predators such as raptors, suffer and die through secondary poisoning.
There is a lot of movement already going on in this space. In England, the use of lead shot is already prohibited over all foreshore, on sites of special scientific interest and for shooting certain waterfowl. I certainly know people in Somerset who give anyone all of the chat before they go out to shoot anywhere near wildfowl and local ponds about not using lead shot.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has pointed out that the new clause falls short of what shooting organisations are calling for. Organisations such as BASC, the Moorland Association and various other countryside organisations—I engaged with a lot of them as a Back Bencher—are calling for an end within five years to both lead and single-use plastics. They are talking about it seriously. As the hon. Member for Putney will know, there is a lot of research going on as well.
An EU REACH regulation on the use of lead shot in or near wetlands is close to being adopted and a wider measure affecting all terrestrial areas is under consideration. The fact that the industry itself is calling for a ban within five years demonstrates the work going on in this space.
The wetlands measure will apply in Northern Ireland by virtue of the Northern Ireland protocol and will apply in the rest of the UK and be retained EU law after the transition period if the legislation providing for that comes into force before the end of this period.
The amendment seeks to prohibit use of lead shot in shotguns for the purposes of killing or taking any wild bird or wild animal. That approach may not be the most effective means of restricting the use of lead shot. It is also slightly unclear because it does not cover clay pigeon shooting, for example. If one were really going to address this issue, all aspects of the sport, as it might be termed, would need to be considered. The new clause does not address them all.
The police would enforce under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, but as with other wildlife crimes, there are considerable difficulties in detection and taking enforcement action in remote locations. All those things would need ironing out; it is not just a straightforward, “Let’s have a ban tomorrow.”
Fleur Anderson
I thank the Minister, but it will not surprise her to hear that I will not be withdrawing the new clause. Assurances do not cut it on this issue; it is too important. I would also absolutely refute any feeling that this is not underpinned by evidence. As I have outlined, so much work by so many different groups has gone into this that it does need to go ahead.
If we need it to, the Office for Environmental Protection has all the powers to go further than my proposal to talk about clay pigeon use and single-use plastics. Let us take this further, absolutely, but accepting the new clause would be a much better assurance and indication of our intentions for what should happen in terms of getting rid of lead ammunition. Assurances and good words will be far less effective than putting this new clause in the Bill. The new clause goes further than voluntary regulations because it puts this firm date, 1 January 2023, in legislation. Those five-year assurances might go on and on; when is the actual end of that five years? The new clause ensures that action will happen, so we will be dividing the Committee.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
Before we proceed, may I advise the Committee that we are able to sit here until 5 pm on Tuesday, but I personally feel a strong urge to get back to Wiltshire as soon as I possibly can, and cracking on would therefore be a good plan.
New Clause 28
Environmental objective and commitments
‘(1) In interpreting and applying this Act, any party with duties, responsibilities, obligations or discretions under or relating to it must comply with—
(a) the environmental objective in subsection (2); and
(b) the commitments in subsection (3).
(2) The environmental objective is to achieve and maintain—
(a) a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment;
(b) an environment that supports human health and well-being for everyone; and
(c) sustainable use of resources.
(3) The commitments are—
(a) all commitments given by Her Majesty’s Government in the United Nations Leaders’ Pledge for Nature of 28 September 2020, including, but not limited to, the urgent actions committed to be taken by it over the period of ten years from the date of that pledge;
(b) any enhanced commitments given by Her Majesty’s Government pursuant to that pledge, any other pledge, and any international agreement; and
(c) all relevant domestic legislation, including, but not limited to, the Climate Change Act 2008, as amended from time to time.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of the requirement in subsection (1), that requirement applies to—
(a) the Secretary of State in setting, amending and ensuring compliance with the environmental targets; preparing, amending and implementing environmental improvement plans; and performing all their obligations and exercising all their discretions under this Act;
(b) the Office for Environmental Protection and the Upper Tribunal in performing their respective obligations and exercising any applicable discretions; and
(c) all other persons and bodies with obligations and discretions under, or in connection with, the subject matter of this Act.’ .—(Dr Whitehead.)
This new clause ties obligations and discretions of the various parties under this Act (subsections 2 and 3), other acts and international agreements together. It seeks to incorporate commitments as they are made in the future. It requires all relevant public bodies to apply the commitments as they are agreed to
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Hon. Members with an elephantine memory will recall that at the beginning of this Committee’s deliberations—I have here the exact date and time a clause is debated; it is written on a piece of parchment, it is so old—we tabled new clause 1, which related to the environmental objective. At that time, we said that one reason for tabling this new clause was that the Bill had no cohesion in terms of its overall objectives. While it has many good things in it, those are essentially disparate elements that do not pull themselves together in terms of what the Bill is or should be about overall. We tabled that brief clause to try to pull the Bill together. The clause was not agreed to on that occasion, but as the Bill Committee has progressed and as we have moved into our latter stages in the autumn, nothing has made the Bill more cohesive.
New clause 28 would do exactly that, with environmental objectives and commitments. It would place in the Bill a very clear environmental objective to
“achieve and maintain…a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment…an environment that supports human health and well-being for everyone; and…sustainable use of resources.
I think that would absolutely pull together what we all think we are doing in this Bill Committee. If passed, imagine the new clause placed at the head of the Bill, where it would underline those objectives and ensure that everything in the Bill was read within them.
The new clause goes further still by ensuring that the Bill takes account of
“all commitments given by Her Majesty’s Government in the United Nations Leaders’ Pledge for Nature of 28 September 2020”,
which reflects those environmental objectives. The legislation would include the international commitments that we as a country have made to our environmental objectives, underlining just how important the Bill may be for those objectives.
We are offering a much better and improved environmental objective clause that takes account of all the various issues raised in Committee, and we think it would be a great adornment to the Bill. I know that in this place we are all looking for “the one” when it comes to clauses, and I was grievously disappointed that the last clause did not make it into the Bill, because there was absolutely no reason at all why it should not have been adopted. I have a similar feeling about new clause 28. I hope that the Committee will unanimously agree that we need an environmental objective in the Bill. This clause fits the bill admirably and should be supported.
Rebecca Pow
The shadow Minister said that there is no cohesion to what the Bill is about. He spoke about people with elephantine memories, but surely he has not been listening? Throughout Committee stage, we have talked about what the Bill is about. I thank him for his sentiments, but I honestly think that he has missed the point somewhere along the line.
I reassure the Committee that we have designed each governance mechanism in part 1 of the Bill with guiding objectives. They will ensure that targets, environmental improvement plans, the environmental principles, which are included, and the Office for Environmental Protection work in harmony to protect and enhance our natural environment. That has all been devised as one framework. As is set out on the face of the Bill, the objective of the targets and environmental improvement plans is to deliver significant improvement and to provide certainty on the direction of travel. The first EIP is the 25-year environment plan, which the Opposition have waved at us many times.
The policy statement on the environment principles will be required to contribute to the improvement of environmental protection and sustainable development. Ministers of the Crown must have regard to that statement when making policy. Those aims will therefore be integral to policy making across Government. Furthermore, clause 22 sets a principal objective for the OEP of contributing to environmental protection and the improvement of the natural environmental in exercising its functions, so if the OEP does not think that enough is being done towards that objective, it can say why, give some steers and advice, and things will have to change. Those measures are all closely aligned and will work together to deliver the environmental objectives outlined in new clause 28 on the improvement and protection of the natural environment, and the sustainable use of resources—that is all very much a part of the measures.
The new clause would include commitments made under the voluntary leaders’ pledge for nature. I am very glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned that, because it was a big moment when our Prime Minister said that we support that pledge at the recent UN biodiversity summit at the UN General Assembly in September. The UK is now working with other key signatories to drive forward the 10 commitments in the pledge, including through our hosting of COP26 and our involvement in the convention on biological diversity negotiations in 2021. I reiterate that the leaders’ pledge for nature is voluntary and, as such, was drafted between the participating states in deliberately non-treaty language, partly to serve as a public document that could be read by as many constituents as possible. The UK is now working with other key signatory countries to drive forward those commitments.
Many of the areas reflected in the leaders’ pledge are already included in the Bill, which introduces a powerful package of new policies and tools to support nature’s recovery. I know that the shadow Minister wants that just as much as I do, but I assure him that the measures in the Bill already cover that, not least on biodiversity net gain, local nature recovery strategies, conservation covenants, which he did welcome, and a strengthened biodiversity duty on public authorities. All those things will work together to drive from the roots upwards to get overall improvement. As a result, we will be creating or restoring rich habitats to enable wildlife to recover and thrive in future years. Measures on resource efficiency will help to keep products in use for longer, encouraging better repair and recycling of materials by influencing product design at the very beginning.
Clause 2 places a clear, legally binding requirement on the Government to set an air quality target that goes beyond EU requirements and delivers significant health benefits for citizens. The Bill also supports recent legislation on reaching net zero emissions by 2050 and our wider efforts to build resilience to a changing climate. It will do so by improving air and water quality, supporting resource efficiency, and restoring habitats to allow plants and wildlife to thrive, along with other measures in that part of the Bill.
I hope that I have made it clear that I honestly do not believe that new clause 28 is needed. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Dr Whitehead
Although the Minister has provided a good concordance on where to look in the Bill for things that could conceivably pull it together, nothing in the Bill actually does that. Saying that if one looks at the Bill carefully, one can see things that move it in the right direction, is not really a defence.
Rebecca Pow
The shadow Minister’s new clause refers to a “healthy, resilient” environment—that is such a loose term. What exactly does he mean by that and what does it mean legally? Does he not agree that, were that wording to be used, it would create huge legal risk and could jeopardise the delivery of key policies in the Bill?
Dr Whitehead
I do not think a healthy and resilient environment can be interpreted in any other way than an environment that needs to be as healthy as possible for human development and progress, and one that is able to regenerate itself and keep as close as possible to the most beneficial way of working that it had prior to human intervention. I do not think there is a problem about the definition. Indeed, having it defined in that brief, particular way gives a very good remit for making sure that those are the ways in which that environment can be defined.
The Chair
Just to give the batting averages, we have taken half an hour for two new clauses. At this rate, we will be here until 4.30 pm this afternoon. Speed is of the essence.
New Clause 29
Report on climate and ecology
“(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than six months after the day of which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the adequacy of environmental legislation and policy for meeting the climate and ecology challenges faced by the United Kingdom and the world.
(2) That report must include specific assessments relating to—
(a) water quality, availability and abundance;
(b) biodiversity, including, but not limited to, the restoration and regeneration of biodiverse habitats, natural and human modified ecosystems, and their respective soils;
(c) the expansion and enhancement of natural ecosystems and agroecosystems to safeguard their carbon-sink capacity and resilience to global heating; and
(d) resource efficiency, waste reduction and the promotion of the circular economy.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to go beyond setting one target (as in Section 1(2)) to within 6 months, assess, develop plans and outline adequacy of each target. “Circular Economy” is included as the Prime Minister agreed this concept in September 2020 at UN Leaders Pledge for Nature
Brought up, and read the First time.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me yet again. We are such regular correspondents that I am half expecting a Christmas card any time soon. She wrote on the debate we had on new clauses 25 and 27. It is a very detailed reply and it does give some reassurance, but I have to say that it shows why we should have had a discussion about those clauses in an evidence session, rather than have them inserted late in the day. I suspect there will be other lawyers who will take a different view on some of these matters, but I am sure that can be pursued as we go through the later stages of the Bill.
On new clause 29, I very much echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. We believe that new clauses 29 and 28 together would strengthen the Bill. New clause 29 would give additional bite; it can stand on its own, so there is still time for the Minister to redeem herself. Exactly as my hon. Friend said, we take issue with the lack of overall clarity in the Bill. It needs a clearer thread running through.
The new clause, which would require the Secretary of State within six months of the Bill becoming law to report on the adequacy of current environmental law and policy in meeting the climate and ecological challenges the UK faces, would be tremendously helpful, not least because—as we saw yesterday—it seems the Government do one thing one day, and completely different things another day. They fail to face the challenges when they make big policy announcements. The new clause would make it much tougher for the Government to crawl out of their obligations.
We think the report should specifically be required to address issues of water, biodiversity, the capacity of natural and agroecosystems to mitigate global warming, resource efficiency, waste reduction and the promotion of the circular economy. That should be helpful to Government. As my hon. Friend said, we support the Prime Minister’s signing up to the UN leaders’ pledge for nature, and this includes the circular economy in our thinking.
We have taken a number of these ideas from the climate and ecological emergency Bill, which we believe is right to place emphasis on the importance of expanding and enhancing natural ecosystems and agroecosystems to safeguard their capacity as carbon sinks, as well as on the need to restore biodiverse habits and their soils. Out there in the world, which is sadly not following proceedings on the Bill as closely as some of us would hope, there is an appetite for this more ambitious approach.
After the Secretary of State has made the report, we would then very much hope that he or she would act on it and ensure that the environmental targets and environmental improvement plans were appropriately ambitious and would set out not just one long-term target in each area as required in clause 1, but set and outline the adequacy of those targets and lay out adequate plans to address each of those major issues within six months.
If it is an emergency, it needs addressing urgently. We do not believe the Bill does that at the moment. New clause 29 would help.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Much of the Bill is concerned with English-only environmental issues, as I have mentioned in the past, because environment is a devolved area under the Scotland Act 1998 and legislative consent motions have been agreed.
In connection to new clauses 29 and 29, I point out for those who are keen to hear what is happening in Scotland that the Scottish Government are developing their own environmental strategy. “The Environmental Strategy for Scotland: vision and outcomes” was published earlier this year. As the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform indicated just yesterday at her appearance in front of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, she will soon be publishing a monitoring framework for the strategy, which will bring together existing statutory targets, elements of the national performance framework and indicators from other strategies. That is after considerable consultation with stakeholders.
The strategy has attracted a broad range of cross-party support. The Cabinet Secretary just yesterday suggested working with Opposition Members to design amendments that will set out an obligation on Ministers to continue the work on an environmental strategy. It is an example of cross-party working that I think this place would do rather well to emulate. The Scottish Government and Parliament are leading the way in many environmental areas. I encourage Members from this place to lift their eyes from here and look to some of the great progress in this area that is being made in the devolved nations of the UK. I think it really would be worth their while.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for moving this new clause. He is always very passionate about what he says. I am pleased that my letter was able to give a bit of clarity on the subjects he raised in the Committee.
I reassure the Committee that the new clause is not needed. It will not surprise anyone to hear me say that. There are already measures in the Bill to help assess the adequacy of environmental legislation. Under clause 26, the OEP will proactively assess how our environmental laws work in practice and advise the Government on the most effective and efficient way of implementing those laws.
The OEP’s reports must be published and laid before Parliament and the Government are required to respond to the OEP and publish that response, which must also be laid before Parliament. Given that climate and ecology challenges are key environmental issues affecting us, we would expect that the OEP would want to address such matters in its clause 26 reports. That is basically its raison d’être and the raison d’être of the Bill. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is seeing what is in there, which covers what he is asking for. We also report annually on our progress in improving the environment through the 25-year environment plan.
The Bill as drafted already introduces a number of reporting requirements in the areas specified. Clause 94, for example, requires designated public authorities, including local planning authorities, to produce five-yearly biodiversity reports. The reports will provide transparency and accountability, and help local authorities to share best practice. Over time, they will become a very valuable source of data to support nature’s recovery. Clause 75 concerns improving water companies’ water resources management plans. This planning occurs every five years, taking into account the next 25-year period. Companies must review their plans annually.
The reporting requirements introduced by the Bill will complement the Government’s existing and proposed reporting and monitoring of the natural environment. There is only so much reporting people can cope with. I honestly think more reporting would cause people to groan under the weight of it all. What we want is action, and that is what this Bill is going to set in motion, which is why we need to get through it.
Last month, the Government published their response to the 2020 recommendations from the Committee on Climate Change. The response sets out the Government’s intention to publish a comprehensive net zero strategy in the lead up to COP26. The strategy will set out the Government’s vision for transitioning to net zero and reducing emissions across the economy. We have already set out our plans for a nationwide natural capital and ecosystem assessment. That is a big data-gathering census and a new large-scale surveying initiative, which will provide us with the all-important data to drive better decision making. That is something I have absolutely wished for as the Minister, as has the whole Department. It will be crucial in our future—we have talked about data before, and it is absolutely essential to know what we have now, what we will have tomorrow and what we would potentially like in the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for her comments. We obviously work closely with the devolved Administrations, and we will be sharing a lot of the measures in the Bill. We always like to learn best practice from others—I mentioned that in the main Chamber only this morning, when the hon. Member for Putney and I spoke about air quality.
Although I welcome the intent behind the proposed new clause, I do not believe it is necessary, for the reasons I have outlined. Wide-ranging reporting assessment measures are already in place in the Bill and will be able to drive the sort of action that I think the hon. Member for Cambridge is after. I honestly do not believe we need the new clause, so I ask him to withdraw it.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful, as ever, but disappointed by the Minister’s response. I do not think we need to divide the Committee, but I doubt whether even the Office for Environmental Protection will be established in the next months. Let us hope that it will go more quickly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 30
Smoking related waste
“(1) The Secretary of State will by regulations introduce a producer responsibility scheme in England to tackle smoking related waste.
(2) The scheme will compel those tobacco companies operating in England, as defined in the regulations and subject to annual review, to provide financial support to the scheme based on a market share basis.
(3) The scheme will ensure that those tobacco companies will have no operational or other involvement in the scheme other than to provide financial support in accordance with guidance from the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the Department of Health and Social Care.
(4) The regulations will set a target for a reduction in smoking related waste by 2030.
(5) The regulations will set out an appropriate vehicle to deliver the scheme including governance and criteria for funding related initiatives.
(6) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report of the scheme and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”—(Ruth Jones.)
The aim of this new clause is to ensure that the Government creates a producer responsibility scheme for smoking related waste. No such scheme exists at present and the clear up and waste reduction of cigarette butts are not covered by other Directives.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is really quite clear, and I suspect that colleagues on both sides of the Committee know what is coming, but I want to speak to it for a moment. It is designed to ensure that the Government create a producer responsibility scheme for smoking-related waste. No such scheme exists at present, and the clear-up and waste reduction of cigarette butts are not covered by other directives.
I remind colleagues that it was this Government who clarified, back in February 2020, that tobacco packaging is covered by the current producer responsibility regulations, which require companies to recycle a proportion of the packaging waste that they place on the market. In their resources and waste strategy, the Government committed to look into and consult on the extended producer responsibility, or EPR, for five new waste streams by 2025, as well as to consult on two of them by 2022. The five priority waste streams are: textiles, fishing gear, certain products in construction and demolition, bulky waste, and vehicle tyres—the Minister has already alluded to that several times during our debates. They are important areas for the challenges facing us as we look to tackle the climate emergency.
The producer responsibility powers in the Bill enable the Government to set up an EPR scheme for cigarette litter. I urge the Minister to do so, and I look forward to a positive response from her on that specific point. I am concerned that, up until now, Ministers have not identified cigarette litter as a priority area for EPR, so I would like some further clarity on the detail and the likely timescale for any progress. I am sure that the Committee does not need to be reminded—I will do so anyway—that cigarette butts are estimated to account for 5% of ocean plastic, which is a big deal. We need to act, and we need to act now.
I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to set out a clear action plan and timetable when addressing the issues raised by the new clause. There is a crossover with the other responsibilities that we have as parliamentarians and lawmakers, because it is clear that smoking has a public health impact. Having been an NHS physiotherapist for more than 30 years before being elected to this place, I know a fair bit about the lungs and the danger that smoking causes. New clause 30 will help the wider battle against smoking and help promote a healthier world for all of us. As such, and with the determination needed to tackle the climate emergency, I wish to divide the Committee.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Newport West for her contribution. It is always good to hear about people’s backgrounds, and her medical knowledge is obviously very useful.
Smoking-related litter is a particularly persistent and widespread problem. In the 2017 litter strategy, we explained that the most effective way to tackle smoking-related litter is obviously by reducing the prevalence of smoking in the first place. Given the hon. Member’s background in health, I am sure she would agree with that. Smoking rates in England are currently at their lowest recorded level, and our ambition is for a smoke-free Britain by 2030. In the meantime, I have made it clear that the lack of serious investment by the industry to clear up the mess caused by its products cannot continue.
In September, I held a roundtable with the tobacco industry and other stakeholders. I got a key group together, and I was pleased that we were able to get them to come to the table. We understand that Keep Britain Tidy is working with the tobacco industry to develop a non-regulatory producer responsibility scheme, and we are watching very closely, because it could provide a rapid means of securing significant investment from the industry to tackle the litter created by its products, rather than having to take legislative action.
Ruth Jones
In a cyclical system, if we have less going in at the beginning, we have less waste coming out at the end, which is what we all want. As such, it is good to note that smoking is decreasing. That is a really important public health initiative, and it must continue. I am pleased to hear that the Minister held a roundtable with the tobacco companies and that she found it useful, but we want to put the onus on the manufacturers by introducing this producer responsibility scheme, which is why we think it is important to include it in the Bill. It is good to hear that the Minister is keen to do this in future, and that future options would be open, but why not have it in the Bill now? That is why we will divide the Committee.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause seeks to address a glaring problem with the current biodiversity net gain provisions, which we discussed earlier in the proceedings. Currently, the Bill does not extend the requirement for biodiversity net gain to major infrastructure developments delivered through the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime. We fear that that exemption will result in habitat loss on a large scale due to the size of those major infrastructure developments and could potentially lead to the destruction of irreplaceable habitats, increased fragmentation of remaining habitats and the local extinction of endangered species.
We have a very controversial example at the moment in High Speed 2—a major infrastructure project that does not have biodiversity net gain and that has put at risk 108 ancient woodland sites, 33 sites of scientific interest and 693 local wildlife sites. I appreciate that HS2 was not delivered through the NSIP regime, but it is comparable with future major infrastructure projects that would be delivered in that way. It is disappointing that HS2 has not gone with the trend of recent times and moved away and gone beyond no net loss, despite frequent calls for it to do so. Will the Minister comment on why no net gain is necessary in her view?
In their response to the net gain consultation, in which the Government outlined their intention that nationally significant infrastructure would not be subject to the requirement, despite the fact that there was considerable support from many respondents, the Government said that they will
“continue to work on exploring potential net gain approaches for these types of developments”.
What alternative net gain approaches have been considered for NSIPs? I understand that the Government have commissioned a study into the costs and benefits of bringing the large infrastructure projects into the scope of mandatory biodiversity net gain. What are the findings from that study, and is the Minister able to share them with the Committee?
I have one final plea for the Minister to find redemption in this whole process. As I have said many times—she has quoted it many times—we started with the 25-year environment plan, but we now find ourselves with the “Planning for the future” planning White Paper. Will she write to me on this issue—another item in our endless list of correspondence—and explain how the planning White Paper proposals will impact on net gain? This is one last chance for redemption. I live in hope.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for his tempting words and for the new clause, which would extend the biodiversity net gain objective and the biodiversity gain plan requirement to include nationally significant infrastructure projects.
I recognise the good intentions behind wanting to apply the mandatory biodiversity net gain objective to such projects. The Government are clear in the 25-year environment plan that our commitment to seeking to embed a principle of environmental net gain for development applies to infrastructure as well as housing. In line with that commitment, we are exploring how a biodiversity net gain approach for major infrastructure projects could best be delivered and how policy or legislation could be used to support that.
There are a number of ways in which a form of the biodiversity net gain requirement could be implemented for nationally significant infrastructure projects, but it is very important, as I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, to take the time to work with stakeholders to develop an appropriate approach. Many stakeholders are really keen to discuss the matter.
Introducing a new legal requirement for such projects now could lead to significant delay and increased costs for projects in the pipeline, hampering our ability to build back better in future generations. I am sure the hon. Member appreciates the need to get lots of the projects going, not least because of the link with jobs and levelling up across the nation. Risks of delays and costs to major infrastructure for a premature and inappropriate mandatory requirement could result in delays to the delivery of environmentally beneficial projects, such as those living renewable energy generation and waste facilities.
The hon. Member is trying to draw me on the planning White Paper. All I will say is that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working very closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We are at absolute pains to work with that Department, but also to ensure that the environmental protections remain there. It is going to be a green future, as the Prime Minister himself has said many times—in fact, I heard him say it again yesterday—so I can give assurances on that.
Nationally significant infrastructure projects are often distinct from other types of development in terms of scale and complexity. They have to be planned for over a number of years, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and many are in that design pipeline. We need to be very careful about doing what he is asking for now.
It is therefore important that any strengthening of biodiversity net gain requirements for the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime is done at the right time and in the right way, particularly if any mandatory net gain requirement is introduced. We do not want to be limited to the proposed approach to Town and Country Planning Act 1990 development when considering how to introduce any objective to other classes of development. As I have said, there are a number of ways in which biodiversity net gain for those big projects could be implemented through legislation or policy in future, for example through the national policy statement, sponsor-driven objectives or changes to planning legislation.
As I have said, the Government have set out a clear ambition to deliver infrastructure, but greener and faster. I support the intention behind the proposed new clause, but to ensure that we consider the best way to introduce any requirement for biodiversity net gain for major infrastructure, we need to consult on further details, which we will in due course. It is really important that we take that time to get this right. I would like to think that the hon. Gentleman will agree on that and will withdraw his new clause. I hope that we can continue to engage constructively on this issue when we do formally consult.
Daniel Zeichner
I admire the Minister’s relentless optimism, which she has managed to maintain throughout the Committee’s proceedings, and I congratulate her on that. I almost misheard her at one point: when she said that DEFRA had been “at absolute pains” with MHCLG, I thought she said that they “are absolute pains”. There may be some truth in that.
I am not surprised to hear that, yet again, the Minister is unable to support our new clause, but we will not divide the Committee. I will just say finally that the Minister’s jacket is enough to brighten any dull winter day, and I thank her for her optimism. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Whitehead
Mr Gray, we consider that the aims of new clause 33 have already been aired in new clause 29—we know the result of that—so we do not wish to move it.
New Clause 34
Reducing Water Demand
“(1) The Secretary of State shall within 12 months of the commencement of this Act amend the Building Regulations 2010 Part G to—
(a) require all fittings to meet specified water efficiency requirements; and
(b) introduce mandatory minimum standards on water efficiency.
(2) Standards as introduced under subsection (1)(b) shall be reviewed every 5 years to assess their contribution to meeting government objectives for reducing water demand.”—(Ruth Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 34 was tabled in my name and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test, for Cambridge, for Putney, and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough. We are seeking to ensure that we build on the Minister’s words and give real effect to the long-term sustainable change that the climate emergency demands.
The new clause is clear in tone and intent. Although we are an island, safe and secure water supplies have eluded us in the past, and with a rising population and increased demand, the existing infrastructure, on which we have relied for many years, needs to be supported. It needs the pressure taken off, which is what the new clause would do.
In preparing to speak to new clause 34, I read Ofwat’s recent report exploring the decisions that can be taken, the options available, and the action required to reduce demand for water in coming years. The report notes that
“on average we currently use about 140 litres of water per person per day in England and Wales, up from 85 litres per person in the 1960s.”
The report’s findings also reveal that
“tackling household leaks and using innovative technologies could help to decrease water use by two thirds—or over one bath per person per day—over the next 50 years.”
The new clause therefore goes some way to giving parliamentary and legal effect to addressing many concerns related to tackling water waste up and down England.
The preservation of our environment is ultimately in our hands and those of the people we represent: working people in all parts of the United Kingdom. We need to ensure that the law in shaped in such a way that we motivate and encourage people to change their behaviour and to adapt to the changing and evolving demands of the climate emergency. The Bill will go some way towards ensuring that we reach out and give the people of England the necessary direction, whether that is through the introduction of mandatory minimum standards subject to a five-yearly review or a set of fittings requirements. If we do not act now—there is no reason for us not to seize this initiative—we cannot expect people in the country to act.
This is a once-in-a-generation Bill, as the Minister said on Second Reading and previously in Committee. Let us ensure that those words mean something. Let us deliver a Bill that is fit for purpose, and that will stand the test of time and the scrutiny of future generations. With the future of our planet in mind, I move the new clause.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for tabling the new clause. I have met a range of bodies to talk about water efficiency, including the Bathroom Manufacturers Association, and there is no end of things to learn about loos, flushes and showers—it is genuinely very interesting. I now read the riot act to my kids when they have showers that are far too long.
I understand the hon. Member’s intention of improving water efficiency in our homes. We agree that more needs to be done to improve the management of our water resources, but I can reassure her that, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, we are already investigating how the building regulations could best promote water efficiency through the introduction of mandatory water efficiency labelling for water-using products. We consulted on those measures in 2019, and we will be able to use clause 49 of and schedule 6 to the Bill, and existing powers under the Building Act 1984, to make the changes required. We expect to publish a Government response to the consultation in spring 2021, which is fast approaching, and that will set out our policy on water efficiency and, specifically, whether changes to the building regulations are required.
The new clause would introduce mandatory minimum standards for water efficiency in the building regulations. However, I hope that the hon. Member notes that the regulations already set minimum water efficiency standards for new homes. She is right about the amounts: we use 145 litres a day. We actually aim to get that down to 110 litres a day. Improving labelling and consumer information about the amount of water that gadgets use will be part and parcel of the new water efficiency world.
Let me add that under section 81 of the Water Act 2003, there is already a duty on the Secretary of State to report every three years on the steps that he has taken to encourage water conservation. That report must be laid before Parliament. The last report was published in December 2018, so I suggest that there is no need for a similar review requirement.
I hope that I have covered all the points that will reassure the hon. Member that she does not need to press the new clause, and that she might kindly withdraw it.
Ruth Jones
It is good to hear about the Minister’s new knowledge of bathroom fittings; I must admit that we have all learned a lot about them. I remember, even as a student, putting a brick in our cistern to save water, which was a great thing—and obviously a good use of household bricks. I think we all agree that more absolutely needs to be done, and while I take her point about new homes being covered by regulations, we need to deal with existing homes. Let us be honest: there are far more existing homes that need encouragement and help to do the right thing. We also need to ensure that people are aware of their water usage, because if they do not know how much water they are using, they cannot do anything to conserve it. It would be good to marry up the various sound water conservation measures in other legislation by incorporating them all in the new clause. It is a shame that she has not accepted—
Rebecca Pow
I just want to make a quick correction. I mentioned a figure of 110 litres. Does the hon. Member agree that, while the efficiency requirement for a new build will be 125 litres per person per day, it could be the 110 litre figure that I mentioned if that is imposed by a local authority when granting planning permission? Does she welcome that?
Ruth Jones
I do welcome it, but I am a bit lukewarm. I would sooner it was down to the original rate in the 1960s of 85 litres per person, which would be far more helpful in moving forward on the climate change emergency. I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken the new clause on board, but I will not seek to divide the Committee on it, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 35
Clean Air Duty
‘(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual policy statement setting out how the Government is working to improve air quality, and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(2) The annual policy statement in subsection (1) must include—
(a) how public authorities are improving air quality, including indoor air quality; and
(b) how Government departments are working together to improve air quality, including indoor air quality.
(3) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than three months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.’—(Fleur Anderson.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on air quality which includes indoor air quality and the work of public authorities and Government departments working together to improve it.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Fleur Anderson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is the final new clause. It is only right and proper that, as we come towards the end of the Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill, after considering more than 230 amendments and 35 new clauses, we end with something that we can all agree on.
This new clause is all about working together. It has been tabled by the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. It asks Government Departments to work together and for reports on how the Government are working with local authorities to achieve something very ambitious—tackling our air quality. It has cross-party support from hon. Members including the chair of the APPG, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), and 23 other MPs.
The new clause is intended to help the Minister to get to that holy grail of action—cross-departmental working—and to achieve cross-government support for action to tackle air pollution, specifically indoor air pollution. Given that the public health crisis results in 40,000 deaths a year and costs £20 billion, urgent action is needed by the Department for Transport and many others across Government. The new clause would help with that.
The new clause is an important addition to the parts of the Bill on air quality, in particular schedule 11. The Minister may say that that is sufficient, but I would argue that it is not. Schedule 11 amends the Environment Act 1995 and gives the Secretary of State the duty to report on the
“assessment of the progress made in meeting air quality objectives, and air quality standards, in relation to England, and…the steps the Secretary of State has taken in that year in support of the meeting of those objectives and standards.”
Those reports and that action are very welcome, but the new clause takes them further. It would be in the Bill itself, rather than an amendment to another Act, and has additional reporting requirements that would do more to ensure that there was more focus on achieving our air quality targets and more joined-up working in Government.
Hon. Members will have read an email sent to us all in which Professor Sir Stephen Holgate, the Royal College of Physicians’ adviser on air quality and the UK Research and Innovation clean air champion, supports the new clause. I know that it is important to the Minister to be science-led. He said:
“I strongly support the need for placing greater transparent responsibility on public bodies, both central and local, to say what steps they are taking to improve air quality, both outside and inside buildings including houses, workplaces and schools. Since most people spend over 80% of their time indoors, the indoor air is a particular concern especially since all the emphasis is on conserving energy by “sealing” buildings with little regard to ensuring that ventilation is adequate. …unless attention is focused on the ever-increasing chemical contaminants that will accumulate, without adequate ventilation, the public will suffer adverse health effects. This is especially so in periods of “lock-down” during the coronavirus pandemic and the attention needed to be given to this is in the building of new homes. Special attention must be given to vulnerable groups such as pregnant women, children, older people and those with chronic disease.”
Many other scientists back up those findings.
We all know that air pollution is a public health crisis, as acknowledged by the joint report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, the Health and Social Care Committee and the Transport Committee last year. There was joint working there, which we can encourage with the joint working on the reports that the new clause would make a legislative commitment.
A report by King’s College Hospital last year showed that cutting air pollution by a fifth would reduce the number of lung cancer cases by 7.6% in London, 6.4% in Birmingham, 5.9% in Bristol, 5.3% in Liverpool, 5.6% in Manchester, 6.7% in Nottingham, 6% in Oxford and 5.9% in Southampton. I read those figures out to show the local impact that air pollution is having on a considerable number of people’s lives; we know that it needs local action. The new clause would ensure that we find out what that local action is and whether it is good enough.
Living near a busy road can trigger bronchitic symptoms among children with asthma. If pollution were to be reduced by one fifth, there would be 3,865 fewer cases of children with bronchitic symptoms every year in London. In my own constituency, I would see the difference that that would make. The Government have made considerable funding available to local authorities, so local authorities should report back on what the funding has achieved.
We now know that there is a more urgent reason for the new clause, which would strengthen the Bill. There is a direct link between coronavirus deaths and air pollution. Harvard says there is an 8% risk, whereas the Max Planck Institute says it is 14%, for each additional microgram per cubic metre of PM2.5, the smaller particulates. There is a direct link between air quality and coronavirus deaths, and the new clause would make taking urgent action compulsory. It is no surprise that there is a link, because air pollution weakens lungs, hearts and brains, which covid also affects. We need a joined-up approach, with cleaner transport and ventilated schools. It is about education, health, better building regulations from MHCLG, better planning and knowing the effects of more home working with digital infrastructure.
The new clause would encourage a fiscal strategy that helps to drive a holistic vision of a cleaner, healthier and more productive future for all. Put simply, we need to have a joined-up approach to have the best effect, and the new clause would help to ensure that is done by asking for joined-up reporting. No matter what is already in the Bill, it just does not go far enough. The new clause is needed.
The new clause does not have specific targets and action plans that can be rejected by the Conservative party. In fact, they are for the Office for Environmental Protection, which was mentioned in many earlier debates, to decide. However, this would be a wonderful model for the UK to showcase at COP26 next year, and for other Governments to adopt. There is no doubt that there might be a silo mentality in DEFRA that says, “We can’t ask other Departments to do things,” but air pollution is an NHS public health issue of massive proportions, and it cannot be left to DEFRA or to the Secretary of State for one Department.
No one Department has the tools to combat air pollution. The Minister will say that she will work with the Department for Transport, the Department of Health and Social Care and many other Departments, but the new clause would ensure that others could learn from best practice—we would be able to see when things were not going well and put them right as quickly as possible. We need such a collective, joined-up approach. The Minister should raise her ambition to embrace other Departments that, in their hearts, want to work together for the common good.
As we have seen again and again with previous debates, the Government have a big majority and can vote against the new clause, but this is the opportunity—this last new clause—for us to come together and agree. The biggest test for the Government is not how many votes there are, but whether they are big enough to accept in good grace an idea from an all-party parliamentary group that they know is in the best interest and is supported in principle by all parties, and to take it forward for the common good. I think we would have cheers from people outside this place, who would hear that we are working together to tackle a concern that is so important to so many people.
This is an important opportunity to work together across government and public bodies to improve public health by improving air quality outside and inside, which would save lives. All our constituents would want us to do all that we can to protect them and their children, and the new clause would help us deliver on our duty to do so. I ask the Minister and members of the Committee to put their constituents and country first by supporting the new clause.
Rebecca Pow
After 230 amendments, why break the habit of a lifetime? Honestly, the hon. Lady will know that I have great sentiment about much of what she is saying. I also support the work of the APPG, who I have done a lot of close working with and spoken to many times. They have done some really useful work.
We recognise the importance of national leadership on this cross-cutting issue of air quality, including indoor air. It is right to draw attention to the issue. I want to give reassurances that we do not work in a silo. We work very closely with other Departments. We have a ground-breaking clean air strategy that goes across government. Air cannot be dealt with in one place and one silo, it travels everywhere, even to Gloucester. Only yesterday I had a joint meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) on an air quality issue. Only last week I had a Zoom call with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). I hope that demonstrates how closely we are working on these issues.
On indoor air quality specifically, we are working across government. I have regular meetings with, in particular, the chief scientific adviser on this, and we work closely with the chief medical officer. We also work with the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England on indoor air quality in particular. They are all part of this big landscape, which she has pointed out. Building on the evidence base is a key step to ensure that interventions are appropriately targeted and introduced in the right way and in the right place. I hope that that gives some assurances on cross-government working.
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Putney that we have a range of reporting requirements relating to air quality, and we are introducing additional requirements through the Bill. We are introducing a requirement for the Secretary of State to make an annual statement to Parliament on progress toward securing local pollution objectives through paragraph 3 of schedule 11 to the Bill. Perhaps she has not noticed that. It will include steps taken in that year to support local authorities to meet objectives. In addition, the Secretary of State will be required to publish a national air quality strategy and review it every five years. That is under paragraph 2 of schedule 11 to the Bill, in case she wants to have a look at it.
Alongside this, through a statutory cycle of monitoring and reporting, which I have talked about constantly, the Bill ensures that the Government will take steps to achieve the targets set under the Bill. This includes the air quality targets. We have a legal duty to set an air quality target, and we are going to set another one in addition. We are going over and above for air quality. We can be held to account by the OEP if Parliament fails to monitor and report the progress toward the targets.
We also already have several annual reporting obligations on ambient air quality. The UK’s national atmospheric emissions inventory is compiled annually to report total emissions by pollutant. That is a very detailed inventory and has won an award, I think, for its detail. All of that information is already there. I think, perhaps, the Opposition are not aware of that. Do take a look. There is an annual requirement to report total emissions by pollutant and source sector in a similar way. We also remain signatory to the UN convention on long-range trans- boundary air pollution, because this is, of course, also a global issue, and we will continue to abide by that international agreement in full, including its reporting requirements.
The global work is really important. Back when we did the early assessment from the air quality expert group of what was happening during lockdown, we found that some of the pollutants did not reduce as we thought they might have done in the south of England. That was because we got some unexpected wind from Europe, and it brought all kinds of pollutants that were not even ours! It is very important that we remain part of that agreement.
Compliance with air pollution concentration limits and targets is reported in our annual air pollution in the UK report, which summarises measurements from the national air quality monitoring networks. I reassure the hon. Lady that we already work very closely with other Government Departments, and that we have robust mechanisms in place to report on progress. I hope that has provided more detail and clarity as to what is going on in air quality, and hope that the hon. Member might keep up with the trend—or maybe break it—and withdraw her new clause.
Fleur Anderson
I thank the Minister for the information about all the action being taken, and for the heartfelt—and I agree, sincere—desire to take action on this, and going over and above on air quality. We all welcome that. However, I have also read schedule 11 very thoroughly, as have the members of the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. They have taken advice from scientific experts and feel that there is something missing in the reporting that would actually make a difference and ensure that we take the action we want to see on our air, and put that into practice. The missing parts are how public authorities are improving our air and how Government Departments are working together. I welcome the fact that the Minister is meeting with other Departments. She should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate what those meetings are resulting in with the annual report, and to demonstrate the appropriate targeting, achievements and progress we have discussed. As has been customary, we will be dividing on this, but we also want to work together to see a dramatic improvement in our air quality.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
May I congratulate the Committee on the briskness of our discussions this morning. The people of North Wiltshire—and of all our constituencies—are grateful to us for it. I must now report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Rebecca Pow
On a point of order, Mr Gray, I wanted to do a quick round-up. The hon. Member for Putney mentioned that this Committee has gone on for 261 days. We started back in March, then the Committee was adjourned and all the rest, but the whole process of this Bill has been even longer than that. We have done two Second Readings, so it has been a long time in the process and even longer than that behind the scenes.
I give my heartfelt thanks to absolutely everyone, starting with the Chair. Thank you, Mr Gray, for keeping us in great order and managing to have a grandchild during the process. Thank you to the Clerks, particularly the new Clerk, who really got the hang of the role very fast. I must thank the entire Committee, because it is a long old haul, and we are all obviously handpicked. I must also thank all the shadow Ministers for the spirit in which we have conducted this—the hon. Members for Southampton, Test, for Cambridge South and for Newport West—as well as the hon. Member for Putney and indeed, the Whip. We all have the shared desire to improve the environment, and I do not think that is ever going to change. We will all be driving the endeavour forward, and it must be said that it is good to have a bit of probing.
I want to thank the members of my private office, who have been phenomenal at keeping me up to speed, which is not always easy. I thank the Bill team: Amira, who is sitting in the room, as well as Brendan and Lucy, and four others in the main team. I thank them all, because they do a phenomenal job. Hon. Members do not see it, but I do. We have about 100 policy officials behind them, so it is a massive effort. I thank them all from the bottom of my heart, because their work has been phenomenal. Some of it is pretty detailed and tricky, and I ask a lot of questions about legislative things, because I do not have a legal background. I thank them for all their work. This is not over yet; onwards and upwards to Report.
Dr Whitehead
Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. At the risk of straining the point of order, I would like to add my thanks at the conclusion of our Bill Committee proceedings. They have been immensely long, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has enumerated, with 230 amendments and 35 new clauses. I thank you, Mr Gray, for your purposeful, elegant and impartial chairing of our proceedings, and I hope you will pass on our thanks to Sir George for his part in proceedings. I thank the Minister for her immense optimism and terrific jackets, and for the courteous and good-hearted way she has conducted proceedings throughout. I appreciate that undertaking a Bill of this length is a tremendous burden, and I appreciate her fortitude and perseverance in carrying through that job.
I want to single out the Committee Clerks for thanks. They have been a wonderful source of assistance, help and wise guidance, and they have enabled us to do our part as well as we have been able to. Finally, I thank other Opposition Members. I think it will be agreed that they are not a team of journeymen and women; they are a team of Galácticos in their own right, and I thank them for their contributions to scrutinising this Bill so well.
We are, naturally, very disappointed that we have not been able to strengthen the Bill as we had hoped to do, but we will continue with that task on Report and in the other place. We hope that our doing so will help to make it a Bill that we can all be proud of, when it comes to strengthening our country’s natural environment resources and providing the protections that must flow from that; we all agree that we want the Bill to do those things. I welcome the end of this Committee, for obvious reasons, but we can all be proud of our contribution to getting the Bill to this point, and I thank everybody on the Committee for their part in proceedings.
Deidre Brock
Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and myself, and with a slightly nervous eye on the clock, I thank all Members of the Committee for their good-humoured and thorough approach to the Bill. I have certainly appreciated that. I thank you, Mr Gray, and Sir George for your chairship. I thank the Clerks for their assistance, which has been much appreciated, and I thank the various representatives from Hansard who have sat through lengthy hours of this Committee. Although much of what we have debated has not covered Scotland, it has been instructive to hear from Members from all parts of the Committee about the approaches that are being taken. I wish England very well in all its efforts to create a much healthier and more vibrant, biodiverse and attractive environment for all its citizens.
The Chair
Those are all entirely bogus points of order, but we are grateful for them none the less.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Environment Bill
Tuesday 26th January 2021
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 January 2021 - (26 Jan 2021)
17:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 266 / Noes: 366 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:54 - The House divided: - Ayes: 217 / Noes: 360 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:04 - The House divided: - Ayes: 227 / Noes: 354 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 221 / Noes: 366 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 227 / Noes: 357 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
After Caroline Lucas, there will be a four-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions.
New Clause 1
Environmental Principles: Public Authorities
‘(1) A public authority, must, when exercising their functions (including the making of policy and legislation), act in accordance with the environmental principles currently in effect.
(2) The duty in subsection (1) does not apply to policy relating to Wales.
(3) In this section, “legislation” means—
(a) an Act of Parliament; and
(b) subordinate legislation.’—(Caroline Lucas.)
This new clause would require public authorities to act in accordance with environmental principles when exercising their functions.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 5—State of nature target—
‘(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to set a target to halt and begin to reverse the decline in the state of nature in England as soon as reasonably practicable and no later than 2030.
(2) The target in subsection (1) shall be known as the state of nature target.
(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the state of nature target is met.
(4) A draft statutory instrument containing regulations that make provision for how progress toward the state of nature target will be measured must be laid before Parliament at least one month before the fifteenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
(5) Before laying before Parliament a draft of a statutory instrument under this section, the Secretary of State must obtain, publish and take into account the advice of relevant experts, including—
(a) The Environment Agency;
(b) Natural England;
(c) The Office for Environment Protection; and
(d) The Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
(6) In this section—
(a) the abundance and distribution of species;
(b) the risk of extinction; and
(c) the extent and condition of priority habitats.’
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to set and meet a target to begin to reverse the loss of biodiversity in England no later than 2030. This timetable would align with the new Convention on Biological Diversity goals that are due to be agreed in 2021.
New clause 9—Environmental objective and commitments—
‘(1) In interpreting and applying this Act, any party with duties, responsibilities, obligations or discretions under or relating to it must comply with—
(a) the environmental objective in subsection (2); and
(b) the commitments in subsection (3).
(2) The environmental objective is to achieve and maintain—
(a) a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment;
(b) an environment that supports human health and well-being for everyone; and
(c) sustainable use of resources.
(3) The commitments are—
(a) all commitments given by Her Majesty’s Government in the United Nations Leaders’ Pledge for Nature of 28 September 2020, including, but not limited to, the urgent actions committed to be taken by it over the period of ten years from the date of that pledge;
(b) any enhanced commitments given by Her Majesty’s Government pursuant to that pledge, any other pledge, and any international agreement; and
(c) all relevant domestic legislation, including, but not limited to, the Climate Change Act 2008, as amended from time to time.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of the requirement in subsection (1), that requirement applies to—
(a) the Secretary of State in setting, amending and ensuring compliance with the environmental targets; preparing, amending and implementing environmental improvement plans; and performing all their obligations and exercising all their discretions under this Act;
(b) the Office for Environmental Protection and the Upper Tribunal in performing their respective obligations and exercising any applicable discretions; and
(c) all other persons and bodies with obligations and discretions under, or in connection with, the subject matter of this Act.’
New clause 11—Environmental targets: plastic pollution—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations set targets (“the plastics reduction targets”) in respect of the reduction of plastic pollution and to reduce the volume of non-essential single-use plastic products sold.
(2) The plastics reduction targets may, but need not, be long-term.
(3) The duty in subsection (1) is in addition to (and does not discharge) the duty in section 1(2) to set a long-term target in relation to resource efficiency and waste reduction.
(4) Section 1(4) to (9) applies to the plastics reduction targets and to regulations under this section as it applies to targets set under section 1 and to regulations under that section.
(5) In this section—
(a) the term “plastics pollution” means the introduction of plastic materials or plastic-containing products into the environment, and
(b) the term “non-essential single-use plastic products” means products intended to be used once then disposed of where their use is not essential for medical, environmental, health and safety, national security or other essential purposes as defined by the Secretary of State.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set targets to reduce plastic pollution and reduce the volume of non-essential single-use plastic products sold.
New clause 14—OEP function to consider housing targets—
‘(1) The OEP will have the power to consider appeals on housing targets set by public authorities in England.
(2) An individual affected by the targets in subsection (1) will have the right of appeal to the OEP.
(3) In determining an appeal under subsection (1) the OEP may either—
(a) reject; or
(b) reduce the housing target set by the public authority.
(4) In dealing with the appeal set out in subsection (1) the OEP must have regard to the impacts the housing targets will have on compliance with the UK’s environmental targets.’
New clause 15—Net zero carbon target as condition of planning permission—
‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as set out in section (2).
(2) After section 70(2), insert—
“(2A) Any grants of planning permission for residential development in England must be subject to a condition to secure that a net zero-carbon target objective during construction and ongoing occupation of the building is achieved.”’
New clause 17—Strategy for new economic goals to deliver environmental protection and societal wellbeing—
‘(1) Her Majesty’s Government must prepare a strategy for the adoption of new economic goals to deliver environmental protection and societal wellbeing.
(2) “Environmental protection” in subsection (1) means the protection of humans and the natural environment from the impacts of human activity as defined in Clause 44.
(3) The new economic goals must address—
(a) the environmental targets in this Act,
(b) the Climate Change Act 2008,
(c) the UK’s commitments under international environmental agreements, laws and treaties,
(d) the wellbeing of future generations,
(e) the overseas environmental impacts of UK consumption and economic activity, and
(f) the contribution of the UK’s consumption and production to the state of the global environment, in relation to nine planetary boundaries—
(i) Stratospheric ozone depletion,
(ii) Loss of biosphere integrity (biodiversity loss and extinctions),
(iii) Chemical pollution and the release of novel entities,
(iv) Climate change,
(v) Ocean acidification,
(vi) Freshwater consumption and the global hydrological cycle,
(vii) Land system change,
(viii) Nitrogen and phosphorus flows to the biosphere and oceans, and
(ix) Atmospheric aerosol loading.
(4) The strategy must—
(a) set out how the new economic goals will replace growth in gross domestic product as the principal measure of national economic progress,
(b) set out a vision for how the economy can be designed to serve the wellbeing of humans and protect the natural environment,
(c) include a set of indicators for each new economic goal, and
(d) set out plans for the application of new economic goals and indicators to central and local government decision-making processes including but not limited to Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation produced by HM Treasury (The Green Book).
(5) In drawing up the strategy, Her Majesty’s Government must obtain, publish and take into account the advice of—
(a) experts in the field of ecological economics,
(b) a nationally representative citizens assembly,
(c) trades unions,
(d) businesses,
(e) statutory agencies,
(f) representatives of local and regional government, and
(g) any persons the Secretary of State considers to be independent and to have relevant expertise.
(6) The strategy must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.
(7) The Government must lay before Parliament an annual report on progress towards meeting the new economic goals and their efficacy in delivering environmental protection and societal wellbeing.
(8) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than one month after the report has been laid before Parliament, move a Motion in the House of Commons in relation to that report.’
This new clause requires the Government to prepare a strategy for the adoption of new economic goals that are designed to deliver environmental protection and societal wellbeing and to report annually on these goals.
Amendment 21, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
‘(e) Public access to and enjoyment of the natural environment.’
This amendment is designed to require the Government to set legally-binding, long-term targets to increase public access to, and enjoyment of the natural environment.
Amendment 40, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
‘(10) In setting a target, the Secretary of State must take into account any targets set by Senedd Cymru.
(11) If the UK Government seeks to spend funds from the Shared Prosperity Fund on infrastructure in Wales, an impact assessment must be carried out and published on the effect of the infrastructure project on the target set by Senedd Cymru.
(12) If the impact assessment under subsection (11) finds that the infrastructure project would have a negative effect on the achievement of the target set by Senedd Cymru, the Secretary of State must seek and receive the consent of Senedd Cymru to that infrastructure spending.’
This amendment would ensure that the consent of Senedd Cyrmu would be required before the UK Government could use the financial assistance powers in the UK Internal Market Bill to spend via the Shared Prosperity Fund on infrastructure projects in Wales which would undermine environmental targets set by Senedd Cymru.
Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—
(a) be less than or equal to air quality guidelines established by the World Health Organization in 2005; and
(b) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.’
This amendment is intended to set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target will be at least as strict as the 2005 WHO guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.
Amendment 25, page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—
(a) be less than or equal to 10µg/m3;
(b) follow World Health Organisation guidelines; and
(c) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.’
This amendment is intended to set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target will be at least as strict as the 2005 WHO guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 3, line 31, at end insert
‘, and
(c) interim targets are met.’
This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to meet the interim targets they set.
Government amendment 6.
Amendment 28, in clause 7, page 5, line 12, leave out “may” and insert “must”
This amendment would require the Government to include steps to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in its Environmental Plan.
Amendment 39, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
‘(7A) If an exemption is granted under Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, which is likely to affect species covered by an environmental improvement plan—
(a) a report must be laid before Parliament within one month of the exemption decision on the likely effects of the exemption on populations of—
(i) bees,
(ii) other pollinators, and
(iii) other species,
(b) the scientific advice given to ministers relating to the exemption must be published as an addendum to the report, and
(c) a Minister of the Crown must, not later than one month after the report is laid before Parliament under paragraph (8), move a Motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.
(7B) The requirement in subsection (7A) shall apply retrospectively to exemptions granted within the last 12 months of the coming into force of this Act.’
This amendment places requirements on Ministers to allow parliamentary scrutiny of exemptions granted to allow plant protection products banned under retained EU law (such as neonicotinoid pesticides), where they are likely to impact bees and other species covered by an environmental improvement plan.
Amendment 4, in clause 16, page 10, line 15, at end insert—
‘(3A) When applying the precautionary principle, the policy statement must comply with the provisions of the regulator’s code and must include—
(a) a procedure for identifying and recording risk; and
(b) a procedure for identifying and recording the social, economic and cultural impacts of action and inaction.
(3B) The policy statement in subsection (3A) must also include instructions for taking into account all activities with an environmental impact on any area of land under consideration and a procedure for ensuring that any action taken—
(a) is proportionate to the risk posed by each activity on the land being considered; and
(b) balances short term impacts against the achievement of the land’s conservation objectives.
(3C) The precautionary principle should only apply in response to risks that are—
(a) more than hypothetical in nature; and
(b) serious and irreversible.’
This amendment sets out the definition of the precautionary principle when it is used in accordance with the provisions of this Bill.
Amendment 1, in clause 18, page 11, line 20, leave out from “benefit” to end of clause and insert—
‘(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to policy so far as relating to Wales.’
This amendment removes the proportionality limitation and the exceptions for armed forces, defence policy, tax, spending and resources from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles.
Amendment 43, page 11, line 24, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
This amendment removes the exceptions for armed forces, defence and national security policy from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles. It also removes the exceptions for tax, spending and allocation of resources.
Amendment 23, page 14, line 29, leave out Clause 24.
Government amendment 31.
Amendment 44, in clause 45, page 27, line 15, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
This amendment removes the exceptions for armed forces, defence and national security policy and the exceptions for tax, spending and allocation of resources from the definition of environmental law.
Government amendments 9 to 20.
Caroline Lucas
I am pleased to move new clause 1. This Bill could not be more important. It is 25 years since the last dedicated Environment Act was passed. During that time, the speed and scale of environmental destruction has increased dramatically. The UK is now one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, and Ministers simply are not rising to that challenge. According to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Government are failing to meet fully 17 out of 20 UN biodiversity targets.
Despite the Government’s aim to be
“the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it”,
this Bill has languished in Parliament for more than 200 days before Committee resumed. As a consequence, there is now a governance gap, with only interim measures in place where a fully-fledged Office for Environmental Protection should have been. Worse, we now hear that the Bill is to be delayed by at least six months, because Ministers have apparently run out of time to pass it in Parliament.
Of course we understand the pressures that covid has put on the parliamentary timetable, but the Government have had more than four years since the referendum, two years since the draft Bill was published and one year since the UK left the EU to get these plans in place. Their failure to do so is utterly incompetent. Will the Minister give us a precise date for both the next Report stage and the missing policy statement that is linked to the environmental principles? It is to those principles that I now turn, because my new clause 1 and amendment 1 are on the environmental principles, and I plan to push new clause 1 to a vote.
Ministers promised that, post Brexit, environmental standards would be not only maintained but enhanced, yet this Bill does not even come close to making up for what we have lost by leaving the EU. It sets out five important principles, including prevention, precaution and polluter pays. Under EU law, it is a requirement that those are actually applied when law making and that they cover all public bodies, not just Ministers. However, the Bill significantly weakens their legal status because they do not apply to public bodies, and there is no such duty on Ministers to act in accordance with the principles. Instead, there is only a duty to “have due regard” to a policy statement that the Government have not even bothered to published yet.
The Minister has tried to persuade us that “due regard” is at least as strong as “in accordance with”, yet her case simply does not stand up to scrutiny. In 2018, the Lords Select Committee on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 found that the duty to “have regard” to contained in that Act was
“weak, unenforceable and lacks clear meaning.”
Adding the word “due” in front of “regard” does not change that. There are plenty of examples of other legislation in which public authorities are required by statute to act in accordance with or to take actions to comply with—for example, the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 or the Planning Act 2008.
We can only conclude that, in this instance, the Government deliberately intend to weaken these provisions and, as a consequence, to drive a coach and horses through fundamental EU protections. New clause 1 would extend the duty to all public authorities and broaden the scope of the principles. Crucially, it would strengthen the duty from “have due regard” to “act in accordance with”, and it would apply directly to the principles, rather than a non-existent policy statement.
Amendment 1 addresses further absurdities in the Bill—in this case, the exclusion of the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury, and indeed anyone spending resources within Government, from having to consider the principles at all. That really is ludicrous. My amendment therefore removes the proportionality limitation from the environmental principles, as well as the exclusions for the MOD and the Treasury.
New clause 17 is vital because it recognises that even if we do succeed in strengthening this Bill, efforts to protect and restore nature will ultimately fail unless we also address the underlying economic drivers of biodiversity and ecosystem destruction. The new clause therefore requires the Government to prepare a strategy for the adoption of new economic goals so that social and environmental gains sit at the heart of the Government’s economic plans and measurements. If we stick with the current economic rulebook, we will continue to see the hard work of DEFRA undermined by the overriding short-term economic priorities of the Treasury, and above all the pursuit of infinite GDP growth on a planet of finite resources. For decades, we have seen Ministers commit to environmental goals and targets only for those goals to be missed time and again. Nature’s dangerous decline continues apace, at a high cost to current and future generations. This time we need to do things differently. Some major business voices are also urging Government to do the same. Consider this from the Business for Nature coalition, which says:
“Governments, companies and financial organizations would take better decisions if they used information ‘beyond short-term profit and GDP’ that includes impacts and dependencies on nature, as well as synergies and trade-offs informed by science and planetary boundaries.”
New clause 17 is all about better, more consistent decision making across Government so that the environmental ambition in this Bill is not undermined by conflicting goals of other, more powerful Departments. While I will not be pressing it to a vote, I do hope that the Minister will commit to taking this forward with the urgency it requires.
Turning to amendment 21, green space has become more important than ever over the past 10 months, yet access to nature is far from equal. My amendment seeks to address that. Some 2.6 million people in the UK have no publicly accessible green space within walking distance, and one in eight British households has no access to a garden—an inequality that disproportionately affects those in black and minority ethnic communities. Currently the Bill states:
The Secretary of State may…set long-term targets”
on
“people’s enjoyment of the natural environment.”
However, because this is not a priority area, it risks being overlooked, with funding and resources being diverted elsewhere. My amendment remedies this omission by promoting access to and enjoyment of nature as a priority area for long-term targets. This change not only has the potential to equalise access to nature but would also come with wider benefits to physical and mental health.
Finally, I would like to indicate support for a number of other amendments, including amendment 23 on the Office for Environmental Protection. When it comes to enforcement, the OEP is being presented as a new, independent watchdog. In reality, it is more like a ministerial lapdog kept on a tight leash, with Ministers given the power to steer it by offering so-called guidance that the OEP is bound to consider. Since Ministers also control its budget and its board, it is entirely likely that such guidance will actually be felt, in practice, rather more as an instruction. The Minister has argued that the Government already routinely offer guidance to other non-departmental public bodies. While it is true that they do to some, they certainly do not have power to issue guidance in relation to bodies charged principally or partly with enforcing potential breaches of the law by other public bodies. That is a crucial difference. That is why I support the amendment that would delete this guidance, which was added to the Bill at a very late stage.
I also support amendments that intend to ensure that interim targets are legally binding. There are strong amendments to improve air quality, and to align our state of nature targets with those from the convention on biological diversity and with the objectives of the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill, which I introduced into Parliament last year.
This is a hugely important Bill. It is unbelievable that we are seeing, yet again, a delay to its coming forward. The Minister must now undertake that in the extra time she is going to achieve, she will strengthen the Bill to make it fit for purpose so that it comes close to some of the aspirations that she and her fellow Ministers have expressed before.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Minister, let me say that, as I have indicated, there is a four-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. The vast majority of contributions will be via videolink. Can I say to those who are contributing via videolink that there is a clock on the device you are using, so please keep an eye on it? There are no interventions on you, so it should be straightforward as to when you finish your contribution. If you try to exceed that time, you will be automatically cut off. For those contributing in the Chamber, the clocks will be working in the usual fashion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I would like to begin by setting out why this Environment Bill is so important. Members on all sides of the House agree that on the whole—despite, I must just say, some notable successes where farmers, Government and conservationists are working together—the desperate decline of our natural environment and biodiversity has gone on for far too long. We need to act to improve the quality and the quantity of habitats for our fellow species across the board, and we need to re-establish the equilibrium of the habitats and ecosystems.
Our UK indicator for farmland birds shows that we have had a decline of 50% in those birds since 1970. The lapwings I grew up with on the farm at home are no longer there, nor are the yellowhammers. Insect pollinators have declined by 30% since 1980, so in place of that hazy buzz we were all so used to there is now, in many places, silence. This matters not only because people treasure our species and habitats—and, goodness, we have really appreciated that in lockdown during the pandemic, have we not?—but because they underpin vital processes such as carbon storage or pollination. That is why we are laying the foundations for nature’s recovery through this Bill, delivering the tools needed to drive the change we want to see.
Legally binding targets for environmental improvement across at least four priority areas must be set. Our ambitious targets across air quality, water, waste and biodiversity will drive long-term action. Through this Government now and future Governments, we will be held accountable by Parliament if progress lags. I know the House will also be particularly interested to hear that we will set not one but two legally binding targets to tackle harmful air pollution across the country. The Bill will require current and future Governments to produce an environmental improvement plan, which must be reviewed and reported on regularly. The Bill creates a tough new independent Office for Environmental Protection to hold all public authorities—from local authorities to central Government—to account on reaching these goals. It will enforce the delivery of all environmental law, including, for example, our net zero target.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
First, will the Minister congratulate year 4 from Christ Church primary, who have sent me 100 different essays on exactly the topic she is talking about and on deforestation? Secondly, what does she say to our own Chemical Industries Association, which bemoans our leaving REACH—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation—saying that it opens the door to harmful chemical pollution potentially to animals and humans, because it is the Government who are responsible for the replacement?
Rebecca Pow
Of course, I would be absolutely delighted to welcome those essays from Christ Church primary school. Indeed, if the hon. Member would like me to send a letter from the Environment Minister, I would be delighted to do so. I am always very pleased to speak to our students and young children about what we are doing on the environment, and they are our future generations whom we are doing all this for, so I thank her for that. We are going to talk about REACH later—I engage very closely with the industry—so we will discuss that in the second grouping of amendments today.
Just before that intervention, I mentioned the new independent Office for Environmental Protection, and I would like to take this opportunity to provide the House with an update on the OEP. We want to ensure that this is located in a good long-term place and, trust me, there were an awful lot of contenders. After considering wider locations, we have decided that Worcester will be an excellent location for the headquarters of the OEP. This is part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that opportunities are spread fairly across the country. My heart goes out to people in the area who may have been flooded this week, but I hope the OEP’s being based in Worcester gives a little bit of good news.
As the Prime Minister set out in the Government’s 10-point plan to net zero, protection, restoration and enhancement of our natural environment are crucial. The Bill will play a key part in that mission. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for opening the debate by raising some important points on the environmental principles. The environmental principles will work together to protect the environment from damage by making environmental considerations central to the policy development process across Government. I am keen to hear views from across the House, and there are many references to the environmental principles in some of the other amendments, so I shall respond in more detail to some of her points on the principles and other important issues at the end of the debate. I reassure her, though, that we are working at pace: during the break between the two Report sessions, we will continue unstintingly to deliver measures in the Bill.
Before I go any further, let me mention some Government amendments, some of which make relatively technical changes that will improve and enhance the Bill. Government amendment 6, tabled by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, clarifies that both the terrestrial and the marine aspects of England’s natural environment will be considered when conducting the significant improvement test in clause 6. That has always been our intention, as I explained in Committee, but the amendment puts it beyond doubt. I am delighted that the amendment spells out that marine is absolutely part and parcel of what we mean when we talk about the environment.
With regard to the Office for Environmental Protection, Government amendment 31, also tabled by the Secretary of State, is a technical amendment that simply serves to clarify that section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 does not apply on an environmental review, providing the courts with a full range of remedies for the OEP environmental review procedure. Government amendments 9 to 20, also tabled by the Secretary of State, align the clauses relating to the OEP’s Northern Ireland enforcement functions with the amended part 1 provisions. Those amendments were personally requested by Northern Ireland Ministers.
I welcome the opportunity to hear from hon. Friends and Members on both sides of the House on this vital Bill, and I look forward to responding at the end of the debate.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to new clause 9 and amendments 25, 39 and 23 in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
Parliament declared a climate and ecological emergency on 1 May 2019. A year and a half has passed, and the need for more urgent action on the environment has only increased. If we are to avoid catastrophic climate change that would only destroy jobs, homes, biodiversity and our planet, we have just nine short years to cut carbon emissions and protect nature, according to the UN’s experts on climate and biodiversity. As David Attenborough says,
“the living world is on course to tip and collapse. Indeed, it has already begun to do so”.
This Bill is a cobbled-together set of disparate actions that is sinking under the weight of greenwash that has been applied by Ministers. It does not take the urgent action that is so desperately needed.
This legislation is not perfect by any means, but the Bill should already be law. The deliberate pausing of Report stage after today means that some amendments will not be debated by MPs until May, the Bill will not be in the House of Lords until just before the summer, and it risks not being on the statute book until the autumn. That means we could be waiting over six months more for an environmental watchdog, for powers to stop our children breathing unsafe air, and to regulate Ministers’ actions. The Minister said that she did not want to see a delay in the Bill, while she was moving a motion to delay the Bill. That simply is not good enough. What a terrible message to send to the world in the year we are hosting COP26. It was supposed to be in law before Britain left the Brexit transition period and it is not. It was supposed to be bold and world-leading because of the urgency of the climate crisis and it is not.
This is a go-slow Government when it comes to environmental action. If we could solve the climate crisis with press releases then the planet would have nothing to worry about, but it is actions, not words, that we need. We need faster action to create the well-paid green jobs our communities need, and we need bolder action on improving standards and protecting habitats and species, so we can strengthen our economy and rebuild our country. If building back better after the pandemic is to be genuine, and not a smash and grab on the language of the environmental left, it must be underpinned by bold policy.
The Bill has a number of important issues, so let me deal with some of the main ones—first, air quality. The whole House remembers Ella Kissi-Debrah, a nine-year-old girl who tragically died following an asthma attack in London seven years ago. The coroner’s court found that air pollution made a material contribution to Ella’s death. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) for working with Ella’s mum Rosamund in demanding bolder action. This Sunday would have been Ella’s 17th birthday. As her mum wrote in The Sun on Sunday:
“Had WHO air pollution limits been in place and enforced then, according to the Coroner’s report, she would still be here today.”
Air quality is a matter of social justice, of equality and of poverty and requires fundamental change in the way we do business.
There are three amendments on air quality in the names of my Devon colleague the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and in my own name. All the amendments seek real action on air pollution. Labour will back all of them if they are put to the vote. According to figures published by NHS England, on average 5% of deaths in those over 30 can be attributed to PM2.5 air pollution. What that means is 40,000 deaths a year are caused by poor air—40,000 deaths. The Confederation of British Industry estimates that a £1.6 billion economic benefit to the UK could be released if we met WHO guidelines.
It is frankly bizarre that, faced with such mounting evidence of the unnecessary deaths caused by poor air, Ministers still refuse to put WHO air quality standards into law. I want to see the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs step up and hold Ministers’ feet to the fire. That means taking the case for the toughest WHO air quality targets to force the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other Departments to radically up their game. If Ministers still refuse to accept our amendments, can the Minister confirm she will use the powers in the Bill to adopt WHO targets and exceed them if she can whenever the Bill eventually gets on the statute book? A Labour Government would adopt WHO targets because it is simply the right thing to do, so that everyone in all our communities has clean air to breathe.
Luke Pollard
I will not for time’s sake.
You cannot build back better if you are struggling to breathe.
Secondly, let me to turn to the Office for Environmental Protection. The Bill should have been passed by the end of the Brexit transition period, and the OEP should be up and running now. Labour offered to work with Ministers to ensure that that happened, but here we are with that date passed and the Bill still unlikely to become law until autumn, which is a year too late. That means the UK is now without an environmental watchdog, as the OEP has not yet been set up. We are concerned that it will be a weak watchdog with no real teeth. Calling it tough will in itself not make it tough. The OEP needs to be vigorously independent. That is why our amendment would delete a clause that would allow the Secretary of State to give guidance to the OEP and effectively let the Government mark their own homework. It is backed by the cross-party Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which concluded that we should make sure that
“every step is taken to ensure the Office for Environmental Protection is as independent from the Government as possible”.
Although I think many of us would have preferred an out-and-out environmentalist to be leading the OEP, the appointment of Dame Glenys Stacey is welcome and I hope the board members she is now recruiting will look a tad greener. But I must say to the Minister that, as a south-west Member of Parliament, I am deeply concerned that the Government have just robbed the south-west of the Office for Environmental Protection. She will know it was announced in October 2019 that it would be going to Bristol. She knows that the expectation was that this would be a south-west-based regulator and she knows of the anger—the anger—that this will cause in the south-west on finding out it has been sent to somewhere that she claims is near Bristol. Worcester is nowhere near Bristol and that promise is nowhere near being met. The south-west has been robbed of a regulator and I think that is deeply, deeply worrying.
Let me turn briefly to bees and Labour’s amendment to prevent the Government from lifting the ban on bee-killing chemicals. I am a fan of bees; my family keeps bees on a farm in Cornwall. Since 1900, the UK has lost 13 out of 35 native bee species. Bees are essential to the future of our planet, to pollenating our crops and to our rich tapestry of biodiversity, so bee health is non-negotiable. That is what MPs on both sides of the House say in good times, so I expect them to say it now. Labour’s amendment would oppose the Conservative plan to lift the ban on bee-killing pesticides. If bee health really is non-negotiable, the ban must not be set aside just because it is convenient to do so now. There is no doubt that sugar beet farmers have been hit hard by crop blight, but lifting the ban is not the solution. Improved sugar contracts, compensation and accelerating blight-resistant varieties are a much better answer.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With a four-minute limit, I call Neil Parish via video link.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) [V]
I thank DEFRA Ministers for their hard work on the Bill.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has looked at the Environment Bill over the past few years. We have given it pre-legislative scrutiny and looked at the Office for Environmental Protection and issues such as plastic waste, tree planting and air quality. The Bill has come back to Parliament in several shapes and sizes, and I think that might be about to happen again. I hope that the Government are carrying over the Bill to the next Session because they want to amend it to include all my amendments on deforestation and air quality.
The Amazon is losing an area twice the size of Devon every year to deforestation. Government amendments to ban sales from illegal deforestation go some way, but we can go further still and target the finance behind that. I will speak about air quality in the second debate today; there is an environmental and public health emergency that needs swift action. I appreciate the Government’s argument that we need more time to do work on the science, but we have known about the seriousness of the situation for many years, so it cannot be put off much longer.
We also need to ensure that the Bill comes back quickly in the summer, because we currently have an environmental governance gap. The Government and public authorities are not being adequately held to account over their compliance with environmental law, and it is not the best look. The court of public opinion is ultimately our judge, so I gently suggest that the Bill should be brought back immediately in the next Session to demonstrate its importance.
Now that we are outside the EU, we do not have the Commission to fine us and hold us to account. We are rating ourselves and we need a strong protection in domestic law in this Environment Bill. We also need a strong Office for Environmental Protection, and I welcome the appointment of Dame Glenys Stacey as chairman of the OEP. Through this process, I have called for the chair to have independence from Government. Dame Glenys Stacey’s track record as an effective regulator through using both carrot and stick to hold public bodies to account means I have faith in her achieving that independence, but in common with other Government agencies the OEP needs resources and teeth to bite. The OEP will not be independent if it is constantly worrying about its budget. The Government and Ministers have excellent environmental credentials and I do not think they will water down protection in any way, but we need to act more quickly and should be a little bit braver when it comes to scrutiny.
We also have a duty now to set the right environmental laws and framework for the future Governments and generations. The Prime Minister is taking up the green recovery and DEFRA Ministers also believe in a better environment, as do many in this House and across the country. We are fortunate to be hosting COP26 later this year; it is an exciting time for environmental policy in this country. Outside the EU we have a real opportunity do better and show global leadership on issues of global importance; whether in air quality, water quality, soil health, tree planting, plastic waste or species protection, we should be ambitious with our environment policy.
This Environment Bill is a landmark Bill and the Government have put great effort into it over several years. With a few more tweaks and a firm commitment to bring the Bill back early in the next Session we can set a great example to the rest of the world and have a modern Environment Act of which we can all be proud.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now go to a video link, and it is a Front-Bench contribution from Deirdre Brock; happy Australia Day, Deirdre.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I shall speak to Scottish National party amendments 43 and 44. This Bill concerns England in the main; most of these policy areas are devolved and Scotland has its own environmental legislation, which, frankly, is light years ahead. This Bill has made its way rather painfully through the process, and it has seemed for far too much of that time that it was more about the UK Government trying to hide the fact that they have no real environmental ambition to speak of.
Only a few months after stepping in to overturn a council’s planning permission for an opencast mine, the Government have chosen to stay out of the planning process for a deep coalmine near Whitehaven in Cumbria. Less trusting folk than me have suggested that that might have something to do with what happened in that constituency in December 2019, but such cynicism is surely unfounded.
The UK has made little or no progress in tackling the really big-ticket items—carbon emissions, air and water pollution, tree planting, and so on. In fact, one of the area’s explicitly excluded from this Bill, the military, is one of the worst offenders. I have talked at great length about the environmental impacts that we know of, particularly the historical dumping of unwanted explosives, ammunition, ordnance, radioactive waste and so on into the sea, and we know that the area around Beaufort’s Dyke between Scotland and Ireland has millions of tonnes of unsavoury stuff littering the sea floor, but we do not know what is down there, because the dump records have been mislaid and the Ministry of Defence appears to have no intention of seeking to clean it up.
Similarly, I have been told that the MOD has done environmental impact studies on its land estates, but they have not been shared. There was a report in May, however, by Scientists for Global Responsibility, which found that the carbon footprint of British military spending was around 11 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent, some of it relating to arms exports but most of it from MOD operations.
That is not all: not one single nuclear submarine has been dismantled since the first one was decommissioned more than 40 years ago; four decades on and the UK has more redundant nuclear subs in storage than it has in use. I should add, too, the hundreds of nuclear safety breaches at the naval bases on the Clyde that I discovered through written questions, which are interestingly not matched by similar figures elsewhere.
It is clear that the environmental impact of military operations is more than substantial, even if it is not officially acknowledged. I would have thought that any Government who wanted to—in the Prime Minister’s words—
“do extraordinary things on the environment”
would want to do something about that, so I assume that it was an error that led someone in Government to exempt defence, national security and the armed forces from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental provisions, and from any consideration of environmental issues on tax, spending and allocation of resources.
I raised this issue in Committee, so Ministers have had plenty of time to consider it, and they should consider reversing their position. The procedural oddities of this place will not allow for everything to be considered, so this issue has taken a back seat for the moment to allow Labour’s amendment on neonicotinoids to be voted on. That is a devolved issue and treated differently in Scotland, but it is of course important for England.
We have 10 months until COP26 takes place in Glasgow —pandemics permitting—and the UK Government really have to step up to the plate and start showing some real leadership. Talking about it is not enough. Painting the fence green is not enough. The Government actually have to become green, become environmentally friendly, and work for the future of the planet and of the human race. In the past year, we have seen how a virus can disrupt our world, but that would be nothing compared to the devastation that the climate crisis threatens. We all have a role to play in addressing that challenge, but there is little point in individual households doing what they can while the Government fail to do what they are capable of.
I think that this Bill will go down as a missed opportunity, but that does not mean that the Government are powerless to act. I look forward to a change in priorities and a move to action. This is not a time to delay, defer and dissemble; it is a time to move forward purposefully. The question for the Government is not whether they win or lose their battles today, but whether they really decide to lead over the next year and the coming years.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The four-minute limit is now imposed again for all further Back-Bench contributions.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) [V]
I will speak to my amendment 4. The precautionary principle is a whole new way for the Government to legislate on environmental matters which can be applied to a huge range of environmental principles. It could be used in the extreme—for example, to introduce policies such as stopping people from driving motor cars on the basis that they damage the environment. In an increasingly legislative field, my amendment is so important in ensuring that the Government can clearly define the purposes for use of the precautionary principle, beyond those in the mere principles statements outlined in clauses 16 to 18.
The Minister said in a letter to me this morning: “I can confirm that Ministers of the Crown are only required to have due regard to the policy statement when making policy by virtue of clause 18(1). The environmental principles duty is not designed to apply to individual decisions or other public bodies.” In other words, the statement of principles is pretty nearly toothless.
My amendment would clearly constrain when and where the precautionary principle can be used. I ask the Minister, when she sums up, to go further than just going into the principles; I ask her to include some of my amendment in the Bill. A particularly important part is subsection (3C), which says:
“The precautionary principle should only apply in response to risks that are…more than hypothetical in nature; and…serious and irreversible.”
I cannot see any reason at all why that should not be in the Bill. If the Minister is not inclined to include it, I hope that their lordships will pick it up when the Bill goes to the House of Lords.
The precautionary principle is not consistently applied to different activity; it is frequently used to constrain certain activities where any impacts are deemed to be unacceptable. For example, Natural England is currently seeking to restrict game shooting around European protected sites. Due to evidence of damage in only five—a mere 1.5% of all sites—it wants to introduce a licensing system.
In summing up, can the Minister please bear in mind all the constraints that are in my amendments? Otherwise, this principle could well become oppressive to people’s freedom in the future, and we may well rue the day that we put the provision in the Bill. I am looking to the Minister to tell me why some or all of my constraints cannot be included in the Bill, because that is where they should be. The statement of principles, as written in the Bill, is pretty nearly toothless, and the precautionary principle gives the Minister, or any future Minister, a huge overwhelming power, which we may well live to regret.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
I wish to speak to new clause 5 on the state of nature target.
There are few things that can lift our spirits as much as time spent with nature. Who does not feel a sense of awe and wonder at the astonishing biodiversity of our landscape, its creatures and its plants. As well as ensuring that that same sense of awe and wonder can be enjoyed by future generations, it should be self-preservation, frankly, that urges us to confront the threat of biodiversity and habitat loss. We should have respect for the soil from which we came—the soil that has given us everything that we can see around us: food; fuel; raw materials; medicines; and the ability to capture carbo. It is the soil to which we will, one day, all return—a reminder of our place in the natural order of things.
The truth is that we can no longer take all this for granted. Why? It is because we are destroying our natural world at an alarming rate. In the words of the Minister’s own Department:
“Much of England’s wildlife-rich habitat has been lost over the last century…and there has been widespread species loss.”
The latest state of nature report records a decline of 13% in the abundance of UK species since 1970. Some 15% of UK species are now endangered, including the red squirrel, the water vole, the ghost orchid, and the meadow clary. The number of moths has decreased significantly in the past 50 years and a third of British wild bees and hoverflies are in decline. A total of 97% of our wildflower meadows have been lost since the 1930s. This is a crisis caused by agricultural practices, pollution, urbanisation, habitat loss and climate change, and it requires action, and that is what this new clause seeks to do.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to binding targets, but I think that it can be strengthened to make a good Bill better by including a target to halt and begin to reverse the decline of habitats and species by 2030. That should not be too difficult in principle for the Minister, because this is exactly what the United Kingdom called for in drawing up the leaders’ pledge for nature, which commits to reversing biodiversity loss by 2030. But, of course, to reverse loss, one must first halt it. The problem is that the Bill’s timetable for setting targets does not fit in with the 2030 biodiversity pledge, so the new clause would place a requirement on Ministers to draw up, before the Conference of the Parties later on this year, a 2030 state of nature target to halt and begin to reverse the decline in species and habitats and to set out a plan to do so, including how the target would be measured. It would need to cover the abundance of species, their risk of extinction and the extent and condition of habitats, bearing in mind that widely accepted and reliable sets of indicators already exist to enable us to assess these things.
I accept that the target is ambitious, but if we are not going to be ambitious now, when will we be ambitious for the state of nature? It is not as if we do not know what works to bring about change for the better. We do. We just need a lot more of it. The truth is this: we have always known that the natural environment sustains our souls, but we have now come to understand that it also sustains our very existence. That is why it matters and that is why we should do now what we know in our hearts to be right. I hope the House will vote for the new clause.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to be able to make a brief contribution to this important debate. It is a great relief to see the Bill come back to this House, but equally it is a great disappointment to learn that it will be back just for today and we will have to wait until the next parliamentary Session begins after Easter for the second allocated day. When the Minister responds to the debate, will she give some indication that she intends to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible and that procedures in the Lords conclude before the summer recess? We must go into the COP26 conference in November with clarity that this ground-breaking piece of legislation is on the statute book.
I wish to speak about two aspects of the Bill, the first of which is the Office for Environmental Protection. I am delighted to welcome the Minister’s announcement today that the OEP headquarters will be in Worcester in the west midlands, near my constituency. Worcester is, of course, on the River Severn, which is the largest river in the country and has recently been in flood through my constituency. The whole Severn catchment area requires considerable attention and will get greater focus thanks to Dame Glenys Stacey’s presence at the headquarters from time to time, in her new role.
Alongside the EFRA Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee did pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, and we called for a greater degree of independence for the OEP. Having met Dame Glenys at our pre-appointment hearing in December, we took some comfort from our opinion that she is the right person to lead the organisation, but we are concerned that she has sufficient budget to recruit the number of people required and the experts she needs, and to reflect the OEP’s responsibilities in helping to deliver the 25-year plan.
When the Environmental Audit Committee did pre-legislative scrutiny, we were also concerned about the environmental improvement plans. We felt that the OEP should advise the Government on the establishment of targets, as was the case under the previous regulatory regime through the European Commission. We welcome the fact that targets are enshrined in the Bill but think it important that the body that will have part of the responsibility to monitor compliance with those targets is also involved in setting them. We would very much like to see confirmation from the Minister that the date for establishing the environmental targets can be confirmed with a statement of intent ahead of COP26.
The second aspect I wish to speak about is amendment 28, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). It would require the Government to include in the environmental plan steps to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. As part of our inquiry into biodiversity and ecosystems, my Committee has repeatedly heard that central to restoring our greatly depleted natural environment—about which we have heard from other speakers—is building a better relationship between people and nature. It was called for in the Glover review; we would like to see it enshrined in the Bill and urge the Government to support amendment 28.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I speak in favour of amendment 2, which was tabled by the Chair of the EFRA Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and would put into law the World Health Organisation air quality limits.
I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. I introduced my own clean air Bill four years ago, in 2017, at which time the Royal College of Physicians had already reported that 40,000 people in Britain were dying prematurely every year, at a cost of £20 billion. The figure is now thought to be 64,000 people. Air pollution affects people’s brains, hearts and lungs. The mental and physical health of unborn children is affected, as is young children’s concentration. It can also affect people in terms of depression, anxiety and dementia—so the list goes on. In fact, the number of covid deaths is up 8% for each microgram of PM2.5.
DEFRA claims that overall pollution has come down in the past 10 years, but the reason for that is that we have closed down our coal-fired power stations and exported our manufacturing. In urban environments, the deaths and the pollution are going up, and that is why we need these limits to be imposed universally. It is the poorest and most diverse neighbourhoods that are suffering most from the pollution and hence from the greatest levels of covid deaths. It is no good the Government saying that they will have average concentrations, where they average the amounts of concentration in a rural environment with those in a toxic urban environment. Those limits would not have saved the life of Ella Kissi- Debrah, who tragically died. The coroner’s inquest heard that the cause of death was the levels of air pollution that caused her asthma, which caused her to go into hospital 28 times in just three years before her tragic death. We want World Health Organisation universal limits applied so that thousands of children can be saved and protected.
It is everyone’s right to have clean air, and it is the Government’s duty to deliver that right. We therefore need amendment 2, which is a guiding light around which other targets can coalesce. It requires PM2.5 to be 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030. We need all Government Departments and public bodies to work together to achieve this, as set out in new clause 6. Unfortunately, the Government are just saying that they will have targets in 2022. Those targets will not be legally enforceable and they will be able to be changed. That simply is not good enough. For Ella’s sake, for the sake of thousands of children up and down Britain, and for all of us, we need World Health Organisation standards in legislation, and I hope that that will be agreed today.
Finally, I turn to new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). I sponsored a plastics Bill in 2018. The fact is that there will be more plastic than fish in the sea by 2050. UK supermarkets alone produce 114 billion pieces a year. We need the producers and the polluters to pay a tax on virgin plastic. I would certainly support that, because millions of birds and animals are dying. We are ingesting the microplastics that get into fish and inhaling plastic that is in our clothes and washing machines. In a nutshell, as we approach COP26 we should be showing leadership to the world in stopping our oceans choking, stopping our children choking, protecting our air, protecting our oceans and protecting our environment.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
This is a ground-breaking Bill. There is much of merit in it, although you would not believe it to listen to some of the contributions from the Opposition Benches. There are many good amendments, and I would single out new clauses 14 and 15 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) about linking housing targets and planning permissions.
In the limited time available, I want to talk about my amendment 5 on interim targets. Setting targets is easy. Governments like to set headline-grabbing targets, but too often the small print belies the ambition of the target, and the target date is in the dim and distant future. That can instil complacency and lethargy, because there is plenty of time to hit the mark and there is therefore no need to panic. When it comes to climate change, however, there is every need, if not to panic, at least to put our foot on the gas, metaphorically, and to act with urgency and immediacy.
The 2050 net zero target is almost 30 years away, and it should be a “last possible date by which”. It should be subject to a constant audit as to how quickly and by how far we can constantly bring that end date forward. It must also be an end date for a clearly set out progression to reducing harmful emissions and creating a net carbon environmentally benefiting economy. We need things to show a marked improvement from today, and so it should be with the natural environmental improvement targets in this Bill. My amendment is simple. It adds just four words in an additional subsection to clause 4, making it the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that “interim targets are met.” That amendment would guarantee continuous incremental improvements in the natural environment, helping to keep all things environmental high up the Government’s list of priorities. It would bring the Environment Bill target framework into line with the approach of the Climate Change Act 2008, where there are five-yearly legally binding targets as milestones to the long-term legally binding target of net zero by 2050.
At the moment, the only recourse for the Office for Environmental Protection, if the Government miss an interim target, will be to criticise them in its annual report. That could of course be ignored by Ministers and Governments until the long-term target was missed, when enforcement action would actually kick in. Frankly, the power of policing this has to have more teeth than the ability of the environmental policemen to shout, “Stop, or I’ll shout ‘stop’ again!” Friends of the Earth has said:
“If these targets are not binding upon the Secretary of State it would be a huge missed opportunity to ensure the EIP system drives sustained, tangible environmental improvement—and would undermine the rationale for setting such goals in the first instance.”
Tim Loughton
I do not think so, but my hon. Friend is very kind. It is only because Madam Deputy Speaker is looking daggers at me.
Five-yearly interim targets also need to be set in the environmental improvement plans. However, the environmental improvement plans are not legally binding—they are simply policy documents—and all the plans need to be reviewed and potentially updated every five years and reported on every year. This is not the same as legal accountability.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) [V]
Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is a pleasure to speak briefly in this debate to the amendment in my name and in support of the many excellent amendments tabled by colleagues from across the House.
While they were open, my visits to schools were able to continue over Zoom; it has been one of the pleasures during this difficult lockdown. The common theme in these sessions is always questions about the climate crisis. The sense of urgency among young people is palpable, yet I fear that in decades to come, they will look back at the decision makers of today and ask why, despite all the warning signs, we did not do more when we had the chance. I want Wales to seize that chance and use our natural resources and innovation to fuel our recovery and transition to a sustainable economy. We have the capacity and capability to do it, but too often, our efforts are being hampered by Westminster. There has been the refusal to support the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, the pitiful track record on rail investment, and a flat refusal to empower the Welsh Government with powers over energy policy or meaningful economic levers.
I fear greatly that the latest power grab will see any climate ambitions set by the Senedd actively undermined by Westminster. I am talking, of course, of the powers grabbed via the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to spend in devolved areas, which the British state intends to use to deliver the shared prosperity fund. It takes very little imagination to picture a scenario in which the British Government bypass the will of our democratically elected Senedd and pursue their Union Jack-plastered pet project in Wales without any regard for the environmental consequences.
Amendment 40 in my name seeks to defend Wales from Westminster intrusion. It would require that an impact assessment is carried out on the effect on environmental targets set by the Senedd of any infrastructure project that the British dare to seek to deliver in Wales via the shared prosperity fund or any other mechanism. Where the effect is found to be a negative one, my amendment would give the Senedd a veto on the project.
While I will not push this amendment to a vote this evening, I seek reassurances from the British Government. I want a guarantee that Wales will be free to not only set, but achieve more ambitious targets on achieving net zero, improving air quality and reducing plastic waste, without any interference from Westminster. By introducing the Bill, the British Government have rightly made much of the importance of setting long-term environmental targets and establishing lines of accountability. Is not it only right that the Welsh Government are fully accountable for any decisions that affect Wales’s environmental targets?
I briefly pledge my support for new clause 17, which would require the UK Government to deliver a strategy setting out how the economic recovery can be designed to improve our wellbeing and environment. I also support new clause 9, which would ensure that anyone with responsibility under this legislation must comply with the commitment to achieving a healthy, resilient, biodiverse natural environment. I welcome amendments that seek to strengthen, and hold the Government to account on, the promise to combat global deforestation, and to set targets for the reduction and replacement of animal testing for the purposes of chemicals regulation.
We do have an opportunity to make a difference, and the next time I talk to young people in my constituency, I want to be able to show them that we are taking it. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]
I start by welcoming this Bill and praising the Government for bringing it before the House. I know it is disappointing that the Bill will not make it into law until the next Session, but it is a world-leading piece of legislation. Whether it is because of the scientific warnings about climate change, the loss of biodiversity, air quality issues, or the need to create a better environment around us all, the measures in this Bill represent a major step forward. Although there will be a lot of debate about whether the Bill should be enhanced and how, I hope that all who propose changes to it recognise what an important measure it is.
I shall seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the Bill reaches the second day of Report, to move my amendment on the protection of the hedgehog and to speak about forest protection. Today, though, I want to focus on the first part of the Bill, particularly the requirements to prepare an environmental improvement plan and to set targets for improvements. The 25-year environment plan that the Government produced two years ago provides an essential and world-leading blueprint for the kind of change that is needed. It covers a whole range of issues, but in particular I want targets and updates of the plan to focus on habitat restoration and protection here, and I want tangible measures to incentivise and support the restoration and protection of habitats in other parts of the world. We have to be world leaders in protecting our species and encouraging other people to do the same.
The loss of biodiversity in the UK has been tragic. Whether we are talking about the disappearance of birds from our gardens and hedgerows, the decline in the numbers of much-loved species such as the hedgehog, or the challenges of our marine environment, it is the job of this generation to start to turn the tide. The decline is even more tragic in other parts of the world, with large numbers of iconic species in real danger of disappearing and with habitat being lost at an alarming rate. The implementation of this Bill, the targets that are set and the ongoing improvement plan must tackle this disaster in our country, and help to do so for our planet.
In other parts of the world, deforestation is a key part of the problem, and this Bill must play a part in ensuring that the UK says to the world, “Enough is enough.” We will come back to that next time. Here, the issue is not deforestation—we have more trees today than we have had for centuries, and we have ambitions to plant more—but we have intense development pressures. We do need new homes and we need to tackle some of our infrastructure challenges, but new developments must have a smart strategy for environmental protection alongside them, particularly to avoid the unnecessary destruction of habitats.
We need to grow more food here and stop importing so much from around the world, so we need a bigger and stronger farming sector, but it must protect biodiversity. The measures to do so in this Bill and in the Agriculture Act 2020 are very welcome. We need to take some tough decisions about invasive species, because we have to stop outsiders multiplying in a way that drives our native species to extinction. The targets set under this Bill must put biodiversity at the heart of our strategy, and the duties that it places on local communities must also strengthen biodiversity.
In the coming weeks, we will hear a lot of thoughts and ideas about additional things that could be done to improve our environment, but we must give the Government credit. This Bill can and will make a difference, and I look forward to it becoming law. Given the delay, however, the need to act on biodiversity starts now. Although I know that we must wait for the Bill to pass into statute, I want Ministers to make this a central part of their work now. The powers in this Bill will help them to do so in the future, but protecting our species and protecting biodiversity here, and encouraging others around the world to do the same, must start right now.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I rise to support my new clauses 14 and 15. The core principle of the Bill is that safeguarding the environment should be at the heart of decision making right across Government, and that must include the planning system. New clauses 14 and 15 would give the OEP the power to veto or reduce housing targets and require new developments to be consistent with our net zero carbon target. Of course, the environmental net gain provisions in the Bill will generate, via the planning system, a welcome flow of investment into nature. I also welcome the Government’s recent abandonment of their housing target algorithm, which generated impossibly high numbers, but for London, that threat remains for the longer term. We also have a planning Bill due soon.
My fear is that the Government’s determination to “build, build, build” could compromise the environmental ambition of the Bill that we are considering. Let us face it, nothing has a greater physical impact on the landscape than the buildings we construct. Successive generations have been judged by the legacy of the built environment they have left behind. By giving environmental and climate concerns a greater weight in the housing and planning system, my new clauses are an appeal to Ministers not to repeat the mistakes of the ’60s and ’70s, which their algorithm makes me fear that they will.
Even with Ministers’ change of heart on the algorithm, the housing targets remain very high. That could mean a drive for ever denser, ever higher blocks consuming ever more of the green spaces we value so much, and never more so than in a time of covid. Local input into the planning system provides a formidable defence for the environment, and I ask the Government to drop their White Paper proposals to remove local decision making for areas designated for growth.
Despite the measures that I would like to see added to the Bill, Members should be in no doubt of my strong support for this legislation, which I introduced as DEFRA Secretary in its first iteration in the last Parliament. The Bill will mark a historic turning point as we establish a demanding and rigorous framework of legally binding targets, improvement plans and measures to protect biodiversity and crack down on waste and plastics pollution.
As many Members have said, we are at a crisis point for nature and for climate. We need urgent action to arrest the decline in habitats and the threat posed to thousands of species both here and overseas. We hold this earth in trust for those who come after us. If we are to have any chance of being the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than we found it, we need to make big changes to the way we do things in this country, and I am confident that this Bill will help us do that.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
The ecological and climate crises will be the defining issues of the 21st century. In a few short years, climate breakdown is likely to transform the way we live. The floods that devastated communities across England last week provided a stark reminder of how incredibly high the stakes are. Now the heavy responsibility falls on those of us who serve in this place to ensure that future generations inherit a liveable planet. Through taking bold and decisive action now and driving forward change on the international stage, we can roll back the ecological crisis and build a fairer, greener economy in its wake, but I am afraid that the Government’s ambitions fail to meet the scale of the challenge.
The Prime Minister has called for a green Brexit, but at the same time he is replacing the EU’s comprehensive package of environmental protections with four simple targets that the Environment Secretary can change at will. That is why I urge Members across the House to support new clause 9, which would oblige anyone exercising responsibilities in relation to the Environment Bill to adhere to broader commitments such as the Climate Change Act 2008 and the United Nations leaders’ pledge for nature.
I also support amendment 39, which would guarantee parliamentary scrutiny when the Government want to allow the use of plant protection products that endanger bees and other pollinators. I know that I was not alone in being concerned by the Environment Secretary’s decision to temporarily lift the ban on bee-killing pesticides. That decision flies in the face of the Government’s own commitment to fight biodiversity loss and was made without consulting Parliament. Of course we all sympathise with farmers who are currently wrestling with crop blight, but those pesticides pose an existential threat to bee populations and other pollinator species, which play such a vital role in pollinating 70% of the crops we eat. I do not think it is hyperbolic to say that our future depends on bees.
I warmly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for tabling new clause 5, which would commit the Environment Secretary to tackling and reversing biodiversity loss in England by 2030. While I welcome the proposals to establish an Office of Environmental Protection, I am deeply concerned that it would lack the necessary powers and independence to truly do its job. I will therefore be supporting amendment 23.
The Government had the opportunity to use their Bill to put the environment at the heart of their policy making. The Bill fails even to maintain existing environmental standards, let alone make the UK a world leader in environmental policy. The fact that the Bill will now be delayed until later this year is yet another dispiriting sign that the Government, for all their rhetoric, simply are not serious about tackling the climate change and ecological emergencies.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I want to try to accommodate everybody on the speaking list, so after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) [V]
The amendment in my name—amendment 28 to this important Bill, which has so much to celebrate—is supported by the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and many others from different parties across this House. It would oblige the Government to include steps to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in their environmental plan, rather than simply give them the option to do so. It substitutes for a “may” a “must”—an addition of one letter to recognise the vital importance of green spaces to all our constituents. That is especially true during the pandemic and lockdown, when our parks, big or small, have literally kept many of us sane. The numbers of visitors is up sharply and some inequalities of access—such as for those living in cities, and many ethnic minorities—have been exposed.
It is estimated that for every £1 spent in a park, an extra £7 of value to wellbeing, health and environment is created. Eight out of 10 adults agree that visiting the countryside is good for physical fitness and mental wellbeing. People spending time in green spaces can help reduce heart disease and obesity, cancer and also stress, and in this time of lockdown we need all those things more than ever.
Many people in green spaces can and should also be a good thing, not a bad thing, for the environment. For example, in my constituency of Gloucester, we have the joy of a wonderful green space right in the heart of the city, the Robinswood Hill country park, which gives an opportunity for every child to have the experience of sitting on their mother or father’s shoulders and watching for the first time, on the top of the hill, the sunset over the River Severn in the summer—one of the most beautiful things that anyone can do. That in turn stimulates enjoyment of our green places and also environmentally friendly behaviour, encouraging litter picking, as well as bringing more people into the parks.
In this short space of time, may I highlight the support of the Ramblers, who understand so clearly the importance of our enjoyment of green spaces, and highlight that the amendment is not purely about benefiting urban dwellers? For example, the National Trust estimates that people across Britain are missing out on 500 million park visits a year because of poorly equipped facilities. Basic upgrades, from loos and income-generating cafés to play areas, can hugely help accessibility. Natural England has reported that insufficient footpaths in the presence of busy or dangerous roads can easily prevent access and deter the use of parks. So there are aspects of the amendment that would benefit both those living in the countryside and those living in the towns.
The Environment Secretary has always been supportive of many of these aims, and has said himself:
“Studies across the spectrum…remind us that it is in our best interests to look after nature. We know that a connection with nature contributes to wellbeing and improved health.”
So I hope that the Minister who is taking the Bill through the House—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), whose career in the House of Commons has been dedicated to the environment—will share those feelings by recognising the opportunity to do more, and find measures that can be used as targets to enhance people’s enjoyment of our green spaces, so that the “may” does become a “must” in time, and the Government do report on the improvement of people’s enjoyment.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I support all the amendments that Labour has tabled today, but will concentrate my remarks on those specifically related to air quality.
My constituency of Vauxhall contains some of the busiest and most polluted roads in London and the country. Clapham Road and Brixton Road are both major routes for journeying in and out of south London, as well as rat runs for the everyday journeys to work, school and shops made by Vauxhall residents. However, in making these journeys, those residents are constantly exposed to the dangerous pollutants emanating from cars and other vehicles. Brixton Road has made national headlines for exceeding the annual legal air pollution limits a few days into the new year; like many of my constituents, I walk along that road on a daily basis.
We know that these toxic pollutants can have a devastating impact on our hearts and lungs. In particular, we know that PM2.5 particles are able to get deep into our lungs and bloodstream, where they can have a significant impact on our overall health, both in the short and long term. PM2.5 can be very bad for the health of our children. Even before this pandemic, children in Vauxhall were regularly exposed to toxic and illegal levels of air pollution, and were having to wear masks to school.
We all have a role to play in reducing this pollution: we have to make fewer journeys by car, drive less polluting vehicles, and walk and cycle when we are able to do so. However, the Government have to play their part, too. Reaching the World Health Organisation limit on PM2.5 pollution is an achievable target. That is why I will be supporting amendments 2 and 25, to ensure that these strict targets for air quality will be reached by 2030 at the latest. This will take us a step closer to making our air completely safe, both for today and for future generations.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I am very proud of the Government’s leadership on the environment. I commend the Minister for all the work she has done so far.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you would not think that my constituency of West Dorset has the worst place for air pollution in the entire country, but environmental issues affect us all. The village of Chideock, between Bridport and Lyme Regis, has the highest levels of nitrogen dioxide in the entire country from traffic on the A35. The pollution is more than double the Government limit. This issue is not new—it has been ongoing for years—but urgent cross-departmental action is required, and I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that she will look at this issue in Chideock as a matter of priority with the new powers the Bill will provide.
Plastic was once seen as the saviour of the rainforests, but it has become the scourge of the sea. Half of all plastics ever made have been produced in the past 15 years. Less than a third of plastic in Britain is recycled, and British supermarkets still produce 114 billion items of single-use plastic. Those supermarkets are devoid of real environmental responsibility for plastic packaging once it leaves their stores, which is contributing to an environmental disaster.
Greenpeace has just released its “Checking Out on Plastics III” report, which ranks the UK’s biggest supermarkets on their plastics credentials, and is recommended reading. A reader will find out, for example, that on a per market share basis, Tesco’s total plastic use has increased by 2.2% between 2017 and 2019. It is for this reason that I have tabled new clause 11, which would require the Government to set specific targets and reduce the volume of non-essential single-use plastic products sold by a designated date. This amendment is intended to work alongside the measures already set out in this Bill, to complement the Government’s ambitions to end this systemic over-production and over-consumption of polluting plastics.
I have greatly appreciated working with the West Dorset Environmental Alliance, a brilliant local group providing much-needed insights and momentum. I am also grateful for the support from the Conservative Environment Network and Friends of the Earth. This Bill is key to achieving a green future. It will unleash our nation’s potential to make our environment better for us all.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]
I am pleased to support the amendments in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).
The Government said they had a desire to have a “world-leading watchdog”. I wonder whether there was a misprint and it should have said a “world-leading lapdog”. Do they really mean it? I was on the hearing that met Dame Glenys Stacey, and she is a robust regulator, with a proven record of independence, and I trust her. The Secretary of State should set the criteria and the parameters that he expects the Office for Environmental Protection to work to, but he should then leave it to the regulator to regulate. Dame Glenys, I believe, has been appointed as the right person, so let her do the job without further interference. Let her also have the benefit of interim targets, because for someone regulating, targets can be really helpful. I listened to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and he is absolutely right. We need interim targets to be able to hold people to account, but also to be able to incentivise businesses and give them clarity about what they have to achieve.
When we are talking about enforcement, it is perhaps salutary if I remind colleagues of those who were there when, as chair of the then all-party group on biodiversity, I worked with Friends of the Earth to organise a photo opportunity for colleagues who came to support ensuring there was no relaxation of the ban on neonicotinoids. It was incredibly well supported: over 100 Members of Parliament came to support that campaign, and I have the photos to prove it. So for those Members who go into the Lobby tonight saying they will support the Government on lifting the ban, perhaps we, with Friends of the Earth, should dig out those photographs and start publishing them one by one to show just how much Members meant it when they had their photograph taken with that bee.
On deforestation, the Government are saying that there should be an imposition on companies to look at the legality of the sourcing of their materials, such as soy and timber. Legality is not enough. Yesterday I met a number of people representing the Brazilian interests as well as the commercial interests, and it is clear that what has happened already in Brazil is that the laws have been reduced because of the pressure. Companies must be asked to look at the sustainability of their supply chain, not just the legality of it.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
The Office for Environmental Protection concerns me greatly, because I think it is going to offer us very little protection. Its powers include the terrifying capacity to point out that the Government have failed to safeguard environmental protections or to maintain standards, but it cannot force the Government to comply, it cannot fine and it cannot prosecute. It can shame the Government, but if I could be so flippant, Madam Deputy Speaker, this appears to be a Government who know no shame, as demonstrated by the last-minute decision to delay this already criminally overdue Bill by maybe six months or more.
This is outrageous, but the Government will tough it out and will probably bear no consequences for doing so. However, there will be huge consequences for our environment, for biodiversity, for future generations and, indeed, for farmers and food producers. No formal regulation over these months and pretty much toothless enforcement thereafter will mean the steady erosion of animal welfare and environmental protections just, as it happens, as the Government are engaging in negotiating trade deals around the world. Some might consider this to be a rather convenient hiatus that will allow them to throw British farming under a bus once again. Farmers will lose the ability to look at our regulation as something that they can use to strengthen their hand when it comes to those negotiations. The undermining of our land management community—of our farmers—is a massive threat to our environment. Without them, we lose the practical capacity to deliver biodiversity gains.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]
I will speak to the clauses relating to the Office for Environmental Protection. I had the privilege of being part of the Bill Committee that scrutinised this landmark legislation. I commend the Government and the Minister for taking a world-leading role through this legislation, not least by the introduction of the Office for Environmental Protection.
It is no secret that the defining challenge of our era is to provide an effective mechanism for the preservation of our natural environment. In the wake of covid-19, we have all seen the stories about nature hitting the reset button. Having meaningful, sustainable protection for the environment will require countries across the world to work together, but it will also require countries to show moral leadership on this issue.
That reminds me of a speech that Margaret Thatcher delivered to the United Nations General Assembly in 1989. The then Prime Minister spoke to the international community about the acute dangers of environmental destruction and about nations coming together in a global contribution to our planet’s health. We need a concerted effort by each member of the international community, and I believe that this Bill demonstrates to the world that Britain will be a world leader in protecting our environment. We really should be proud of that.
Our environment is not two-dimensional; it is a complex tapestry of biodiversity. Protecting it is not easy, nor is it an overnight job. That is why the Bill is essential. It offers the guarantee that our 25-year plan needs, our future generations demand and our environment requires. I am confident that the establishment of the OEP will deliver the necessary guarantees and safeguards for our natural environment. The OEP will be a watchdog with the ability to ensure that future Governments stay the course with regard to environmental sustainability and make a significant contribution to the environment that we all desire. The persistent monitoring of progress that Governments will be subjected to by the OEP will ensure that they are held to account and do not renege on our national pledge to the environment.
I also welcome the opportunity for local people to challenge the decisions made by their local authorities. Our communities care about the environment. By allowing people this opportunity to challenge local authorities, we recognise the pride that people have in the environment. I am keen for our communities to be given powers to hold public bodies to account through the OEP. If we are to meaningfully protect our environment, our communities will be essential. The environmental activism that I have seen in my constituency, from schoolchildren to volunteer groups and faith communities, has been nothing short of inspirational. In the year that we take up the presidency of COP26, I also see a massive opportunity to engage our faith communities in building a narrative and a case for moral leadership in protecting our environment.
The global community shares in the inheritance of the health of our world and its aesthetic, but it also shares in the immediate danger of climate destruction. I have no doubt that the OEP will be a world-leading organisation, setting the UK at the forefront of environmental protections. If we are to lead, the best way to do so must be by example, and through this legislation and the OEP, I believe we will be exemplary.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
The Environment Bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this place is currently scrutinising. That is not hyperbole; the evidence of the climate crisis and the crisis in the state of nature, where the survival of so many species, including our own, is under threat, is irrefutable—although I know some would like it to be refutable.
I was fortunate to be an observer of the first national citizens’ assembly looking at climate change last year. People from all parts of the country, from all backgrounds, with wide-ranging opinions, were randomly selected to reach a consensus about action to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. During one session I attended, the fabulous David Attenborough came along to give us the benefit of his extensive experience, having seen the devastation being wrought on our planet, including here in the UK. It left a profound impact on me, and I hope that citizens’ assemblies will be used at both the national and local level to engage with our communities to build consensus on many other important issues.
It is clear from the many constituents who have contacted me, including many school students from across Oldham and Saddleworth, how concerned they are about the state of the environment and the planet we temporarily inhabit. They want an environment legacy that is fit for not just them, but their children and their children’s children. The environment is another issue of intergenerational inequality. I speak in support of the amendments and new clauses in this group to which I have added my name. First, I support the amendments calling for the Bill to include an environmental objective to achieve and maintain biodiversity, support for human health and wellbeing, and the sustainable use of resources. That provides an overarching focus for the Bill, which I hope the Government will support.
Secondly, the Bill needs to include governance measures to ensure that at least World Health Organisation guidelines on air quality and particulates of 2.5 microns or less are monitored and enforced. Anyone who has followed the campaign of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah’s family following nine-year-old Ella’s death from a fatal asthma attack, contributed to by the poor air quality in London, will recall the evidence to the recent inquest that pointed to her death acting as a warning of the risk of poor air quality to the health of other Londoners. In Ella’s memory, we must act.
Thirdly, the Bill must include the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny where the Government seek exemptions on the use of pesticides such as neonicotinoids and others banned under EU law. We must question the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on his recent decision to authorise the use of neonicotinoids in place of non-chemical alternatives for controlling the yellow beet virus.
Finally, I support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on the state of nature report. Only by committing to a binding target to halt and begin to reverse the decline of the state of nature at home, showing the domestic leadership that is needed, can the Government have any credibility in trying to secure support for a global deal—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I thank the hon. Lady for her speech, but I am afraid we must move on now to Sally-Ann Hart.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) [V]
This Environment Bill is major legislation and a mark of this Government’s commitment to our environment and combating climate change. As the Prime Minister said, it is
“a lodestar by which we will guide our country towards a cleaner, and greener future.”
This Bill is the flagship of a wider package of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs legislation, including the Agriculture Act 2020 and the Fisheries Act 2020, which seeks to deliver on the Government’s pledge to leave the environment in a better state than they inherited it in.
New clause 11, on environmental targets on plastic pollution, has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), and I wish to focus my comments on it today. Plastic pollutes land and oceans, and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions at every stage of its life cycle, from its production to its refining and the way it is managed as a waste product. The scourge of plastic waste—the litter we see in our oceans, and on our beaches, streets, pavements and roadsides—takes hundreds of years to decompose, contaminating our soil and water. The toxic chemicals used to manufacture plastic get transferred to animal tissue and eventually enter the human food chain, risking our health.
In my constituency of beautiful Hastings and Rye, we have a number of stunning beaches, at Camber, Winchelsea, Pett and Hastings. Single-use plastic such as straws, cups, bottles and bags, blights all parts of our environment. Litter picking groups such as Hastings Beach Clean, Tidy Up St Leonards and Rye Harbour Beach Clean pick up bag-loads of plastic every time they go out. However, there is no doubt that this Government have taken the plastic challenge seriously. In 2018, they published a resources and waste strategy, and they have taken measures such as banning plastic straws and microbeads. They are leading global efforts to tackle ocean pollution, including by launching the Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance alongside Vanuatu. The requirement for large retailers to charge 5p for single-use plastic carriers bags has seen plastic bag sales drop 90% since its introduction.
The Bill includes a range of measures to tackle plastic use and disposal, such as new charges on single-use plastic and a new deposit return scheme, which should incentivise consumers to choose more sustainable products over plastic ones. The amendment seeks to work with the grain of the measures already set out in the Bill to end the systemic over-production and consumption of polluting plastics and non-essential single-use items. However, it would also require the Government to set targets to reduce plastic pollution and the volume of non-essential single-use plastic products sold by a designated date. For those reasons, I support the amendment.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
I speak in support of amendments 21 and 28, tabled by the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham). I thank the Ramblers and other campaign groups that are supporting the amendments and campaigning to promote public access to nature.
The amendments have a simple purpose: to extend the Bill from just protecting nature to ensuring that we can all access nature. The lockdowns and restrictions of the past year have shown us how important it is for people to have access to high-quality outside space. Although we have all been staying at home to protect the NHS, getting out for regular exercise, whether walking, cycling or running, has been vital to protecting people’s mental health.
The use of outside space is to be encouraged after the pandemic, not written off as a temporary phase, but that will mean protecting and expanding green spaces in our cities and supporting and encouraging people to get out into the countryside. As it stands, the Bill allows the Government to set targets for promoting access to nature, which is welcome, but I am concerned that that may end up as a low priority, and we should not allow that to happen.
The amendments would guarantee that future Governments had to take action to protect our access to nature. They would ensure that nature was available to more people, not just those who can afford to access it. We need that to change, because there are already serious inequalities in access to open spaces. Only 57% of adults in the UK live within a five-minute walk of green space, whether a park, field or canal path, but even that disappointing headline figure hides significant further inequalities.
Only two in five people from black and other minority ethnic communities say that they can walk to a green space within five minutes. Adults with a household income below £15,000 are twice as likely to say that they cannot access green space as those with a household income of £70,000. One in four people in my local area of Salford is in that first income band. People in the most deprived areas of England tend to have the poorest health and significantly less green space than those in wealthier areas. We need to do much more to ensure that access to nature is equitable for everyone.
Can the Minister confirm that the Government will set targets for public access to nature, and that they will include widening access to ensure that more people are able to enjoy it? Such targets are only the first step. We will also need concerted action, such as subsidies to farmers to promote access over their land, and the promotion of public transport links from inner-city areas to green, open spaces and the countryside. Without such action and clear targets to prompt it, there remains a danger that access to nature will continue to be denied to many people, so I urge the Government to accept the amendments.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Before the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) gave her contribution over video link, I thought I would be the only Member to speak without tabling a new clause or amendment. The truth is that I actually quite like this Bill—it is a good Bill. It feels like we are having a good day at the office. That does not mean that we should not be debating it, of course, and that is what I am here to do.
Chiefly, I am disappointed by the delay. Climate change is obviously the biggest, most strategic threat that we face as a country and a planet. We have the tactical immediate threat of coronavirus, of course. It is unfortunate, but understandable, that the legislative timetable split. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), I remain confident that the Bill will return in the next Session. I seek assurances from the Minister that my colleagues still have that ambition and enthusiasm to make sure that these changes become law.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The world has changed immeasurably in the year since the Bill’s First Reading. In the last 12 months covid-19 has devastated lives, torn through communities and paralysed economies across the globe. The pandemic has taken so much: lives, of course, but also hugs, handshakes, kisses, birthdays, Christmas and Eid. It has given, too: mental health issues, domestic violence and poverty. However, during the height of the pandemic the lockdown also gave us much lower emissions and much better air quality. Anecdotal evidence suggests, somewhat ironically, that those who suffer from certain respiratory illnesses fared much better during the first lockdown. That gives us a brief window into a post-pandemic future if we manage to take a hold of it. We need to create long-term structural change, underpinned by robust legislation.
In my city of Leeds, a person is 20 times more likely to die from air pollution than in a car accident—20 times. According to the Royal College of Physicians, across the UK, air pollution is responsible for 40,000 early deaths, at an economic cost of £20 billion a year. For that reason, I believe it is my moral duty to support amendment 25 to ensure that the particulate matter target for air quality is at least as strict as the WHO guidelines. That is a call I made when we introduced the charging clean air zone in Leeds, a commitment the Government have abandoned. We need to pass the amendment and reintroduce the clean air zone.
The State of Nature report says that UK species diversity is in freefall, with 15% of UK species at risk of becoming extinct. Some our most-loved animals, including Scottish wild cats, red squirrels and water voles, are at risk. I am the parliamentary species champion for the white-clawed crayfish. New clause 5 would give all those species a much better chance of survival. We also have bee-harming neonicotinoids. The UK Government recently granted emergency authorisation for sugar beet seeds to be treated by neonicotinoids. That is banned under EU law and we cannot allow it to come in through the back door, so we need to pass amendment 39.
Finally, on the OEP, its progress has been followed by the Environmental Audit Committee for three years. It is supposedly independent, but its budget, board and chair are set by the Government. Only recently, the Secretary of State said: “We will be able to guide the OEP.” It is worth noting that the Government have no comparable power in relation to any existing enforcement bodies. We therefore need to pass amendment 23 to bring a semblance of independence back to this important regulatory body, and ensure that we move forward and do not have another pause in this legislation.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) [V]
I am speaking from the Isle of Wight, where, in addition to being a UNESCO biosphere, we hope in the next couple of years to become the UK’s first island park, if the Government intend to bring forward the new protected landscapes Bill, as I clearly I hope they do.
I support this Bill very much—I think it is a great Bill—but I wish to speak in favour of new clauses 14 and 15 to argue the case for minimising the impact of housing on the environment. It is great that the Government want to design better, and frankly we need better design in this country, but a well-designed low-density greenfield housing estate is still a low-density greenfield housing estate, and these housing estates are, by nature, unsustainable. New clause 14 would allow for a handbrake to stop environmentally damaging housing, because it would, by law, prioritise carbon-efficient housing and carbon-efficient locations.
House building, along with everything else that we do, needs to align with the UK’s binding obligations in the Paris climate accords and carbon-efficient obligations, as well as the Government’s justified world-leading commitment to net zero by 2050. To do that, we need carbon-efficient housing solutions, and that implies a focus on cities as opposed to suburban and rural development. If we do not get that carbon-efficient housing in this Bill, as mandated by this new clause, then can we look at it for the housing Bill?
For me, this also means that we need to do more to incentivise brownfield development in not only suburban but rural areas. Very often brownfield sites are too small to be used efficiently under the current financial regime, and it is much cheaper to build inefficiently on greenfield sites. Greenfield sites, as well as being the most carbon-intensive because we are building detached houses, are also dependent on car use outside existing communities, which means dependence not only on carbon-emitting cars but on people having to travel to get to amenities rather than those amenities being built near them. Research provided by the House of Commons Library shows that homes built in urban areas are significantly less carbon-emitting than those built in suburban and rural areas.
I welcome this Bill, but can we please look at the legal requirement for the most carbon-efficient housing in the most carbon-efficient locations, not only for our climate change commitments but for quality of life in cities, in suburbs and in rural areas?
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Like other Members, I am disappointed that the Government have failed to make significant progress with this Bill, especially given the urgent need to act to address not only the causes of climate change but biodiversity loss. In such an important year for climate change mitigation and adaptation, I hope that the Government will make a meaningful effort to get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible in the next Session.
It is a pleasure to speak to several amendments, including new clause 9, which draws attention to our international commitments and the importance of action to protect our natural environment both here at home and abroad. In particular, I hope that the new clause will draw further attention to the plight of our forests—the lungs of our world and vital habitats for species great and small—in addition to the need for measures to discourage trade in products of deforestation abroad.
I hope that new clause 9 will also draw attention to an equally pertinent issue: the offshoring of our emissions and associated resource consumption. WWF believes that as much as 46% of the UK’s carbon footprint is not currently accounted for by national reporting or included in the UK’s net zero target. This simply must be addressed if we are serious about our role in tackling climate change.
The Bill also focuses minds on the constraints imposed by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 on action to protect our natural world across the four nations of the UK. This is reflected in amendment 40 and new clause 1, both of which Plaid Cymru will be supporting.
Wales is rightfully proud of its status as a world leader in recycling and a nation where sustainable development is a constitutional duty, yet one of the many reasons why the Senedd withheld consent from the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and why the Welsh Government are now taking legal action against the UK Government is the issue of plastic pollution, as raised by the Senedd Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. Wales would be legally prohibited from taking action to restrict the use of single-use plastic under the Act’s non-discrimination clauses. These clauses not only make the Bill’s lack of ambition even more egregious, but draw attention to how the Government are hindering environmental action by working against, rather than with, the devolved nations and their record of action in this field.
We have a duty to do all we can to protect our natural world for present and future generations. We cannot afford to ignore this most profound duty, so I hope the Government will actively listen and reflect on the constructive debate we have had here today.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
Listening to the contributions from colleagues on both sides of the House on this Bill today has been a real pleasure; it is clear that there is widespread support for its ambitions and I share that. It has also been a pleasure to listen to my constituents over the past 12 months —to the schoolchildren, the farmers, the businesses and most of all to Laurinda and The Time is Now group—because it is clear that out in the country the ambitions that the Government have set in this Bill are equally shared and, as many have said, we are eager to see this Bill get on the statute book.
I want to focus on issues of biodiversity and housing and draw the Minister’s attention to the new clauses in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). In North East Bedfordshire we look to have one of the fastest rates of growth in housing development, and it is crucially important that whatever the level of housing—and of course those numbers need to come down—that housing development takes into account the maintenance, encouragement and resilience of the biodiversity in our local communities. I urge the Minister to listen to representations from the CPRE and also from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, based in my constituency, about the importance of biodiversity being incorporated in legislation when it comes to the expansion of housing developments and new developments across the country.
Finally, on the Minister and her team, it is clear that these ambitions, coming from all directions, at some point have to be corralled into a piece of legislation for the whole, and there are lots of tensions between what people want to achieve, but, as she and her colleagues will know, in addition to setting targets we must make sure that we maintain support and buy-in from the various constituents who are affected by those targets. I wish her all the best in bringing forward this Bill and give it my strong support today.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on the Opposition Front Bench said, the delay in the Bill’s progress sends a terrible message in view of the climate emergency. Now that we have left the EU, it is vital that we maintain the highest environmental standards, but this Bill replaces the EU’s comprehensive environmental protections with targets that the Secretary of State has near discretion to change at any time. That is why the amendments in this group are so important in seeking to maintain the independence of the OEP, placing duties on public authorities to act in accordance with key environmental principles, and enhancing protections for biodiversity. That is so important and is why we on these Benches support these amendments.
Many constituents have been in touch about amendment 39 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, which seeks greater transparency in decisions on banned bee-and-other-species-killing pesticides. I want to say a few words in support, not least because the Welsh Government have led the way through their initiatives to make Wales a pollinator-friendly nation, and Newport City Council has also taken up the baton: we are a bee-friendly city. It is to be hoped that bee-friendly initiatives are having an effect, with a population of small scabious bees found in St Julian’s and the Gwent levels being home to the UK’s rarest bumblebee, the shrill carder bee. The Gwent Wildlife Trust and the RSPB are doing fantastic work locally. We know that bees’ importance to the ecosystem is towering. Some 90% of the world’s flowering plant species are dependent on insect pollination, and many species are dependent on bees because their food sources rely on pollination. Tragically, we know that bees are in decline. Reasons for the decline are various, but also include bee-killing insecticides, which were rightly banned across the EU in 2018. Although Ministers previously said that they would keep restrictions on pesticides in place, less than three years on, we now hear that they will allow them to treat sugar beet. This not only puts pollinator populations at risk, but sets a precedent that Ministers can strike out other hard-won protections. We must not allow that to happen.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a real privilege to be called to speak in this debate. Improving the environment is a topic that I am incredibly passionate about, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I start by saying that it has been great to serve on the Bill Committee for this piece of legislation. There is so much that is good in this Bill and I give particular thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) for her energy and enthusiasm in driving this Bill forward.
Protecting the environment and our natural environment is, without doubt, one of the greatest gifts that we can pass on to the next generation, and protecting the environment is something that is exceptionally close to my heart, and, of course, to many of my constituents. I want to focus my comments in this part of today’s debate on governance. This Bill is of crucial importance to providing a legal framework for our environmental governance for a post-Brexit global Britain. As it stands right now, our environmental law and policies are mostly driven by the European Union, but I know that, when it comes to the environment, the Government are keen to go further, and go beyond the baseline standards that we adopted while we were within the European Union.
All policy should be long term, but it is particularly important that environmental policy goes above and beyond, which is why I welcome the fact that the Environment Bill will allow the setting of new, long-term, legally binding and joined-up targets, focusing on air quality, biodiversity, water, waste reduction and resource efficiency. The Office for Environmental Protection will go a long way to deterring the breaches of environmental law. For far too long, many people have felt that breaches of environmental law in Britain have gone unchecked—it is almost as if they see those breaches as second or third-tier offences—and that enforcement power could be better spent elsewhere. Of course, that is wrong, which is why I am so pleased that the Office for Environmental Protection will be given the flexibility to go a long way to help change that. Damaging the environment damages us all, and I therefore stress to the Minister that, on this point, it is vital that the OEP is fully independent and properly funded to have teeth and weight to take action, and that it is allowed to take the enforcement action that it deems necessary.
In conclusion, there is always much more that we can do, and I urge the Government to push this piece of legislation forward at pace. We all have a duty to leave the environment in a cleaner, greener state than we found it, and this Bill helps to achieve that.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
Despite the infectious enthusiasm of the Minister, I have to say that, sadly, the deficiencies of the Bill bolster my scepticism about the Prime Minister’s supposedly Damascene conversion to eco-warrior from someone who, in only 2015, claimed that the science surrounding warming temperatures was “without foundation”. But if his Government want to prove me wrong, they certainly have the chance to do so today. First, they could support new clause 9, which would provide that anyone with duties under the Bill must comply with an environmental objective to achieve and maintain: biodiversity; support for human health and wellbeing; and sustainable use of resources. The new clause includes specified environmental commitments that have been made by the Government including in the UN Leaders’ Pledge for Nature of September 2020 and under the Climate Change Act 2008.
Secondly, the Government should support amendments 25 and 2, whose principles are supported by the British Lung Foundation. These amendments set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target for air quality will be at least as strict as the 2005 World Health Organisation guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest. As it stands, the Bill does not set a minimum level of ambition for the achievement of this target. I stress to the Minister the importance of these amendments to my constituents. A 2018 report showed that Salford and Manchester were in breach of these WHO guidelines, and air pollution, primarily caused by vehicles, is said to contribute to at least 1,200 deaths a year across Greater Manchester.
Finally, the Government should support amendment 39. There is huge concern about the decision to allow a derogation regarding the use of certain neonicotinoids. The decision goes against all commitments that the Government made to help nature, including an explicit pledge to keep pesticide restrictions after Brexit. Without the scrutiny that amendment 39 would provide, there is a significant risk that the emergency authorisation of such pesticides could sadly become a common occurrence.
There are so many additional amendments in this section that have been eloquently articulated by Members today, but it is clear that we are in a climate and ecological emergency, and that we need this Environment Bill to create the highest of environmental standards. Without the changes outlined, it simply does not do that; it is just greenwash.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
This is a good and welcome Bill. I support it, but I want it to go further, which is why I have put my name to amendment 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). One area in particular in which we should go further, and which is of concern to my constituents, is in relation to PM2.5 particulate pollution, which is perhaps the most dangerous type of pollution to human health. Its impact on things such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, stroke and lung cancer are well documented.
I recognise that the Bill as it stands commits to bringing a new target for PM2.5 before Parliament by October 2022. It is what Ministers have always said in previous debates and it is good, but we need to go further. The Bill does not, for example, commit to reaching World Health Organisation guidelines and does not give a timescale for adoption, even though Ministers have said that that is their ambition.
As I understand it—it has been said in the House previously—past DEFRA studies have shown that we can achieve the WHO standard of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030. That would be a reasonable timeframe, and, if it can be done, there is no reason why we should not put it into the Bill. It is an important issue, even in a constituency such as mine—a comparatively leafy London suburb, which has better scores on pollution than many parts of London, but is still above the UK average in a number of respects—and it is a matter of real concern for my constituents. Putting that commitment, which we want to achieve anyway, on the face of the Bill would show willing on our part towards our own citizens. It is also worth saying that it would increase our influence on these matters abroad, because, at the end of the day, these matters have to be tackled internationally.
There is a great deal of focus on the integrated review that is under way, and many countries have punched above their weight by taking a lead on this issue. New Zealand is a great example, as are many of the Scandinavian countries. If we were to set out our stall and commit ourselves to tackling PM2.5 pollution in this way on the face of the Bill, that would be a really positive message for global Britain, particularly in the run-up to COP26 in November. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that she will indicate that the Government want to move forward positively and vigorously on this, and I suggest that that is a way they can do so.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
A number of my constituents have contacted me to stress that the Office for Environmental Protection should be an independent and powerful body capable of ensuring that the Government uphold environmental laws on everything from plastic pollution to air quality. They are concerned about clause 24 of the Bill and have pointed out that, if the Government have the power to tell the Office for Environmental Protection how to do its job, the office cannot be truly effective; I very much share their concerns. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has remarked that it is
“essential that every step is taken to ensure the Office for Environmental Protection is as independent from the Government as possible, to give the public confidence that the Government will be properly held to account on its duty to protect the environment.”
I therefore support amendment 23, which would delete clause 24.
The quality of the air we breathe is vital to our wellbeing. One of my constituents wrote to me last week to say that air pollution is a daily issue for her and others like her suffering with lung conditions. She told me how, on days when air pollution is high, her symptoms can flare up so badly that she is unable to leave her home. The Government have already committed to adopting a new binding target for PM2.5 through the Bill. However, as Friends of the Earth has pointed out, the Bill does not set a minimum level of ambition or a deadline for its achievements. Amendment 25 is intended to set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target for air quality will be at least as strict as the 2005 World Health Organisation guideline of below 10 micrograms per cubic metre, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.
I now turn to the matter of bees. I pay tribute to the work of Flourish at Ford Way in Upton for the work it does in keeping hives and producing excellent honey. More than 50,000 people have signed The Wildlife Trusts’ petition urging the Prime Minister to overturn the Environment Secretary’s recent authorisation of the emergency use of a bee-killing pesticide for farmers to use on sugar beet crops in England. That shows the real strength of public feeling on this issue.
Amendment 39 would require Ministers to allow parliamentary scrutiny of exemptions granted to allow plant protection products banned under retained EU law, such as neonicotinoid pesticides, where they are likely to impact bees and other species covered by an environmental improvement plan. In conclusion, I urge Members to back these key amendments to ensure the independence of the Office for Environmental Protection, improve air quality and protect bees.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
I am glad that this Bill has finally returned to the Commons after months of delay. It has been a frustratingly long time since I took part in prelegislative scrutiny as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and it is nearly a year since I attended the first meeting of the Public Bill Committee. We are now told that we need to wait months more for the second day of Report stage and for the Bill to become law. The Bill should have been in place before the end of transition. Can we even be sure now that it will be in place before COP26? There is absolutely no excuse for the Government’s laxity, and one can only attribute it to a lack of ambition and urgency in tackling the nature and climate emergencies.
Leaving the EU without a fully functioning, properly resourced and independent Office for Environmental Protection that can take public authorities to court over the most serious breaches of environmental law leaves a regulatory gap, which so many of us warned against. We were promised that the Office for Environmental Protection would be located in Bristol, with the creation of 120 jobs. That was publicly reported, and I was told it by Ministers on more than one occasion, yet the Minister has today announced without a hint of shame—in fact, with more than a hint of smugness—that the OEP will be based in Worcester. She can rest assured that I will be seeking an explanation from her as to why this hugely disappointing and, given Bristol’s record, inexplicable decision was made.
This Bill is not all it could be and needs to be strengthened. Labour’s new clause 9 would place firm duties on officials to achieve and maintain biodiversity, human health and sustainable use of resources. New clause 1 would put a duty on public officials to act in accordance with environmental principles. Again, we were repeatedly told during prelegislative scrutiny that a policy statement on environmental principles would be published imminently, so where is it, or was that just another ploy to stave off awkward questioning at the time?
New clause 5 would set the equivalent of the net zero target for tackling the decline in nature by 2030, to begin to reverse the devastating losses we have seen in recent decades. We need such protections in law because, as we have seen repeatedly, the Government’s actions do not always match their words. For example, amendment 39, which would allow parliamentary scrutiny of the use of harmful pesticides such as bee-killing neonicotinoids, was tabled in response to the Government’s emergency authorisation of the use of those pesticides. Labour will always back good British farming practices and farmers but, faced with a devastating decline in biodiversity and our bee populations, we cannot uncritically give the green light, without scrutiny, to the use of harmful pesticides.
To conclude, the Bill needs to be better, the OEP needs to be stronger, and we need proper environmental governance in place without further delay. The natural world is in crisis and we must do all we can to address that, not just the bare minimum.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
Last week, my constituents were given a salutary reminder of the very real threat that we face from the climate and ecological emergency that Parliament declared just 18 months ago: we faced the worst floods—potentially—in living memory, with water levels more than 1 metre higher than ever previously recorded. We were saved because the River Alt burst its banks and demolished an embankment over a 30-mile stretch, bursting into floodplain rather than flooding 500 or so properties in Maghull in my constituency. That is one reason why new clause 9 is so important: it would mean that anyone with duties under the Bill must comply with environmental objectives. We were lucky with the flooding last week but we may not be next time. That is one good example.
The red squirrels in Formby in my constituency, which are looked after by the National Trust, desperately need the intervention of new clause 5, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). Local action to support them is no substitute for wider action on habitat and species, so that new clause is an important and necessary step.
Let me turn to air quality and the importance of the amendments on that subject. The Government want to build an access road to the port of Liverpool. The people who live near the port of Liverpool have a life expectancy that is among the lowest in the country, living 10 years fewer than those just 2 miles away. We heard earlier from Members that 40,000 people a year die because of poor air quality, so why do we not have a system in government in which everybody, including the Department for Transport, plays their part? We should not be building new roads to improve transport in isolation, but should take account of air quality and the need to protect people, as well as the effect on the climate. It should be a rail link rather than a road. That is the third element in my constituency that brings to life what the Bill means in practice.
All three of those elements, in common, indicate why the Office for Environmental Protection must have teeth to be able to intervene across Government. It cannot be that so-called guidance from the Secretary of State can intervene, interfere and dilute the OEP’s effectiveness. So much work is needed on these policy areas—I gave three examples just from my constituency, and there are so many more. We must pass the amendments I have mentioned, the legislation must go on to the statute book quickly, and for this country, my constituents and the world, we must have the intervention now.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to speak to the Bill on Report. My constituency is a green and pleasant place, by and large, but we have seen our fair share of environmental damage and change, and we still endure landfill sites and the scars of our industrial heritage. Environmental issues of all kinds are hugely important to my constituents, including the schoolchildren I speak to, such as those at Birtley East Primary School, who told me that they had written to the Prime Minister, as they had to me, to persuade us that we must protect the environment for their sake.
I wish to comment on the group of amendments on oversight and environmental protection. The Bill is welcome, but we have to take the opportunity to make sure that it really hits the spot—that it has the strength to protect our environment locally and nationally and also contributes to environmental protection internationally and globally. From talking to many environmental organisations, it is clear to me that there is widespread agreement that we need to build stronger measures into the Bill. We need targets and we need to build in independence for the Office for Environmental Protection. Most of all, we need to see the Bill become law. It is sad that there is a delay, but we must see this Bill become law urgently, and certainly before COP26 in Glasgow.
I would like to speak briefly about new clause 9. This House has already declared a climate emergency, so it is right that the Bill really tackles that emergency in a consistent and ambitious way. New clause 9, as we have heard from previous speakers, provides that anyone with duties under the Bill must comply with an overarching environmental objective.
On amendment 23, we have already mentioned that the Office for Environmental Protection needs to be independent of Government. As others have said, clause 24, which was added by the Government in Committee, allows the Secretary of State to provide guidance. We really need that independence, so I hope the amendment will be supported.
On amendment 39, I am sure that most hon. Members, like me, have been flooded with representations on the granting of the licence to use neonicotinoids. It is right that we have proper scrutiny when such licences are granted. In fact, we should not be granting them at all. There are difficult decisions to be made on environmental issues, and we really need to step up and try to make them.
Finally, on amendment 25 on air quality, it is becoming more and more important that our air quality is a health and environmental issue, so I support this amendment. There is so much more that I would like to say on different parts of the Bill, but I do not have time today. I hope this debate today will help us to make those tough decisions.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
I share with many others the frustration at the delay of this Bill, which started out long before other pieces of legislation, including some incredibly consequential Bills on Brexit that were rammed through with minimal scrutiny. I want to focus in particular on Government amendment 20 and, briefly, new clause 17, and I offer my support for other progressive amendments.
By way of context, arising from the protocol there is a greater ongoing requirement for Northern Ireland to remain aligned to the European Union. This is a good thing. However, governance needs to be considered separately from policy. It should go without saying that independence and an ability to prosecute effectively are critical to the Office for Environmental Protection, but that is not the case.
This Bill grants the Secretary of State in England and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland the power to issue guidance to the OEP on certain matters that must be included in the OEP’s enforcement policy. The Government claim that the new power does not grant the Secretary of State or DAERA any ability to intervene in decision making about civic or individual cases, and that the OEP does not have to act strictly in accordance with the guidance where it has clear reasons not to do so.
While technically correct, it is clear, especially in the context of all the other Government amendments, that the new power will have the effect of allocating Ministers a central role in shaping the basic principles of the watchdog and a severely constraining effect on the OEP’s ability to act independently. This power to provide guidance therefore inverts the intended hierarchy, in which the OEP oversees Ministers, in that it gives Ministers the role of overseeing the OEP. I do not believe that this role has been given sufficient scrutiny in Northern Ireland with respect to the role of DAERA.
I also want to stress that the Office for Environmental Protection is not the summit of environmental governance in Northern Ireland. The New Decade, New Approach agreement, which restored the Northern Ireland Executive this time last year, contained a commitment to an independent environmental protection agency. This will be different in its scope and role from the OEP, and the OEP should not be used as an excuse for not proceeding with an EPA.
Finally, I want to speak very briefly in support of new clause 17. The pandemic has laid bare the need for a new outlook on our economy and wider society. We need to look, therefore, at a new, more holistic and inclusive economic model, including more sophisticated economic objectives and indicators such as environmental regeneration, renewable energy and the UK’s impact overseas, alongside health, incomes, security, equality, inclusion, affordable housing and the wellbeing of future generations.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
For all that hon. Members have said that this is a good and necessary Bill, devolution means that it will not have a huge impact on my constituents. The aspects of it that will have an impact have received legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament, which was an important step. More widely, legislative consent needs to be respected by the UK Government more often that just when it happens to suit them.
Amendments 43 and 44, in the names of my SNP and Plaid Cymru colleagues, will not be voted on, but the importance of the principles behind them remains. They would remove the exemptions for armed forces, defence and national security policy from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles and environmental law. They would also remove the exemptions for tax, spending and the allocation of resources.
We know of the long-term problems caused by munitions dumped at Beaufort’s Dyke between Scotland and Northern Ireland, the impact that military research can have on the environment, the radioactivity on beaches in Fife and the long-term problems left by the decommissioning of nuclear-powered submarines. They have all left us with a literally toxic environmental legacy. Like decisions about taxation, spending and allocating resources, decisions about those matters cannot be divorced from their environmental impact, and the Government cannot be exempted from their wider responsibilities in those regards. This is not about subordinating security or decisions about the economy to the needs of the environment or vice versa; it is about ensuring that the wider policy considerations and responsibilities for the environment are given due regard at all times in the decision-making process.
It is important to recognise that the EU has some of the strongest environmental targets, laws and protections in the world, and our departure has put them under threat. As an EU member, the UK was forced to match those standards. Unlike the Scottish Parliament’s EU continuity Bill, this Bill sadly does not include any non-regression clauses in that regard. The promises of non-regression rely on the intent of this and future Governments to stand by that pledge. It would give me and a great many others much greater assurance about the Government’s good intentions if they were to allow the insertion of a non-regression principle into the Bill as it progresses through the other place.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
In the winter of 2019-20, the people of Hull planted 1,300 alder buckthorn trees as part of the butterfly city community initiative. That was done with Hull City Council, local primary schools and community orchard and garden groups across the city. The principal aim was to benefit the brimstone butterfly, as the leaves are food for it, but it was also important to start a conversation about biodiversity.
The planting of the trees was not just about biodiversity; it was also to help to clean our air. Improving the quality of the air we breathe is a priority for Hull. In 2017, the last year for which records are available, Centre for Cities analysis estimated that more than 1,500 deaths in Hull—one in 20—were due to air pollution, making it the most badly affected place in Yorkshire. The major disease-causing component of air pollution is known as fine particulate matter or PM2.5. It can be any solid or liquid particles that are smaller than 2.5 micrometres suspended in the air. The tiny size of the particles makes that form of pollution effectively invisible to the human eye. It is not smog or the haze that we normally associate with pollution, it can even be present on what appears to be a clear and sunny day.
There is no effective defence—no mitigation—if we live in an area of high levels. The particles settle in our airways and are small enough to enter our bloodstream. A study by King’s College London of people living within 50 metres of a major road showed that roadside air pollution can stunt children’s lung growth, make asthmatic children more likely to cough and raise people’s risk of a heart attack, stroke, heart disease and lung cancer. Studies from around the world have linked PM2.5 to low birth rates, diabetes and diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
Air pollution has a cost not just in terms of health and quality of life, but an estimated financial cost of up to £20 billion a year. Based on 2018 data, it is estimated that more than 22 million people in the UK live in areas with levels of PM2.5 above those recommended by the World Health Organisation, yet those deadly levels of air pollution are entirely legal. The Government are well aware of the problems, the costs and the number of deaths. The 2019 air quality strategy clearly states:
“Air quality is the largest environmental health risk in the UK.”
The Labour party wants this country to be the best to grow up in and the best to grow old in, and we want that for everyone, regardless of where they happen to live. That is why we are calling for the adoption into law of the World Health Organisation air quality standards. I urge the Government to take action today, clean up the air and accept our amendment.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
This Bill has had an exceptionally long gestation, and it is a matter of great regret to me and to my party that, unfortunately, we have learned today that it is to be delayed even further. This should be an area where there is an easy consensus to be built. Surely, in the year when we are due to host COP26, this should be a matter that brings all parties together to achieve meaningful advance. It is a matter of infinite regret that we are not able to do so.
My first plea to the Minister and the Government is this. If we are to have further delay, can we please use the time a bit better than we have so far? Can we ensure that when we host COP26 later this year, we can point to a significant achievement as an instance where we are leading the world, rather than being pulled along in this area of vital importance to all future generations?
I worked regularly with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), on the subject of plastic pollution when she was on the Back Benches. It pains me to say that in that respect, the Bill is a major disappointment. We realise that as a consequence of many of the short-term changes that were necessary to tackle the pandemic, the progress that we had been making on the use of single-use plastic has been put on the back burner. That is regrettable, and possibly necessary, but a concerted effort by the Government is required. The pandemic and the restrictions under which we are living will not last forever, but it feels as though the plastic pollution that we are generating now will do so. It will certainly be with us for decades. That is why we must look to the lessons of how we constructed the Climate Change Act 2008, for example, and get on with the business of setting meaningful targets and having meaningful ways of holding the Government to account for meeting them.
The Minister has new clause 11, from her colleague the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder). Surely that could be given greater impetus now that more time is to be put into the management of this Bill. When she was on the Back Benches, the Minister worked well on the subject with people from across the House. Will she carry on doing that work as a Minister on the Front Bench?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Government amendments that were made in Committee to clarify the enforcement powers in England of the Office for Environmental Protection, and particularly the fact that further amendments will be made to ensure that they remain aligned with the OEP functions in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that will be the case. I am aware that there has been co-operation with Northern Ireland Ministers, who have requested that these amendments also be made in relation to Northern Ireland, but I welcome their inclusion and this alignment. If only we could see something similar in all aspects of our governance, such as trade, we would be in a much healthier position, with full shelves—but perhaps that is another debate for another day.
I endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about plastic pollution, and I request, as he did, that Ministers and Government make a concerted effort to maintain the reduction of plastic pollution. Although we have seen a lot of reduction, we still need more. Enforceability is always a concern of mine. It is right and proper that we introduce greater, more effective legislation, but it is no use unless there is no doubt about the interpretation of the OEP enforcement provisions and the courts’ ability to grant remedies. Many of us would like to ensure that there is no doubt that the courts can and will enforce the Bill’s provisions.
I am a country sports enthusiast, as I am sure the Minister knows, and part of my being a country sports enthusiast is a dedication and commitment to conservation. That is why the Bill is important; it is an essential component of our moving forward, and that is what I always seek to ensure. It is right and proper that there is a legislative obligation to think about environmental principles and I welcome this addition.
However, some constituents have made it clear that they believe the Bill does not go far enough. I seek further clarification from the Minister. Would she be so kind, during her summing up, to outline the rationale behind excluding defence and procurement from these obligations? Every Government Department should play its part. Whilst it should not be the priority of Defence to think of the economy first—the safety of the nation is first—my constituents believe there could still be an obligation to give consideration to the impact within the process of reaching decisions.
I speak as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings. When it comes to the environment, we believe that more could be done to ensure that Government works with developers to help ensure that new projects are much more sustainable. For example, instead of a developer being responsible for the full price of sewer works, and putting in the least that can be expected to enable them to turn a profit, surely Government or local council assistance to put in long-term environmentally sustainable, more costly infrastructure will benefit us all. I also want to put in a word for the importance of air quality, insulation, heating and play areas—the improvement of all buildings in the future.
I am conscious that the Minister has a lot on her plate—a lot of questions to answer—but I thank her for the time and hope she can take these points on board.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I would like to start by thanking my constituents who have contributed to this debate by sending me emails.
We are in a climate and ecological emergency. Considering the scale and urgency of the crisis we are facing, it is staggering that the Government have seen fit to postpone the Bill yet again. We have a responsibility to take rapid and radical action towards sustainability and environmental protection. Delaying this core piece of legislation is a major setback to that work. In the run-up to hosting COP26 later this year, the Bill should be an absolute priority, as should commitment to maintaining and enhancing environmental protection. That it is not, speaks volumes about the commitment of this Government to the environment, to our global responsibilities and to future generations.
The Bill, as it stands, has been called a missed opportunity by the Environmental Audit Committee, and has failed to enshrine action on climate change at the heart of Government policy. Environmental campaigners and organisations across the board have been clear that we need ambitious targets, enforced by a fully independent watchdog, with significant powers to actively dissuade the contravention of environmental legislation. However, if the watchdog is to be effective, it must be capable of holding the Government to account, and that means full independence and serious powers to prosecute and impose financial penalties. The Bill currently allows the OEP to be guided by the Secretary of State, threatening to turn it from a watchdog into a lapdog.
I support many of the various amendments that have been tabled today to strengthen the Bill, including amendment 23, which would ensure the independence of the OEP. With the extra time we now have due to the postponement of the Bill, we could go even further. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will take on board the recommendations of countless environmental campaign groups, endless research projects and recognition by the UN itself that the environmental crisis cannot be tackled without powerful legislation and a fundamental rethink of our economic strategy?
The Bill must take the opportunity to put forward a radical vision that puts climate justice and sustainability at the heart of government through a massive programme of investment and regulation, to offer every worker in high-carbon and unsustainable industries the option of retraining, and to be relocated into high-skill, high-wage jobs in their own communities, from insulating houses to green tech to expanding public transport. “Redeployment not redundancies” must be the strategy. The working class must not pay the price for the corporate greed ravaging the Earth. Instead, strategic support and investment must be undertaken to protect both people and planet, clamp down on tax avoidance and use the income to generate sustainable jobs and invest in a carbon-zero economy. Tinkering at the edges is not an option; the Government must take the rapid and radical action needed to get a grip.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
I will be voting in favour of amendment 25 to the Environment Bill, to embed World Health Organisation targets on air quality; amendment 23, to ensure the Office for Environmental Protection is truly independent; and new clause 9, to enforce commitments to protect biodiversity, health and wellbeing, and the sustainable use of resources. However, due to time constraints, I will focus on Labour’s amendment 39, and the importance of Parliament scrutinising the granting of any exemptions for the use of banned pesticides.
I share the concerns of my Luton South constituents who have contacted me, and the more than 50,000 people who have signed the Wildlife Trust’s petition about protecting bees from the use of neonicotinoids. Their existence is too important to the functioning and survival of ecosystems, so the protection of bees is non-negotiable. It is important to recognise, though, that bees are not just in rural areas: the bees in Luton South produce the delicious High Town Honey just around the corner from me, which has won several prizes at the Bedfordshire Beekeepers Association honey show. The decline of bees will have a disastrous impact on food security. Bees pollinate around 70% of the fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds we eat, but in the UK 13 bee species are already extinct, and one in 10 of Europe’s wild bee species is under threat.
The Secretary of State has authorised farmers to use neonicotinoids on sugar beet crops, even though it is widely recognised that they kill bees. The Government’s justification that sugar beet is not a flowering crop, and therefore the risk is acceptable, does not stand up to scrutiny. A similar application for the use of neonicotinoids in 2018 was refused by the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides because of “unacceptable environmental risks.” This is not to say that overall, I do not recognise the genuine concerns of sugar beet growers across the east of England, but the Government should back farmers to help create a sustainable solution through better support for the sector, accelerating the introduction of blight-resistant crops, and including allowances for crop loss in next year’s sugar contracts.
The Government’s decision to allow the use of banned pesticides has too big a consequence for there to be no parliamentary scrutiny. The emergency authorisation of pesticides must never become common practice. The Government have a clear choice today: vote to speed up the decline of our bee population, or uphold the ban, allow parliamentary scrutiny of future exemptions, and save our bees.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank hon. Members for their co-operation: we have managed to get everybody from the Back Benches in during this debate. I now call the Minister, Rebecca Pow.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is an absolute pleasure to have you in the seat today—the hot seat, as I like to call it.
I thank all those right hon. and hon. Friends and Members who have tabled amendments and contributed to today’s debate, helping to scrutinise this Bill. They have highlighted the importance that so many people place on the issue of the environment, and how important it is that we tackle biodiversity loss, climate change, and environmental risks to public health. In particular, I thank those Members who are so positive about this Bill—which, of course, I am as well—including my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti), who has done so much work with his faith groups on the issue of the environment. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) and for Keighley (Robbie Moore) for their enthusiasm. This is a phenomenal ambition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North said, and it is a good day at the office—in fact, it is very exciting to get out of the office.
I will start with the environmental principles, and respond to the concerns that have been raised by hon. Members. We are legislating to ensure that the environment is front and centre of our future policy making; however, we need to ensure that our approach is balanced. That is why we must reject new clause 1 and amendment 1 tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), about which she spoke so eloquently in her opening speech. We must also reject amendments 43 and 44.
Removing the requirement to act proportionately, as set out in amendment 1, would require Ministers to prioritise the principles even where they incur significant disproportionate costs to society, or hinder innovation and sustainable development. This is not our intention. Before I turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), I will clarify that contrary to her comments, this is not an England-only Bill. Over half its measures extend beyond England, bringing benefits right across the UK.
Caroline Lucas [V]
I thank all Members for their important contributions to the debate, but there is really only one test that matters when it comes to this Bill: does it improve on the protections that we enjoyed as EU members, and is it up to the challenge of the accelerating nature and climate emergencies? Sadly, the answer is no on both counts.
Time and again this afternoon, we have heard that the Bill lacks both ambition and urgency. As many hon. Members have said, with two vital UN meetings on biodiversity and climate this year, it is even more important that we have our own house in order. We cannot hope to influence the performance of other countries if we have not demonstrated leadership in our own domestic policy.
I particularly support those speeches in favour of more ambitious, legally enforceable air quality targets, which are needed now. A number of hon. Members made reference to the tragic death of nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah. Strong, binding legislation would be the only fitting tribute to her and to her mother, who has campaigned so tirelessly for that. I welcome the fact that the Minister has said she will look at it again.
On the state of nature, the case for legally binding interim targets was powerfully made by Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister will take account of that. I noticed that she did not commit to legally binding targets for 2030, or that the interim targets should be binding, yet that is essential if we are to improve on the Government’s woeful record; they have actually gone backwards on six of the 20 UN biodiversity targets.
I am not reassured by what the Minister said about the independence of the OEP or the strength of the environmental principles. On the OEP, she says that the guidance is intended simply to address ambiguities. That is not the way the Bill is written. The Bill is written in such a way that Ministers will be able to give instruction to that body, not least because they will also give it its budget and have a major say on who makes up its board. That means that the Government will have a disproportionate impact on the OEP, which should be truly independent.
On the principles, I noticed with interest that the Minister appears to have given up trying to persuade us that “due regard” is at least as strong as “in accordance with”. I assume that is because she recognises that that case cannot be made because it is simply not true. In that case, I hope she will undertake to revise that element of the Bill.
The Minister says that applying the principles to public bodies as well as to Ministers is too burdensome. I remind her that it simply replicates what we enjoyed as members of the EU, which was not seen to be too burdensome, and that her Government promised that they would increase the ambition of EU legislation, not water it down in this way. The Environmental Audit Committee, in its pre-legislative scrutiny, concluded:
“This aspect of the Bill is not fit for purpose.”
The Committee recommended that the principles should be
“put on an unqualified legal basis”
and extended to all public bodies, and I echo that conclusion.
I take heart from the strong statements of support for more ambitious action on the environment from Members on both sides of the House, but those on the Government side need to understand that, as it is currently drafted, the Bill will not even make up for the protections we have lost as a result of leaving the EU, let alone improve on them, and that unless we fix our broken economic system as my new clause 17 sets out, we will not achieve anything like sustainability anywhere near fast enough.
I urge the Minister again to use the time gained by the delay to the Bill to increase its strength and ambition. It could not be more urgent. Over the course of my lifetime alone, populations of some of our most important wildlife have plummeted by over half, and over 15% of species are now threatened with extinction. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said in his powerful speech, if we are not going to be ambitious now, when are we? New clause 1 would re-establish a legally binding architecture for essential environmental protections, and I would therefore like to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—Environmental impact of nappy waste—
“(1) Schedule [Environmental impact of nappy waste] confers powers on the relevant national authority to make regulations about environmental standards for nappies.
(2) The relevant national authority means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers or the Secretary of State;
(c) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers or the Secretary of State;
(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State.
(3) Regulations are subjective to the negative procedure.”
The new clause enables the addition of NS1 which is intended to reduce the impact on the environment of disposable nappies, and has been adapted from a Private Member’s Bill (Bill 299) on this matter.
New schedule 1—Environmental impact of nappy waste—
“Nappy waste impact reduction schemes
1 The relevant national authority must by regulations establish schemes to reduce the impact of nappies on the environment by—
(a) defining the characteristics required for a nappy to meet environmental standards;
(b) promoting nappies which meet environmental standards; and
(c) reporting on the steps taken to encourage local authorities to promote reuseable nappies and reduce nappy waste.
Environmental standards
2 (1) The relevant national authority must by regulations establish environmental standards for nappies.
(2) The standards must define the characteristics required for a nappy to be traded, advertised or promoted as—
(a) “reusable”;
(b) “biodegradable”;
(c) “eco-friendly”;
(d) “environmentally friendly”; and
(e) other such similar terms as may be defined in the standards.
(3) The regulations may provide for nappies or the packaging in which they are contained to bear a mark signifying that they meet the environmental standards.
(4) The trading, advertising or promotion of a nappy is an unfair commercial practice for the purposes of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1277) if—
(a) that nappy is described using a term used in sub-sub-paragraphs (2)(a) to (d) or a similar term defined in regulations under sub-paragraph (1) but does not meet the relevant standards, or
(b) that nappy or its packaging bears the mark in sub-paragraph (3) but does not meet the relevant standards.
Promotion of nappies that meet environmental standards
3 (1) The relevant national authority must by regulations establish a scheme to promote nappies that meet the environmental standards in paragraph 2.
(2) The scheme must be a collaboration between public bodies and the nappy industry.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a levy to be paid by persons who manufacture or trade in nappies for the purpose of meeting the operating expenses of the scheme.
(4) The scheme must provide public information on—
(a) the effects of disposable nappies on the environment;
(b) the financial advantages of reusable nappies for families and local authorities; and
(c) other advantages of nappies that meet the standards in paragraph 2.
Local authority reusable nappy schemes
4 (1) The relevant national authority must prepare a report on steps that will be taken to encourage local authorities to operate schemes to—
(a) promote the use of reusable nappies, and
(b) reduce nappy waste.
(2) In preparing that report, the relevant national authority must consult—
(a) operators of existing reusable nappy schemes,
(b) local authorities involved in those schemes,
(c) parents who have participated in such schemes,
(d) manufacturers of reusable nappies.
(3) The report must be laid—
(a) in relation to England, before Parliament;
(b) in relation to Wales, in Senedd Cymru;
(c) in relation to Scotland, in the Scottish Parliament; and
(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, in the Northern Ireland Assembly; or in Parliament;
within six months of this section coming into force.”
This new schedule brings into the Bill the provisions of the Private Member’s Bill on Nappies (Environmental Standards) Bill (Bill 299) in order to define environmental standards for nappies, promote nappies that meet the standards, and report on local authority schemes to promote reuseable nappies and reduce nappy waste.
Government amendments 32 to 35.
New clause 6—Clean Air Duty—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual policy statement setting out how the Government is working to improve air quality, and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(2) The annual policy statement in subsection (1) must include—
(a) how public authorities are improving air quality, including indoor air quality; and
(b) how Government departments are working together to improve air quality, including indoor air quality.
(3) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than three months after the report has been laid before Parliament, table a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on air quality, which includes indoor air quality and the work of public authorities and Government departments working together to improve it.
New clause 13—Air quality in rural areas: application of pesticides—
“(1) For the purposes of improving air quality and protecting human health and the environment in rural areas, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision prohibiting the application of pesticides for the purposes of agriculture or horticulture near—
(a) buildings used for human habitation; and
(b) public or private buildings and associated open spaces where members of the public may be present, including but not limited to—
(i) schools and childcare nurseries;
(ii) hospitals and health care facilities.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify a minimum distance from any of the locations listed under subsection (1)(a) and (b) to be maintained during the application of any pesticide.
(3) In determining the distance in subsection (2), the Secretary of State must be guided by the optimum distance that would make significant difference in air quality for people using the locations listed in subsection (1).
(4) In this section “public building” includes any building used for the purposes of education.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to prohibit the application and pollution of chemical pesticides near buildings and spaces used by residents and members of the public, with the aim of improving air quality and protecting human health and the environment in rural areas.
Government amendment 7.
New clause 3—Phosphates Levels—
“In making decisions on planning decisions, the competent authority can disregard any impact of the potential build and its long-term consequences on the level of phosphates in the water.”
Amendment 42, in clause 78, page 71, line 16, after “licensee”, insert—
“or risk management authority, where risk management authority has the same meaning as in Part 1 Section 6 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010,”.
The amendment seeks to deliver the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendation that water companies and local authorities should publish plans to manage surface water flood risk (e.g. from roads).
Amendment 3, in clause 82, page 79, line 22, after “damage” insert—
“, including damage from low flows”.
Amendment 30, in clause 82, page 80, line 26, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must prepare an annual report on water abstraction management.
(5) The annual report must—
(a) include data for the period covered on the volume of water in England—
(i) licensed for abstraction, and
(ii) abstracted.
(b) state whether the natural environment of these water sources has, or particular aspects of it have, improved during that period based on the data, and
(c) assess the impact of water abstraction in that period on the natural environment of chalk streams.
(6) The first annual report on water abstraction may relate to any 12 month period that includes the day on which this section comes into force.
(7) The annual report must be published and laid before Parliament within 4 months of the last day of the period to which the report relates.”
The purpose of this amendment is to monitor more closely the environmental impact of water abstraction on chalk streams with annual reporting.
Government amendment 8.
New clause 18—REACH Regulation and animal testing—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations set targets for—
(a) the replacement of types of tests on animals conducted to protect human health and the environment within the scope of the REACH Regulation, and
(b) the reduction pending replacement of the numbers of animals used and the suffering they endure.
(2) A target under this section to reduce the suffering of animals must specify—
(a) a standard to be achieved, which must be capable of being objectively measured, and
(b) a date by which it is to be achieved.
(3) Regulations under this section may make provision about how a target that has been set is to be measured.
(4) A target under this section is initially set when the regulations setting it come into force.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set targets for the reduction and replacement of animal testing for the purposes of chemicals regulation.
Amendment 24, in schedule 20, page 244, line 19, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations made under this paragraph must not regress upon the protections or standards of any Article or Annex of the REACH Regulation.
(1B) Subject to sub-paragraph (1A), the Secretary of State—
(a) must make regulations under this paragraph to maintain, and
(b) may make regulations under this paragraph to exceed parity of all protections and standards of chemical regulation with any new or amended regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the regulation of chemicals.”
This amendment would set a minimum of protections under REACH and remove the possibility that a Secretary of State might lower standards than are in place currently, whilst reserving the right for them to set higher standards should they choose.
Ruth Jones
As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said in his remarks on the first group of amendments, this Bill has been a long time coming. I am delighted that the Bill is back before the House, but—and there is a “but”—the Minister and her colleagues have lengthened its passage even further by throwing day two of the Report stage into the long, long grass. Considering that the Bill became known as the missing in action Bill after it disappeared for more than 200 days before the Committee stage, that is not a good sign.
New clause 8 holds a key role in the priorities of Her Majesty’s Opposition with regard to this Bill and the important task of taking whatever steps are necessary in the fight to preserve our planet and protect our environment. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to take account of the waste hierarchy, starting with the priority action of prevention. A few weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) filled in for me as shadow Minister at a Westminster Hall debate called by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). In his remarks, my hon. Friend was very clear that the collective task of tackling waste, improving recycling rates and taking the steps needed to protect our environment and preserve our planet is one that we need to do together—all of us. In his conclusion, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington pressed the point about the need to look further at the waste hierarchy in dealing with waste. I agree with him. I look forward to him supporting new clause 8 in the Lobby tonight, and I hope he will bring some of his hon. Friends with him.
This Bill does not go far enough, and it did not have to be this way. Over the past two decades, the household waste recycling rate in England has increased significantly from just 11.2% to almost 50%. I am pleased that for half of that time a Labour Government ambitiously pushed for a change of behaviour and real action on the green agenda. However, England still falls far short of the EU target of recycling a minimum of 50% of household waste by 2020. Our departure from the EU does not mean that we should shift gear or slow down. We need to go further and faster.
As of 2018, Wales is the only nation in the UK to reach the target. In 2017, it recorded a recycling rate of 64%. Wales is recognised as third in Europe and fourth in the world in the recycling league championship. As the Member for Newport West in this House, I pay tribute to the Welsh Labour Government, particularly my right hon. Friend the First Minister and the Environment Minister, Lesley Griffiths.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the Minister, I should explain that there are many people who wish to speak this evening, so there will have to be an immediate time limit of three minutes for Back-Bench speeches. I remind hon. Members that, when a speaking limit is in effect for Back Benchers, a countdown clock will be visible on the screens. Yesterday, quite a lot of people spoke for longer than the time limit, so I want to make sure that everyone knows that there is a clock in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen. For the few Members who are participating here in the Chamber, the normal clock will apply.
Rebecca Pow
It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the second half of what I am sure will be a lively debate on this important Bill. This group covers waste and resources, air quality, water and the regulation of chemicals—all vital areas to improve on if we are to restore and enhance our environment.
The Environment Bill will deliver consistent recycling collections across England, including separate weekly food collections. We will tackle waste crime by ensuring that the tools we have at our disposal better reflect new methods and online mediums that criminals use. We will also be able to drive a revolution in our resource use, continuing our change towards a more sustainable, circular economy, which is the model set out in our waste and resources strategy. We will have powers to ban the export of plastic waste to non-OECD countries, which is a key manifesto commitment. While I am on the subject of plastic, I would like to pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) and to reassure him that measures in the Bill will help him to tackle the scourge of plastic on his beautiful beaches in West Dorset, which I frequent myself—from Somerset.
The Bill will also enable reform throughout the product lifetime. Producers will be incentivised towards more sustainable design, through new resource efficiency requirements and extended producer responsibility. Single-use plastic charges and resource efficiency information will help consumers make better choices about products, and the introduction of a deposit return scheme for drinks containers, alluded to by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones)—I am pleased that she brought that up—will drive better consumer choices and increase recycling. I would like to assure her that work is going on at great speed on that second consultation.
Technical Government amendments 32 to 35 correct references to existing legislation that is no longer in force following the end of the transition period. Measures in the Bill will also deliver key proposals in our clean air strategy, which the World Health Organisation has described as “world leading”. Not only will it address health concerns, but it is estimated to cut the costs of air pollution to society by £1.7 billion every year by 2020—well, that is by this year, so we have already been working on that—rising to £5.3 billion every year from 2030. We know that there is more to do and, through this Bill, local authorities will be better equipped to act through a clear framework and simple-to-use powers to address specific concerns in these areas.
The Government have already committed to stopping the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030, and the Bill provides the Government with new powers to enforce environmental standards for vehicles. Government amendment 7 will mean that references to EU standards do not require updating to ensure that they are enforceable with this tough new vehicle recall power. It is a technical amendment that ends any risk that we will be unable to issue a recall affecting Northern Ireland.
Before I talk about the water section of the Bill, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his dedicated work on water issues and for being a dogged and determined advocate for our precious rivers.
Our climate is becoming less predictable, and we need to manage our water sources better to ensure resilience to future floods and droughts. The water measures in the Bill will help achieve the goals set out in our 25-year environment plan for clean and plentiful water and to reduce the risks of harm from environmental hazards. Water companies will have to produce drainage and sewerage management plans, which will set out how environmental risks, including sewage outflows into rivers, must be managed. Reforms to the abstraction licensing system will mean that less water is taken from our environment when it causes damage or harm.
I know that the health of our rivers, in terms of both flow levels and reducing sewage outflows, is of great concern to many Members; I have met so many of them to discuss this. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) has tabled amendment 42, and I look forward to hearing what I am sure will be an impassioned speech from him. However, I am pleased to inform the House that the Bill already delivers the outcomes he is seeking: less water taken where it damages our environment and less sewage spilling into our precious waterways. Water companies will be able to produce joint water resource management plans for the first time, enabling water transfers from areas with plentiful water to water-stressed areas. We will reform the system of internal drainage boards, ensuring that our water management system is fit for the future. Technical Government amendment 8 will update clause 91, as it currently refers to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which has now been superseded by the Sentencing Act 2020.
Finally, we will ensure that we are able to maintain an effective, efficient system of regulation for our world-leading chemicals industry now that we have left the EU. We have taken control of our domestic laws in this area through the UK REACH regime. I look forward to hearing the debate, in which I know many Members are eager to participate, and I hope to be able to cover many of the points raised at the end.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I had said that there would be a limit of three minutes, but so many Members who had informed the Speaker’s Office that they wished to take part in the debate have decided not to bother that there is rather more time for those who have taken the trouble to meet their obligations. We will therefore start with a time limit of four minutes for Back-Bench speeches, which does not apply to the SNP spokesperson, Mr David Linden.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is no surprise that you are so generous.
I have repeatedly spoken in the Chamber about the importance of protecting the environment for future generations. One issue that I have continued to raise—I did so in 2018, 2019, 2020 and I do so now in 2021—is that of disposable nappies and their impact on the environment. For several years, I have been working on this issue with Magnus Smyth of TotsBots, a company in the Queenslie area of my constituency that manufactures reusable and eco-friendly nappies. One of the issues that Magnus has raised is nappy companies that falsely tell their customers that they are eco-friendly. It is important that we level the playing field so that companies such as TotsBots can continue to produce eco-friendly products and encourage consumers to make more environmentally-conscious decisions.
New clause 10 outlines the crux of the issues around reusable and environmentally-friendly nappies. In summary, it states that powers should be granted to the relevant national authority to make regulations about environmental standards for nappies. Disposable nappies have a huge impact on the environment. To put that in context, around 3 billion single-use nappies are thrown away each year in the UK, weighing in at an estimated 690,000 tonnes. The use of single-use nappies by an average child over two and a half years would result in a global warming impact of approximately 550 kg of CO2 equivalents. Indeed, switching to reusable nappies or even using a mixture of both has hugely positive environmental consequences. A family that chooses reusable nappies can save about 99% of the waste that would be generated by using single-use ones. If only 20% of babies using single-use nappies switched to reusables, 1 million tonnes of waste could be prevented each year in the EU.
Neil Parish
In this second debate on the Environment Bill, I will speak to my amendment on air quality and in support of the amendment moved by the Opposition Front Bench.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has done three inquiries on air quality in the last five years, and we are just about to publish our new air quality report. We need cleaner air across the UK, particularly in the hotspots of our cities, to improve public health. The Government are starting to take this issue very seriously, and I am glad that we have a clean air strategy that aims to cut air pollution significantly.
I am also pleased that the Bill places a duty on the Government to set two air quality targets by October 2022, one of which is for particulate matter in ambient air. However, we can and should act sooner, with an ambitious target. PM2.5 is one of the most dangerous particulates because of its size, which means that it can be deposited in our lungs. The covid-19 pandemic has also likely resulted in a new cohort of people with ongoing breathing problems who may be more vulnerable to the harmful effects of air pollution. That is why I tabled my amendment on PM2.5. My amendment has cross-party support and seeks to put World Health Organisation guidelines for particulate matter into law, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest. Ministers have said in the past that we should not accept such an amendment because we can be even more ambitious; so why not put the target in law today and then improve it afterwards, if we can do better?
It is important to work practically across the Government to improve air quality, because an ambitious target by itself is not going to fix the issue. In 2018, we did a Select Committee inquiry across four Select Committees to show how this issue can be solved by joined-up policy. DEFRA, the Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport and the Treasury need to work closely on this issue, and I believe that they are starting to do so.
The Government are now investing huge amounts of money in greener transport including electric cars. I welcome the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030. With more ultra-low emissions vehicles, we need more charging stations, rapid chargers and other incentives to build confidence and help people to switch over to electric cars in the next decade. Road transport is one of the biggest causes of poor air quality, so this will help to reduce nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide in the air we breathe.
We also need more walking and cycling in urban areas, because it is not just the fuel that is dangerous, but tyre wear and brakes. That is why I am glad that more help is being given to local authorities so that they can plan and implement clean air zones. I know that Bath and North East Somerset Council is meant to be introducing a clean air zone in March, with Birmingham City Council doing the same in June. But in Bristol, for example, the Mayor has no control of the M32, which goes straight through the middle of the city, because it is run by Highways England. This is exactly why we need a joined-up approach across Government to solve the issue of poor air quality.
The Government should amend the Bill, and accept this cross-party amendment on air quality as it comes back in the next Session. We have done so much work to improve air quality and the environment already. I know that the Minister is passionate about this issue. Let us not go backwards. Let us go the extra mile and put ambitious air quality targets in law today.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) [V]
I tabled new clause 3 to draw attention to the environmental challenge and penalties facing Herefordshire. First, let me be absolutely clear: nobody wants to see more pollution or phosphates in the river—nobody. However, due to the levels of phosphate in the Wye, we have an ill thought out and ineffective housebuilding moratorium, imposed on us by a Dutch court through EU law. Implemented in October 2013, this moratorium was enacted to try to address the phosphate pollution in the Rivers Wye and Lugg. This is a serious issue that requires proper and effective action. It was hoped that Herefordshire Council, Natural England and the Environment Agency, and their Welsh equivalents, could come up with a tangible solution by which the threat could be stopped. After recent calls that I have had with these bodies, it is clear that there is still some way to go. I therefore tabled this new clause to have the subject heard in the House.
The threat of phosphates in watercourses is well known. Herefordshire is by no means alone, nor is it the worst polluted area in the country. Indeed, the river winds its way out of Powys into Herefordshire, then back into Monmouthshire where it forms the border with Gloucestershire, yet only Herefordshire has a moratorium. In the Environment Agency’s 2017 “State of the environment” report, 86% of English rivers had not reached good ecological status. High phosphate levels in the water can result in toxic algal blooms. These blooms deplete oxygen levels in the water by blocking out the light, resulting in fish and other organisms dying. The phosphates enter the watercourse through two primary means, the first being point source, where the main offender tends to be the sewage outlets—so called because it can generally be traced back to a wastewater pipe that is discharging into the river. The second means is diffuse sources, typically caused by run-off from agricultural land.
The ruling in Herefordshire occurred as a result of an EU legal case. On 7 November 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union gave its judgment in two joined cases, which were related to the habitats directive and became known as the Dutch nitrogen case, or simply the Dutch case. The case in the Netherlands found that through their fertiliser application techniques, farmers were having a negative effect on EU-protected habitats. Assessments were required to be carried out to determine how to reverse and prevent further environmental damage. As a result of this ruling in a different country, Natural England updated its legal advice, which has since created significant problems for house builders in England, particularly those in Herefordshire.
This ruling has disproportionately affected the River Wye and the River Lugg. The Wye is a special area of conservation; the Lugg is a tributary of the Wye, and is designated as a site of special scientific interest. The Wye is the fourth longest river in England, and is home to plants such as water-crowfoot and wonderful Atlantic salmon stocks. It is a wonderful river that we need to protect for the future, and the way that that is being done at the moment is ineffective. It is by no means the worst-performing river in the country when it comes to phosphate pollution, and this problem can and must be solved. We have had meetings with the council, the Environment Agency, and Natural England and its Welsh equivalents. We need collaboration, and we need to make sure that the Government will support an improvement to the phosphate levels so that we can get our river back to where it needs to be.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin). As I indicated on Second Reading in February last year, I very much support the Bill and the focus that the Government are placing on our environment.
In February, I referred to flooding that had recently occurred in my constituency. Very regrettably, I must report that the heavy rainfall of Storm Christoph has brought further disruption to local residents and businesses. Last Wednesday, high waters flowing down the River Clwyd destroyed the 19th-century Llanerch bridge, connecting Trefnant and Tremeirchion. I have already raised the issue of that bridge’s future with my hon. Friend the Minister, the local authority, and the Welsh historic environment service, Cadw. Such devastating events highlight the need for serious consideration of issues relating to water management. Increasing the responsibility of water companies and local authorities to plan how to manage flood risk more effectively is one way to reduce the impact of future floods, and I ask the Government to seriously consider the value of amendment 42, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker).
I am pleased that the Bill further contributes to the Government’s commitment to tackle air pollution. Clean air zones and the clean air strategy are important, as are the provisions in this Bill, but I believe that more can, and perhaps should, be done. A number of amendments that have been tabled seek to push the Government to improve air quality, including new clause 6 and amendment 2. The legal duty set out in the Bill to set a target for concentrations of the fine particulate matter known as PM2.5 could reduce the 36,000 annual deaths in Britain, primarily through cardiovascular and respiratory disease, that are linked to air pollution. Air quality will improve as a consequence of our national move towards net zero by 2050, but setting a bold target can act as an important driver in the interim.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I want to speak briefly in support of amendments 2 and 25 and new clause 6, all of which seek to tackle the health crisis caused by the current levels of air pollution. For my constituents living in a permanent air pollution blizzard, surrounded by Heathrow airport, the M4, the M25, the Uxbridge Road and the A40, this is literally a matter of life and death, and we have the threat of a third runway making matters worse.
The air pollution levels in my area are among the worst in the country and consistently above levels that are considered safe. The result is, of course, high levels of respiratory disease. At one stage, this reached such epidemic levels that I recall special arrangements having to be introduced in one of our primary schools for pupils to hand in their inhalers as they arrived in class, and courses were introduced for teachers across our borough in how to deal with asthmatic attacks and respiratory problems in pupils. But we know so much more now in my community about the impact of air pollution. It is not just about respiratory problems; it is the cause of heart disease among many of us, as well as cancers and, tragically for our children, even the risk of impeding their physical development.
The modest amendments that we propose today simply enhance our ability to tackle the air pollution epidemic. They set realistic targets. They require Government Departments to work together and they ensure through regular reports to Parliament that we can monitor their implementation. They also inject a sense of urgency into a programme of action to overcome the mounting threat of air pollution. The air my constituents breathe every day is poisoned by air pollution. It is killing us. Knowing as we do the tragic health impacts of air pollution, we have a responsibility to legislate to protect not only my constituents but communities across the country. That is what these amendments can assist us in doing.
Failure to act decisively now will render the Government and Parliament culpable of an appalling dereliction of duty, and future generations will simply fail to comprehend why we did not take the necessary action in this legislation. I urge Ministers to work with us on this and to accept the amendments and the new clause. Let us tackle this ongoing, life-threatening hazard once and for all. We desperately need this legislation to be effective this time round. It has already been delayed. We cannot wait any longer. Too many people are suffering ill-health and risking their lives. The covid pandemic has made them even more vulnerable. That is why there has to be a sense of urgency about passing this legislation, but ensuring it is complete and comprehensive so that this opportunity is not wasted.
Philip Dunne [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I thank him for his support for my private Member’s Bill, which I will touch on briefly. But my thanks primarily go to the Minister, who was generous while talking about my campaigning efforts to improve the water quality of our rivers, which I wish to talk about under part 5 and, in particular, in support of amendment 3 to clause 82 and amendment 42 to clause 78.
It has been clear to me for many years, but particularly this year as I have been campaigning to improve water quality by reducing sewage pollution to our rivers, how significant this issue has tragically become. Many people have been in touch with me through campaigning groups, all urging the Government to get behind my Bill.
I was delighted on Friday, when I was unable to be in the Chamber to debate my private Member’s Bill because sittings had been suspended, that as something of a consolation prize the Minister announced the Government’s support for the aims of my Bill. I look forward to a second consolation from the unfortunate development today—we hear that the Environment Bill will be deferred until the next parliamentary Session. I invite the Minister to use that time to work with me to bring into the appropriate legislative and regulatory space the many measures in my Bill that have significant support: they have support from 135 Members of this House today, on both sides of the House. I hope that, when she responds to the debate, she will give some encouraging noises to give me hope that that will happen. I am also grateful to her for establishing the storm overflows taskforce, which is the mechanism through which she is seeking to get advice from industry and campaigning groups to try to identify the measures that need to be undertaken.
Through the Environmental Audit Committee, we have launched an inquiry into water quality and we will be providing recommendations to the Government. The delay may mean that we are in a position to provide some recommendations through that Committee prior to the Bill appearing in the other place. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to use this time to introduce relevant amendments to the Bill as it passes through the Lords. We also hope to provide some help in assessing what the suitable water targets are under the Bill, which are so welcome, through the drainage and wastewater management plans laid out in the Bill.
I support the measures that I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) will talk about shortly. I also support the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), whose new clause 4 is widely supported by my constituents, not least members of the British Hedgehog Preservation Society, which is based in my constituency. It acknowledged the inclusion in July last year of the hedgehog in the red list of endangered British mammals.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
After the next speaker, I will have to reduce the time limit for Back-Bench speeches to three minutes, but with four minutes, I call Sir Charles Walker.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak to my amendment 3 to clause 82, which is signed by me and 16 colleagues, and which has also secured support from other speakers tonight. The Minister said that I was going to give an impassioned speech. I am afraid I am not, because it has been so easy doing business with her. Is not it wonderful in this place when we can sit down with Ministers and do business?
Before I move on, I would like to thank some chalk stream campaigners: Paul Jennings of the River Chess; Charles Rangeley-Wilson; Dr Jonathan Fisher; Jake Rigg of Affinity; Richard Aylard of Thames Water; and of course the Angling Trust and Fish Legal.
To support rich biodiversity, chalk streams need two things: high flows and high-quality water. A lot of debate in this place centres on rewilding, and rewilding often centres on beavers—wonderful little creatures; I knew a lot of them when I was in Oregon—but the fact of the matter is that proper rewilding of our chalk streams requires good-quality water, and plenty of it. Without those two things, we do not have freshwater shrimp and fly life at the bottom of the food chain, we do not have trout and grayling, we do not have water voles and we do not have otters.
Clause 82 provides the Secretary of State with powers to modify abstraction licences without compensation where
“the ground for revoking or varying the licence is that the Secretary of State is satisfied the revocation or variation is necessary—
(i) having regard to a relevant environmental objective, or
(ii) to otherwise protect the water environment from damage.”
Our amendment would add the words
“including damage from low flows.”
The Secretary of State and the Minister at the Dispatch Box today said that they could not accept that amendment because it might limit the scope of the clause, and I understand that. However, I received a welcome letter from the Secretary of State and the Minister on 25 January, and that letter made it clear that the accompanying guidance to the Bill once it becomes an Act, in giving life to the legislation, will make it clear that—I quote from the Ministers’ letter—“the reference to damage includes damage caused by low flow levels in a river due to unsustainable abstraction.”
That is an important commitment. I have discussed it with the water companies—with Water UK, which is their representative body—and they are very keen for that guidance to be issued. They want to do the right thing. In doing the right thing, they will have to have negotiations with Ofwat, and they will need to be able to point to guidance that has legal force in support of their position.
Steve Brine
As a fellow signatory of amendment 3, I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting that commitment. He knows that I am fortunate to have the River Itchen in my constituency. This is a preventive measure. We have good flows and good-quality water, which is why we have a world-class chalk stream, and we want to keep it that way. The amendment really helps to do that, so on behalf of the River Itchen lovers, I thank the Minister very much.
Sir Charles Walker
I thank my hon. Friend for making that intervention, which is important. Sixteen people signed the amendment along with me, and my hon. Friend, who is a doughty campaigner for the Itchen, was one of those valuable signatories.
In the time left, I will refer briefly to my other amendment, amendment 42 to clause 78, with regard to drainage and sewerage management plans, regulations and procedures. I tipped the Minister off that I would raise this briefly. The amendment seeks to deliver the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendation that water companies and local authorities should publish plans to manage surface water flood risk. In short, it seeks to ensure that everyone operating drains or pushing water into rivers, and all flood risk management authorities, such as the Environment Agency and local authorities, co-operates and shares information on the preparation of drainage and wastewater management plans. The water companies want to make sure that this is a team effort. Lots of nasty stuff goes into our rivers from a lot of different places. The water companies want to get on top of the situation and to work with other agencies to make sure that happens.
I conclude by thanking the Minister for how she has dealt with me and the other signatories to amendment 3. It has been an exemplar of how to do business with Back-Bench Members of Parliament.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) [V]
We have lost many of the safety nets provided by membership of the European Union. This skeletal, post-Brexit Environment Bill is somewhat disappointing, unambitious and the opposite of progressive, but it is currently the only mechanism we have in Parliament to protect basic standards and try to build on them. This is not—nor should it be —a partisan political issue; it is an issue for every single human being. It has therefore been reassuring to hear of the many important amendments from Members from all parties.
If I was to represent my constituents’ many concerns in this debate, I would have to speak for several hours, not the few minutes we have been allocated. I represent a beautiful part of Kent that has a varied coastal and rural geography and is home to several farmers and wine producers. Our farmers work hard to uphold the highest standards of environmental responsibility, and my constituents are in regular contact about wildlife, protecting our vital pollinators, the unethical concreting over of our precious green spaces and the short-sightedness of building on floodplains.
In May 2019, Parliament declared an environmental emergency. Although this is obviously partly due to events beyond the control of Parliament, it feels at times as though we are plodding towards any meaningful change, when we should be racing at full speed against the clock to stop the devastating damage that climate change is wreaking on our planet. Adults around the world make and change laws, yet it is children who are dragging us to do so—crying out for us to notice that we have a duty to protect those who will have custody of the world after we are gone. I am talking about children such as Greta, who has led a global network of young people and become a household name.
Another child we remember today is Ella Kissi-Debrah. I am glad that her name will yet again be in Hansard, but deeply sad about and ashamed of why that is. Instead of being remembered as the bright and happy nine-year-old girl her mother Rosamund tells us about, Ella should now be 17-year-old young woman thinking about the next stage of her education and looking forward to and embracing adult life. But that opportunity was stolen from her as her little lungs gulped in a toxic cocktail of lethal pollutants. All she was doing was breathing. Her mother has battled to get a verdict from the coroner that proves how poisonous the air that our children breathe actually is. We need to support the amendments that promote improvements in air pollution —we need to get behind those amendments—so I urge all colleagues to vote to improve air quality and protect any more Ellas and the children who will inherit this planet from us.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) [V]
The Government do not seem to appreciate the dire position we are in, for although our air is far cleaner today than at any point in our lives, some communities have not seen the benefits. My constituency is one of them. We know that deprivation and race make us more susceptible to pollution. We in Ealing, Southall are suffering because of that and, cruelly, the system keeps making things worse. This is a matter of justice and equity.
Last week, at the communities of colour meeting on air pollution, I met Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, a woman driven to secure change for her daughter Ella, who was killed by pollution. Her story is a powerful one that is sadly repeated all too often across the country, because there is never really a safe limit for air quality. Sadly, the most polluting activities tend to be left in the worst of places.
Campaigns such as CASH—Clean Air for Southall and Hayes—in my constituency are saying no and holding us all to account. For thousands living near the gasworks, this is an issue of equity. That is why action must be targeted on the areas with the most polluted air today. People are dying and this Government deny the problem.
Environmental justice has to be available to all, or it is available to no one. Please, Ministers, act so that the Environment Agency can. Act so that Public Health England can. You can give justice to thousands who are without it today. Your Government say that pollution contributes to more than 30,000 excess deaths a year. Ella’s is just one story in thousands. Act for all of them.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) [V]
I speak as chairman of the all-party group on the packaging manufacturing industry, an important part of the UK economy with sales of £11 billion and 85,000 employees, representing 3% of the workforce, and I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Packaging performs an important function. It is part of the delivery system within complex logistics to enable products to get safely and efficiently from the point of production to the consumer for use or consumption, and it has an important role in preventing damage in transit and extending the life of food products by keeping them fresher for longer. The industry is keen to ensure that the environmental impact of its product is minimised through, first, more recycling of all the materials used in packaging, and that should be carried out within the UK; and, secondly, reductions in the amount of packaging ending its life in the wrong place, which we know as litter, whether that is in the UK or in our oceans. For these reasons, I welcome the provisions in the resources and waste chapter of the Bill, but with so many of them contained in secondary legislation, I wonder whether I can ask for clarity from the Minister on a number of measures.
Will there be continued consultation with the industry on these measures, and will the Minister ensure that the UK industry can continue to remain competitive? There is no merit in simply transferring packaging manufacture overseas. On extensions to producer responsibility, we know that retailers and manufacturers will pay a bigger proportion—in fact, many times more—of the cost of recycling and disposing of packaging, a cost that previously fell on local councils. It is argued that that moves the burden from the taxpayer to the polluter, but it is not the packaging manufacturer that is the polluter—people are—and I hope that improved education and awareness of the local environment will accompany these measures.
We welcome the introduction of a deposit return scheme, but will the Minister confirm that this will be a UK-wide scheme, including Scotland, so that manufacturers do not have to carry two separate sets of stock? Will she advise whether there will be a single deposit, regardless of container size? Can she ensure that we will not simply divert recycling that currently takes place on the kerbside to the DRS? Will she ensure that we include consistent household recycling, including plastic films and flexibles? We know that different local authorities collecting different things has led to very substantial confusion, with only 14% of councils currently collecting flexible materials.
I look forward to the Minister’s clarification on many of these items in her winding-up speech at the end of the debate.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]
I support all the amendments put forward by my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on air quality. The World Health Organisation has clearly stated that 40 of our towns are breaking the WHO limit for air pollution. We also know that 60% of people in England are living in areas where levels of toxic air pollution exceeded legal limits last year. We know that severe air pollution costs lives, with over 40,000 deaths a year being linked to air pollution.
The impacts of air pollution are not evenly distributed, either, with a disproportionate impact on deprived areas. Research has shown that those living in deprived areas are exposed to higher concentrations of air pollution, often because their homes are situated next to roads with higher concentrations of emissions. The Marmot report also highlighted that individuals in deprived areas suffer more adverse health impacts than those from less deprived areas, because of higher prevalence of underlying cardio, respiratory and other diseases. In my constituency of Enfield North we see the direct effect of poor air quality. In the Borough of Enfield, 6.6% of deaths are attributed to exposure to particulate matter 2.5 pollution. That means that 178 deaths per year in Enfield are linked to long-term exposure to toxic air pollution.
Despite the work of proactive local authorities, pioneering new initiatives like school streets, parklets, low-traffic neighbourhoods or the 60-acre Enfield Chase woodland created by the Labour-run Enfield Council planting almost 200,000 trees, and the work of Mayor of London in introducing the ultra low emission zone, action cannot just take place at a local level; it needs to be backed by national and international legislation. It is too important not to be.
These amendments on air pollution, which I am urging the Government to support today, do not represent a radical step but the bare minimum that we must do as a country. The impact of the amendments would be to establish the WHO legal standard. In the fight against coronavirus, we have shown that working in partnership with international colleagues is vital. Addressing air quality and protecting the environment is no different. We have the opportunity to set the country forward on a course that will protect lives and advocate stronger environmental protections. This is not just an issue about public health; it is something that impacts our daily lives. We must vote in support of these amendments to ensure that we lead the way, instead of hiding away.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Ah— Jerome Mayhew. I had just been informed that he did not want to take part in the debate, but I see that he is there.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) [V]
Madam Deputy Speaker, please would you accept my apologies for the confusion that I have managed to cause?
I wish to speak on new clause 6 and amendments 3 and 30 and—if I am permitted by you—to make significant reference to amendment 39, although we have already voted on it.
New clause 6 deals with air quality. I absolutely recognise the challenge of poor air quality, and a number of hon. Members have spoken very movingly about it during the debates this afternoon and this evening, but I am not sure how the creation of an annual policy statement to the House is the best way to address that. We already have a range of existing reporting requirements available to Ministers, as well as two new ones contained in the Bill. They include a new requirement for the Secretary of State to make an annual statement to Parliament on local pollution objectives, in addition to publishing a national air quality strategy every five years.
Amendments 3 and 30 both deal with water quality—with flow rates—and again there is a suggestion that an annual report on water abstraction would be an effective way of improving standards. I question whether that is the right way to approach the subject. When requirements are introduced for such onerous statements, they are effective in increasing costs and increasing delay and the bureaucracy of Government, but I am not sure that they are effective on the ground.
In my constituency of Broadland I am lucky enough to have a number of chalk streams, including the Stiffkey and the Wensum, and I have experience of the Environment Agency and its approach to water extraction licences. To my mind, a much more effective way of policing the area of water abstraction and flow is to use the powers already given to the Environment Agency to deal with abstraction licences—I hope, in co-operation and collaboration with abstractors, which include farmers. I declare my interest as a director of a farming business.
Finally I should like to turn to amendment 39, because its target was very squarely the sugar beet growers and the sugar beet processors of the east of England. EU law has rightly allowed for short-term exemptions to the rules on plant protection products in the event of a virulent outbreak of disease. This year, that is exactly what we have had with virus yellows, so I think the Government are entirely right to allow the exemption with a huge number of protections for bees and other pollinators. To require an obstructive vote in the House would be a backward step.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I did not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but, no, it is not in order for him to have spoken to amendments contained in the previous group. It is not in order. I make the point because I could not reasonably interrupt him under the circumstances under which we are working, but we do expect Members to stick to the rules and not to bend them just because we are working virtually. It is important to keep standards.
I call Barry Sheerman.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Thank you for calling me from Huddersfield, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been involved in the environmental campaigning sector for all my political parliamentary career, and I have learned the hard lesson that if we do not have good science working purposefully in partnership with the private sector right across the spectrum and building coalitions, we do not get the action that we need.
Today, I am saddened that there will be a further delay in the Environment Bill coming into a living reality. I believe that it is the right of children and all of us in this country to breathe clean air, to have pure water, to be able to swim in the rivers and streams, and to have healthy soil that has not been contaminated and degraded. We could achieve some good purposes in partnership, and I call for that partnership to have great leadership. Sometimes I am not sure whether there is enough purpose, partnership and leadership in this present Government. I remember too many articles in a certain well-known magazine, The Spectator, which always seems to feature climate change doubters. The fact of the matter is that many of them have been proven absolutely wrong by good science and the work led by David Attenborough.
We need to do things at home, in our constituencies. As chair of the Westminster Commission for Road Air Quality, I can tell the House today that we are launching a constituency service that gives the quality of air in every constituency, along with the number of electric vehicles, the number of charging points and a whole range of criteria, so that Members know just how the polluted air in their constituencies is affecting their constituents.
We need to roll up our sleeves and get this sorted out. When I came into Parliament, we were known as the dirty person of Europe, and we were burying all our waste in holes in the ground. We have moved on through good science, good partnership and working together. I am an optimist and I think we can sort climate change, but we will not do it unless we get purposeful and determined leadership in this country.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) [V]
This Bill is so much more than the sum of its parts. It is best described as a prism through which the panoply of wider environmental policies, many of which will be a key part of the covid recovery response, should be viewed. Whether we are talking about phasing out petrol vehicles, encouraging cycling or planting trees, this Bill creates the framework through which targets can be set and the environmental benefits can be measured. For the first time, air quality and water quality are not just afterthoughts but are at the heart of policy making.
I want to pay tribute to some of the environmental groups in my constituency: Action for the River Kennet for the transformational work that it has done on chalk streams, and the West Berkshire Climate Action Network and the West Berkshire Green Exchange for all that they do.
First, I would like to address water quality. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his private Member’s Bill, which places statutory obligations on water companies that are discharging sewage into rivers. Obviously, his private Member’s Bill dovetails neatly with amendments 3 and 42, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). Although the Government have not said exactly what they want on this, I am very grateful to the Minister for her correspondence last night and her general tone, which makes it clear that the Government are in broad agreement.
This is an issue that is very close to my heart. In the last year, we have had terrible flooding in the eastern part of my constituency at Eastbury, but particularly Lambourn, where sewage has floated up to the road surface, run along a road past the children’s school and then flowed freely into the River Lambourn, which is one of our most treasured chalk streams. One of my early experiences as a new MP was just how difficult I found it to get any real remedy for my constituents when that happened.
Finally, I would like to talk about air pollution, which we know poses the biggest environmental hazard to public health. I understand the sentiment that sits behind new clause 6, which was proposed by the Opposition, asking the Government to publish an annual policy statement setting out what they and local authorities plan to do, but I think it is superfluous for three reasons. First, setting targets is already embedded in clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. Secondly, the Secretary of State already creates an obligation on themselves to declare whether the significant improvement test in relation to air quality has been met under clause 8. Finally, there is the establishment of the Office for Environmental Protection, which is not just an oversight body, but has real teeth and powers of enforcement, so the Government are not marking their own homework in this regard.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I had high hopes of being able to start my speech by speaking the words of Margaret Thatcher in 1989 when she addressed the United Nations on the issue of climate change—she outlined the destruction and damage that was facing the world unless action was taken—but, sadly, there is not enough time to be able to read out the full quotation. However, those words are true now, and there is more that can be done.
I welcome the Government’s announcement today, their report and their Bill for what they do in addressing waste, water and air quality. These are all things that, as a triumvirate, must be addressed so that we are able to regain our control over the environment and help it to flourish in years to come. Of course, the Government have already set a number of ambitious targets—from net zero for 2050 to ending the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2030, eradicating gas boilers, planting more trees and looking at new agricultural regenerative techniques. These are the ambitious things that we must do.
I would like to start by talking a little bit about waste. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) has already mentioned, there is an important element here about ending single-use plastics, but we can do more. I ask whether the Government might consider incentivising businesses to ensure that we have full-cycle plastics that are used from cradle to grave, and then recycled. We can incentivise the industries that pollute this world to make sure that they are adhering more to the rules and regulations of countries across the world.
In my own constituency, air quality has remained an incredibly important issue. The A385 runs through my patch, next to a school, which has some of the highest levels of pollution in south Devon, and planning development alongside it is likely to further add to that problem. It is the same in Brixham, where the new Inglewood development would see roads and traffic increased, leading to further pollution of air quality. These are the things that we must take into account when we are building, improving infrastructure and developing for our entire community.
On water, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) has done so impressively well on his private Member’s Bill, something I have supported since I coming to this place. I look forward to seeing what he brings back to the House and how the Government work further with him, but as a keen swimmer all year round—without a wetsuit, I hasten to add—I am very keen that we do all we can to improve the quality of our waterways and of our coastline, and to ensure that we are able to improve the way in which we engage on these issues, especially with groups such as Surfers Against Sewage.
The need to be able to discuss how reports might be put into this place was raised under new clause 6, but I would say that we do have the Environment Agency reports that come to Parliament and are reported on, but we also have the OEP, which I think is very welcome as it enables us to take a hold on our environment and improve it.
Tim Farron [V]
On the air quality amendments, the targets in this Bill do not even meet those recommended by the World Health Organisation, as has been said by other Members. That should rightly alarm all of us, especially given that the UK has such a terrible track record in recent years. When we were a member of the EU, it fined us regularly for failing to meet the targets set at that point. Air quality standards are of the utmost importance, and for the Government to under aim and be under-ambitious here is deeply troubling. We are being asked to accept not only decreased air quality standards, but delayed standards, as this Bill is pushed back once again, after years of delay. Yet, tragically, we now increasingly see “poor air quality” cited as a cause of death on the death certificates of many, many people. As many colleagues from both sides of the House, have said, this is a matter of life and death, Delayed action at this time, in the hiatus between the strong targets and standards we had up to the end of 2020 and the point at which we get whatever standards we will get when this Bill is finally agreed, allows bad habits to build up and bed in, and it makes Britain’s poor air quality harder still to clear up.
On waste, the absence of plastic reduction targets beggars belief, given the rhetoric we have heard from many in the Government. The Conservative manifesto made a specific reference—a promise even—to
“ban the export of plastic waste”
to developing countries. The Government have broken that promise. So not only are they not tackling our plastic problem here at home, but we are adding to the plastic problem of poorer countries overseas.
My amendment 30 related to water quality. We simply want the Government to monitor the impact of the abstraction of water on biodiversity in chalk streams and in other waterways. This Bill does not do that, and it is a simple and obvious request. Only 14% of England’s rivers and lakes are in a good quality water position at the moment, so the need for this measure is clear.
So we see an unambitious Bill and a delay, which means even this poor ambition will be hard to bring to fruition, given that we will have to wait many months. This takes commitment to underachievement to new heights, undermining the quality of our environment and animal welfare. These are times when we need to be setting clear and ambitious targets if we are going to lead the world, but I am afraid that we are lagging far behind.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
It has been a pleasure to serve on the Environmental Audit Committee and discuss a number of topics that form part of this landmark Environment Bill through our inquiries. Our Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), has campaigned tirelessly for better water quality and no doubt through his work we have in this Bill sewerage undertakers now being required to produce a statutory drainage and sewerage management plan to actively address environmental risks such as sewer overflows and their impact on water quality.
Without doubt, this Bill paves the way for the Government to continue putting the environment at the very heart of their decision making, with legally binding targets on biodiversity, air quality and waste efficiency just a few of a plethora of new ambitions. I was heartened by the Minister’s opening comments on plastic pollution and new clause 11. As an MP for 50 miles of stunning North Norfolk coast, I am glad that provisions in this Bill will help to reduce plastics on our beaches. This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set targets to reduce plastic pollution and reduce the volume of non-essential single-use plastic products sold. If plastic pollution continues at current rates, plastic in the oceans will outweigh fish by 2050. There is a strong public appetite for action: 63% of people want to reduce their consumption of plastic, and 77% want the Government to take more action to protect the ocean, so I am glad that this is being covered.
Barry Gardiner [V]
The UK creates the second highest amount of electronic waste in the world, and we export 40% of that waste to other countries, most of them developing nations. How crazy is that, when that waste contains the rare earth metals and the other valuable metals that we need for our wind turbines, our mobile phone batteries and our car batteries? It is insanity. That is why I support new clause 8, which aims to ensure that the Secretary of State implements the waste hierarchy with specific emphasis on waste prevention, rather than simply waste management.
I turn to amendment 24. Since 2007, the REACH directive has provided a database to assess the risk of more than 21,000 chemical substances in the UK, and it obliges manufacturers to manage the risk of dangerous chemicals. This amendment is very simple. It means that there is a risk that the UK could become a dumping ground for hazardous chemicals unless we maintain the same standards that we had previously.
While talking about risk, let me turn to air quality. We have got used to understanding risk much better with covid and the statistics that we have seen every night on our television screens, but let us imagine if, on our television screens every night, we saw that in many areas of our country, one in 19 deaths can be linked to poor air quality—to air pollution. That is the level of risk. I tend to agree with what the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) said about new clause 6: what difference will it make for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament once a year, given that the Government were not prepared to meet the legal obligation by 2015 and had to be taken to the Supreme Court twice? But perhaps we should at least try.
This whole Bill is about our 25-year environment plan and leaving our environment in a better state than we inherited it. That means that we have to understand the whole nexus of connections that exist. That is why the Dasgupta report coming out later this month on the economics of biodiversity and the value of natural capital is so vital, to understand that we must balance the burden of costs that each part of society pays for our public goods.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) in this important debate. Hundreds of residents from Pontypridd and across Rhondda Cynon Taff have contacted me over the last few weeks urging me to speak up today, and I know that people’s passion for the environment is certainly not limited to the south Wales valleys. I will, however, take this opportunity to mention the fantastic work that Friends of the Earth Pontypridd does to raise awareness of environmental issues; long may its work continue.
On a personal note, I am the very proud co-chair of the all-party group on water, and I sincerely hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will indulge me the brief opportunity to invite and encourage Members across the House to join the all-party group today. We are always open to new members.
Members may not be aware, but my love for all things water began long before I became a Member of this House, as I was previously an employee of Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, the not-for-profit water company. Through my work, I have seen at first hand the impact of waste on our environment and also the benefits of investing in our infrastructure to ensure that we have a fit-for-purpose waste water network, both now and into the future. It is because of this that I would like to place on record my support for new clause 10, tabled in the name of my friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). Items may be marketed as flushable, but I can assure Members that disposable nappies, wet wipes and all manner of items flushed down toilets can cause utter devastation to people’s homes and our environment.
This Environment Bill is very welcome as it could make real change that could improve our ecology both now and for future generations. I represent a constituency that was decimated by flooding nearly a year ago. Storms Jorge, Dennis, and Ciara devastated businesses in Pontypridd and they are still trying to recover. This highlights the urgency of the climate emergency that the planet is in. We can build all the flood defences possible, but unless we seek to tackle the root causes of climate change, then they will be the equivalent of King Canute trying simply to hold back the tide.
It seems quite obvious to me that the protections for our environment should be included in legislation. While I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill today, I believe that, in its current form, there are some alarming gaps. The Bill does not go far enough to replace the EU’s environmental protections, and, in its current form, the Bill allows the Secretary of State far too much discretion in changing certain environmental benchmarks or targets. That is why I am encouraged by new clause 8, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), who is a very good friend. As previously mentioned by others, this clause would ensure that the Secretary of State has a specific responsibility to take into account the requirements of the waste hierarchy. Additionally, this clause prioritises the importance of waste prevention—a move that we should all be unanimously in support of.
I would hate for this Government to apply the same approach to some of the amendments today intended to improve our environmental protections and I hope to see cross-party support for this amendment. I urge Members across the House to support the amendments, because we must act now before is too late.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) [V]
As chair of the all-party parliamentary environment group and as a member of the Environment Bill Committee, I very strongly welcome this Bill. As we have heard, it may not give everything that everyone wants, but it is a huge step forward in protecting the planet. I really welcome the ambition of the Government and the Minister to work towards that.
I want to focus my comments on water, which is, in many ways, at the heart of this Bill. I have three particular things. The water management schemes will help to move water from wetter parts of the country to drier parts of the country. In South Cambridgeshire and East Anglia, we are one of the driest part of the country and we need more water. I very much welcome the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) to reduce sewage outflows into rivers. Again, I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced that in the body of this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) has been a champion for chalk streams and I very much welcome his amendment 3 to clause 82, which would revoke or vary abstraction licences, or give the Secretary of State the power to do so, if rivers run dry. Again, the Government have introduced that in the heart of the Bill, so more water, less sewage—what more could we want?
The reason why I focus my comments on chalk streams is that they run like a network of silver threads throughout South Cambridgeshire—the River Cam most famously, but also many of its tributaries such as the River Shep, which runs down to the RSPB reserve at Fowlmere, the village that I grew up in. I remember playing in the chalk streams as a child. They were so clear that the fish looked like they were floating in the air. The chalk streams are very rare, very beautiful and very threatened. I went back to the RSPB reserve in Fowlmere during the election campaign and it was bone dry. It was not that the chalk streams were running low; they were not there at all. I went there again recently, there was some water back in the streams, but no wildlife. The wildlife cannot survive if the streams run dry. I have been working with local campaign groups, particularly Water Resources East and Cam Valley Forum, to help save the chalk streams. I thank the Minister and her officials for their time, because I know that they have been doing a lot of work with us on that—in particular, setting up a chalk stream working group. I welcome the Government’s move to protect chalk streams by giving the Secretary of State the powers to revoke or vary licences if chalk streams run dry. That will bring a ray of hope to the chalk stream campaigners of South Cambridgeshire.
I want to leave the Government with this challenge: when Parliament votes on this Bill, it will vote to give the Government powers to save the chalk streams. If the chalk streams are threatened, I ask them please to make sure that they use those powers.
Robbie Moore
I start by referring the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also declare that my family run and operate a plastic recycling business.
There is of course much to talk about in this Bill, but in the short time that I have, I want to talk about rivers and, in particular, improving water quality. The state of some of our rivers today is quite frankly shocking: 40% of all rivers in England and Wales are now polluted with human sewage. That not only threatens aquatic species such as trout and grayling that we might find in the River Wharfe in Ilkley in my constituency, but it is a threat to our own human health. Much praise must be given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his Sewage (Inland Waters) Bill, which is a fantastic piece of proposed legislation which, as he knows, I wholeheartedly support. I am delighted that the Government have decided to adopt it and encompass so many of its measures within this Bill. My delight also stems from my constituency, because ever since I was elected to this place in December 2019, protecting rivers and improving water quality has been a crucial priority for me.
In Ilkley, for far too long untreated sewage has been released into the River Wharfe by Yorkshire Water at times of high rainfall. We have a dedicated team at the Ilkley clean river campaign group, which has been running a long and very successful campaign to clean up rivers. I have supported them in their endeavours to do so ever since entering this place. By working together as a community, there is so much that can be achieved. My thanks go out to all who are involved in that campaign.
I am very pleased that the Government will be placing on a statutory footing an obligation on sewerage companies to make drainage and water management plans, and that the Government will be setting clear water quality targets. However, may I make a plea to the Minister as a follow-up to the many conversations that we have already had on this point? As she is aware, the Ilkley section of the River Wharfe has now been granted bathing water status—one of the highest levels of water quality anywhere in the UK. However, while I am delighted with DEFRA’s decision to grant such a mechanism for providing strict regulation to improve water quality, it is important that we recognise the difference between bathing and clean water status, as many strong undercurrents within a river can cause difficulty for swimming, as has previously happened in the Wharfe. I urge the Government, in future, perhaps to look at a rebranding of such status, as the title of bathing water status can be misleading to the public.
This a good Bill that I wholeheartedly support. I truly believe that it is the start of a greener, cleaner environment for the future of Great Britain.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Something is wrong with the sound. [Interruption.] It is not possible to go to the next person until we stop the video link that is not working. Is somebody listening to me? I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the system not working properly and for him not knowing that it was not working. We will now go to Kerry McCarthy.
Kerry McCarthy [V]
Labour’s new clause 8 would require the Secretary of State to take account of the waste hierarchy. From food waste to plastic pollution, the starting point should be to prevent waste from occurring in the first place. I hope that when this Bill reaches the other place, we will further debate our global carbon footprint and the need to bring proposals to COP26 to measure consumption, not just production. Promoting the circular economy should be at the absolute heart of any green recovery package. At present, we have disincentives to send waste to landfill but very few mechanisms to encourage compliance further up the hierarchy, and virtually no enforcement either, because the Environment Agency simply does not have the resources to do so.
Turning to the amendments on air pollution, we have heard about the tragic death of nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah, and we also know that covid has left many people extra-vulnerable with long-term damage to their lungs. As we mark today the horrific milestone of over 100,000 covid deaths and many more infected, I urge the Minister to think again on this. I support adopting the target on PM2.5; the suggestion that it would prevent higher ambition is ludicrous.
The Government have for too long tried to pass the buck to local councils; what we need is a comprehensive national strategy on air pollution to prevent any further tragedies. We also need urgent action from the Government on their decarbonisation of transport plan. I do not get any sense at the moment that the Government are joining the dots.
Finally, on chemicals and animal testing, with the Prime Minister suggesting in his first post-Brexit deal interview with The Telegraph that chemicals was one area where the UK could diverge from EU regulations, it is hardly surprising that people are deeply worried by the Secretary of State being given such sweeping powers to amend the legal framework. It leaves us wide open to the risk of damaging deregulation as a result of trade deals with countries with weaker systems and lower standards such as the United States of America, and the risk of the dumping of products on the UK market that fail to meet EU regulations. Amendment 24 would ensure non-regression from REACH, the EU regime, and allow scope to exceed those standards. A recent European Court of Justice ruling has reaffirmed that under REACH the principle of animal testing as a last resort must be fully respected and it is good that this is included as a protected principle in the Bill, but this is not reflected in current figures for animal testing; there is far too much duplication of testing and far too little data sharing. New clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to set targets to reduce animal testing and the suffering experienced by animals as a result, and I would thoroughly support that.
Let us not just agree to keep our current standards in this Bill, but try to raise our ambitions too.
Bill Esterson
The film “Dark Waters” shows just what goes wrong, with the disastrous consequences for human life, animal life, plant life and pollution, where there is a lack of regulation in the chemicals industry. Mark Ruffalo brilliantly played the lawyer who took on the might of DuPont and won on behalf of so many who were disadvantaged.
Of course, in this country we benefit from the highest chemical standards in the world—the previous regime made sure of that—and the industry rightly wants to maintain those standards and indeed build upon them. The industry in this country is worth £31.4 billion in exports and employs 102,000 people in well-paid jobs, and chemicals are in everyday products; in the Liverpool city region they are part of our car manufacturing sector and we have many fine chemical industry companies, including Blends Ltd and Contract Chemicals just a few miles outside my constituency. They want to maintain those high standards and they want to build on them; they want to build on them so that new products and services can be developed, and so that innovation in the recycling of plastics can be enhanced. To deliver on that agenda, they need the support of the Government through this Bill.
Unfortunately, we have already seen standards weakened through the changes to UK REACH, and powers in this Bill will give the Government the opportunity to further reduce them, leaving open the prospect of dumping lower-standard products, undermining the excellence of the industry in this country.
Industry here wants no divergence; it wants to solve the problem of the £1 billion cost to access the database that businesses need to be able to continue producing in this country. Unless these problems are resolved, we will see an impact on that £31.4 billion of exports, with companies given no choice but to move their manufacturing capacity to the continent of Europe.
There is much at stake here; there is much at stake in maintaining and enhancing those standards for human health, for animal health, for plant life and for British jobs. The Minister said that she has a good relationship with the industry. She can demonstrate that good relationship by supporting amendment 24.
Caroline Lucas [V]
My new clause 13, on the application of pesticides in rural areas, follows a very similar amendment made to the Agriculture Bill in the other place. Although it was later removed by the Government during the final stages, it enjoyed wide cross-party support, as I hope this new clause will.
As it stands, the Environment Bill lists air quality, water and biodiversity as priority areas for long-term target setting, alongside waste, but it does not recognise the environmental harm caused by the use of pesticides, and the need to protect human health is omitted entirely. My new clause seeks to remedy that by requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations prohibiting the use of chemical pesticides near buildings and open spaces used by rural residents and members of the public, whether hospitals, schools or homes. That is crucial for improving air quality and protecting human health and the environment.
It is important to recognise that this is about not the misuse or illegal use of pesticides, but the approved use of crop pesticides in the locality where rural communities are present, yet there are still no specific restrictions on the contamination and pollution of the air from widespread spraying of pesticides in rural areas. Indeed, the UK’s regulatory system assesses the safety of only one chemical at a time, yet rural residents are exposed to a cocktail of harmful pesticides spread on nearby farms. Furthermore, although operators generally have protection when using agricultural pesticides, residents have absolutely no protection at all.
We cannot restore and enhance our environment while continuing to ignore the damage caused by pesticides in our intensive food and farming system. In that light, the Government should be standing up for rural residents and communities and protecting them from harm. That is what my new clause 13 seeks to do.
My new clause 18 would require the setting of targets for the reduction and replacement of animal testing under REACH regulations. It has been estimated that, by mid-2019, tests had been performed on about 2.4 million animals. In the last reporting period, the UK used the highest number of animals in experiments of any country in Europe. Although the Government have protected animal testing as a last resort principle from REACH in the Bill, this is an opportunity to go further and demonstrate real leadership by setting targets to replace animal testing.
Tests on animals are notoriously unreliable and are increasingly being questioned by the science. The scientific advancement of non-animal tests and approaches allows us better to predict hazard and manage risk while avoiding or significantly reducing the use of tests on animals—all in a shorter timeframe, with fewer resources used. That is better for human health and animals. I therefore urge the Minister to look again at this important issue and support the new clause.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We will try to go back to Geraint Davies.
Geraint Davies [V]
Thank you so much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
New clause 6 is a necessary condition of delivering World Health Organisation air quality limits, or indeed any targets that the Government choose to set by 2022, as they plan. DEFRA alone simply cannot deliver the clean air targets that the Government want without the support of all other Departments. The new clause would create a duty for all Departments to work together to do that.
When I met the Environment Secretary, the Environment Minister and Rosamund, Ella’s mother, the Environment Secretary said that he had not ruled out WHO air quality limits and needed to understand how he would get to any such targets. I agree with that, but it requires a duty on all Government bodies and Departments to work together. DEFRA would work with Transport when Transport needs to deliver an integrated, electrified public transport system. Clearly, we would need a Treasury fiscal statutory mechanism to facilitate that with the right duties, incentives, scrappage schemes and investment. We would need a housing and planning scheme built into that so that we build around stations, not motorways. We would need Health at the centre of it, because 64,000 people a year are dying prematurely. We need an education system that allows people to walk to school safely, and a local government system so that people can take account of things and possibly reduce the speed of motorway traffic near urban centres. This all needs to be by joined-up design, rather than hope for the best.
The second part of the amendment is about indoor air quality. I thank the Government for belatedly including indoor air quality in the Bill. I thank the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health for their “Inside Story” report, which acknowledged that 90% of the time we are indoors we are subjected to all sorts of dangerous chemicals—formaldehyde and all sorts of other things—in our furniture. Professor Stephen Holgate, one of the architects of the report, mentioned that we will not get limits unless we have an interdisciplinary approach with academics, clinicians, industry and government working together. Indeed, the professor of environmental law at University College London, Eloise Scotford, mentioned that joined-up governance is critical in law to push ahead with progress.
As we approach COP26, we have an opportunity to present a template of an integrated approach to help combat air pollution, which is killing 7 million people across the globe every year. I give my thanks to the Health Secretary and other members of the Government who are working together, but the point of the amendment is to provide a duty, so that we are required to work together to deliver cleaner air and save thousands of lives.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
We Liberal Democrats have a clear plan to cut most carbon emissions by 2030 and to get to net zero by 2045. In the context of the Bill, waste is a big carbon emitter, particularly plastic waste, and we must address the problem immediately. The Waste and Resources Action Programme’s new Plastic Pact, funded by DEFRA, is an important initiative which will create a circular economy for plastics. It is based on building a stronger recycling system, taking more responsibility for our own waste and ensuring that plastic packaging can be effectively recycled and re-used.
Last year, I tabled an amendment to the Bill. It would have perfectly fitted WRAP’s initiative, but sadly it is not in the Bill. My amendment aimed to make the reporting of the end destination of household and business waste mandatory for councils. Transparency is a great driver of change and one of the sad features of the Bill is the absence of transparency and accountability. No targets set within the Bill will be legally binding until 2037. By then, the climate crisis will be massively worse. Acting now is imperative. Climate change delay is hardly better than climate change denial.
We are proud in Bath to be one of the first councils to introduce a clean air zone. Air pollution is a big killer and hits the disadvantaged much harder due to poor housing, high-density living, proximity to main roads and fewer options to avoid higher-risk areas. What my council now needs is a separate clean air Act, which also includes new powers and funding to local authorities to effectively monitor air pollution. For instance, in Bath, residents are asking for real-time data to be made available, so that residents can make informed choices for their city and on what forms of transport they want to use.
I am ambitious for my city and for my country to show clear leadership on clean, healthy urban environments for the future. There is so much we can achieve with the right political will.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) [V]
I will be supporting amendment 24, but due to time I will focus my comments on new clauses 8 and 2.
The fact that the Bill has taken so long to progress through Parliament is enough to know that it is not, and never has been, a real priority of this Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) reminds us, think back to the 1970s and 1980s when we were the dirty man of Europe: the dirtiest air, the dirtiest rivers and the dirtiest beaches. Thankfully, we aligned ourselves with European legislation and higher standards. It is with that in mind that I want to address the new clauses this evening.
New clause 8 relates to the waste hierarchy, starting with the absolute priority action of prevention. I am reminded of the importance of international legislation and co-ordination. I will hold the Government to account on whether they meet EU legislation and I will press them to exceed it. Addressing waste was an important part of EU policy, establishing as it did global leadership by creating robust frameworks of different regulations and directives to improve the management of waste in EU and European Free Trade Association countries. EU policy can be separated into product-related regulations such as the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, the end-of-life vehicles directive and the batteries directive, and legislation including the landfill directive. However, plastics are a particular concern, and it is important that we commit pre-manufacture to how parts will be recycled and address producer responsibility, as well as that of the distributors and retailers. We need to encourage supermarkets to do more; I am reminded of the Grüne Punkt, or green spot, approach in Germany. It started back in the 1990s, and it meant that supermarkets would have to take back packaging. I want to see the UK leading in this area, because it is critical.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]
The Environmental Audit Committee labelled this Bill a “missed opportunity”. I rise to support amendments in the name of the Opposition and others that could make it fit for our country, in a year in which the eyes of the world are watching us as hosts of the UN COP26 conference on climate change. I only have time to address two issues: the regulation of chemicals now that we have departed from the EU, and air pollution.
I support amendment 24 in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), to ensure we do not regress from existing standards and protections. That amendment would prevent a damaging race to the bottom that could undermine standards on chemicals, which is of great concern, given the comments the Prime Minister has made about chemicals and his indication that he may want us to depart downwards from those standards. My constituents, Tracey Logan and Richard Szwagrzak, were poisoned by formaldehyde fumes when cupboards were being built and installed in their house. We found there was no regulation covering formaldehyde levels in MDF sheets, hence the need to at least protect our existing standards and then ensure that the Government have powers to strengthen them, as amendment 24 does.
The issue of air quality is particularly important in my constituency, lying as it does along the two core routes between Heathrow and central London, and with many living in a highly polluted environment. Toxic air kills 40,000 people a year in the UK and contributes to the health inequalities that plague our society. We need to see action. Community-led efforts such as Chiswick Oasis can cut air pollution, as can city-wide programmes: an Imperial College study found that policies put in place by the Mayor of London have already led to improvements in air quality, with the measures that have been introduced increasing the average life expectancy of a child born in London in 2013. However, we need to do much more and, at a Government level, to tackle toxic air pollution. We need to see Government Ministers leading on this.
If new clause 6—which would require the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament on air quality and the solutions that the Government are going to be implementing—is moved, I will be supporting it. Crucially, that amendment calls for cross-departmental work to tackle this serious threat to our public health. This Bill has huge gaps in it, and gives Ministers sweeping powers to row back on our much-needed protections. I hope the Government will listen to concerns raised by Members across this House and use any delay to this Bill as a chance to fix it.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) [V]
I am very glad to speak today in favour of the Opposition amendments, and on behalf of the deafening voice of civil society and so many organisations and individuals across the country, including the many local members of the Putney Environment Commission in my constituency, who feel that this Bill does not go far enough.
I served on the Bill Committee last November and was disappointed that the Government did not accept any Opposition amendments, which would have improved the Bill. Today, the Minister said that
“the desperate decline of our natural environment and biodiversity has gone on for far too long.”
That is right—so why is this Bill being so delayed, and with more delays to come? How can the EU (Future Relationship) Bill be rushed through in one day, while here we are in a climate emergency—as declared by Parliament in May 2019—yet this Bill has taken a year to get to this stage and now it has been announced that the next stage will be in May? Will we even have it passed by autumn?
This leaves us without the regulation of the EU that was in place before and with no new regulator in place. Will the Minister give a final deadline date for passing this Bill, and use the time between stages to improve it? The amendments before us today would give us much-needed higher ambition through targets, and much more strength to take action on the important areas of air quality, water, waste and chemicals.
Let me turn to new clause 8. It is vital to hold producers to account to ensure that waste is prevented throughout the whole supply chain, not just at the end—for example, by reducing plastics, changing materials and rethinking product use, such as nappies.
On air pollution, Putney High Street is one of the most polluted streets in the UK, and has the poor distinction of taking places two and three in a recent table of the top 10 pollution hotspots in London. We should set our sights high and include WHO targets in the Bill, not put them up for negotiation later. The cost will be that 550,000 Londoners will develop diseases attributable to air pollution over the next 30 years if we do not take strong action.
On amendment 24 on chemical regulation and setting up a whole new regulation in the UK when we already have one, this, among many things, will mean unnecessary animal testing. Many constituents have written to me about this issue. If more constituents knew about it, they would not be happy. I hope that this can be changed and rectified before the next stage of reporting in May.
In summary, the Bill has a long way to go before it is fit for purpose. I hope that today Conservative Members finally listen, give this Bill the force and ambition that our environment desperately needs, and vote for the Opposition amendments.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
Like the previous Members of my party who have spoken, I shall be supporting the Opposition amendments. However, I would like to use my time to focus entirely on air pollution—a subject that is close not just to my heart, but to so many people I meet every day. It is also vital to our future and to our health, both individually and as communities.
In my constituency of Edinburgh West, we have two of the most polluted roads in Scotland, and one in every 29 deaths in our city of Edinburgh has been attributed to air pollution. Surely that is beyond unacceptable. I also have personal family reasons for knowing what a silent and merciless killer air pollution can be. Lives are blighted or even lost, and our NHS is put under yet more strain. Clean air is one of the most precious commodities that we have, and it is becoming even more precious.
For me, there is nothing that we could do that would be too much, but tinkering around the edges, as this Bill will do, is not good enough. We need to be brave and, yes, we need to start spending money. Our children are now making it abundantly clear that they do not believe that previous generations have done enough to ensure that the planet is safe for them, and they are the ones who tend to be exposed to higher levels of pollution than adults. We need to listen and act now. The Liberal Democrats’ zero carbon target is 2045; we believe that 2050 is simply too late. We need to strengthen our interim targets and undertake a 10-year emergency emission reduction programme to cut emissions as much as possible by 2030.
This legislation is a good start, but it does not have the teeth necessary to provide the robust protection for the environment that we need. If it is not to become little more than a series of meaningless platitudes, the Office for Environmental Protection and local authorities must have sufficient funding and empowerment to be effective. We need an Act modelled on the Climate Change Act 2008, with regular interim targets to cut not just air pollution but plastic pollution, and to restore nature. For me, the clean air provisions are simply not good enough. We need new legal limits that meet World Health Organisation limits, a new duty on public bodies to do their part in tackling pollution, and a new right to clean air in domestic law. All that is meaningless, however, if the reports are correct and the Bill is delayed until the next Session. More time will be lost, more people will breathe in dangerously polluted air, more damage will be done to our lives, our environment and the planet, and the chances of turning this ecological disaster around will be lost. I hope that the House will support the Opposition amendment.
Rachel Hopkins [V]
The River Lea flows all the way through my constituency of Luton South, so I shall start by welcoming the earlier clarification stating that clause 82 should cover damage caused to chalk streams as a result of low flow, as championed by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). I will be supporting the Opposition Front-Bench amendments, including amendment 24 on chemical regulations, but I want to speak specifically about waste management in support of new clause 8, which will require the Secretary of State to take account of the waste hierarchy, starting with the priority action of prevention.
The waste hierarchy refers to the priority order of managing waste: prevention; preparing for reuse; recycling; other forms of recovery; and disposal. To tackle the climate and ecological emergency, there must be a preventive and focused approach to waste management. I am fully aware that the Minister has stated that the Bill enables the Government to place obligations, including targets, on producers to prevent waste, but I am concerned that the Government are refusing to explicitly put that commitment to prioritising preventive action in the Bill. The Bill should use the strongest possible language to demonstrate the UK’s commitment to preventing the creation of waste, as well as to the reusing and recycling of it.
Local government has a crucial role in waste management and in tackling unnecessary and unrecyclable material. Community-based action to shape attitudes and behaviour is vital to improving the UK’s sustainable management of waste, and bolder language would further empower councils to take stronger action.
Luton Council’s waste management strategy for 2018 to 2028 is committed to a “waste less, recycle more” plan that recognises the importance of limiting the amount of waste. As well as ensuring that the recycling process is efficient, the waste minimisation strategy has a focus on behaviour change through education, engagement and communication, including working with schools, encouraging visitors to reduce the amount of waste and maintaining waste standards. However, unprecedented budget cuts imposed by the Government’s austerity agenda over the last decade have restricted the great work that councils do to sustainably tackle waste, so I urge the Government to back Labour’s amendment, to use stronger language to tackle waste prevention and to empower our councils by providing more financial support to expand preventive waste strategies in our communities.
Richard Thomson [V]
I want to speak to new clause 10, tabled in the name of Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru colleagues, and also to new schedule 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) spoke eloquently about the impact on the environment of disposable nappies, and about the sometimes misleading claims made about their environmental friendliness by the manufacturers. My partner and I decided to use cloth nappies for our children. I fully understand that, for varying reasons, that is not a decision that everyone feels able to take, or something that people can do 100% of the time, but it was a choice that worked very well for us.
New clause 10 and new schedule 1, taken together, would establish the basis on which the Government could act to address the problem of waste caused by nappies that are not reusable. Establishing clear standards for disposable nappies would help parents to make informed choices. It would provide clarity over terms such as “reusable”, “biodegradable”, “eco-friendly”, “environmentally friendly” and anything else that was put into the mix. That would help parents by making it clear what they were buying and what the impact of that choice would be. Furthermore, the schedule would, through the relevant national authorities cited, oblige the Government to begin to encourage local authorities to promote the use of reusable nappies if they do not do so already—I know that some do—and so reduce waste, by working alongside parents as well as existing schemes such as nappy libraries, which many parents find so valuable.
The waste that comes from disposable nappies is one of the biggest single environmental problems that we face, but it is also, potentially, one of the easiest for us to begin to solve through the provision of good information and good incentives from Government. To do so would be good for babies and good for the world that they grow up in. It is something that we are able to act on, and we should look to do so.
Rebecca Pow
I thank all hon. Friends and Members who have taken part in the debate—the input on this groundbreaking Bill has been fantastically supportive and enthusiastic.
Let me start with new clause 8. I am pleased to report that the waste hierarchy is already embedded in law through the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. Accordingly, the Bill has been developed with it as a guiding light. While I touch on waste, I must assure my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) that consultations will shortly be launched on issues across waste reforms, including deposit returns, recycling collections and environmental permitting regulations, and we will work with packaging producers on them all.
The Secretary of State must produce a waste prevention programme and a waste management plan for England, setting out policies that apply the waste hierarchy. Waste handlers must also take reasonable measures to apply the waste hierarchy on the transfer of their waste. I hope that that reassures the many Members who touched on the waste hierarchy, waste and plastic, including my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who both have spectacular coastlines and concerns about plastics, and the hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). The resource and waste measures in the Bill provide us with a range of options to tackle issues across the waste hierarchy.
Bill Committee members will have heard me talk about whether we could possibly tackle cat food pouches, which brings me neatly to nappies and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). I myself have experience of using reusable nappies—what a labour of love it is. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the primary powers on resource efficiency in the Bill will give us the legislative means to act on nappies, as suggested in new clause 10 and new schedule 1. I am happy to make that clearer to the hon. Gentleman through a change to the Bill’s explanatory notes. I really hope that the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) will also welcome that.
Rebecca Pow
I will not take any interventions because of the pressure of time, but I hope the hon. Member for Glasgow East will welcome that. I shall turn to air quality, on which so many Members and colleagues have had an input—unless the hon. Gentleman wanted to say congratulations?
David Linden
I welcome any baby steps, but I would also welcome any opportunity to discuss with the Minister certain aspects of labelling and packaging. I welcome the changes that she is to make to the explanatory notes, but will she agree to meet me and the Nappy Alliance to discuss the matter in the context of the next stage of the Bill?
Rebecca Pow
I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said; of course, we will consider all these things when we come to that point.
Rebecca Pow
I will not give way again.
Let me turn to air quality, which was mentioned by so many colleagues and Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Enfield North (Feryal Clark).
On new clause 6, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), my Department is working closely with other Departments to improve air quality through the Bill. We are making it simpler for local authorities to tackle a key source of indoor air pollution—domestic burning—and strengthening the role of public authorities in tackling air pollution. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to make an annual statement to Parliament on progress towards local air quality objectives, to review regularly the national air quality strategy and to publish an environment improvement plan.
Let me turn to the use of pesticides and air quality and new clause 13. The use of pesticides is not allowed where that usage may harm people. The existing regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 requires comprehensive scientific assessment.
Let me turn to water and new clause 3, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin). Nutrient pollution from phosphates and nitrates is one of the main pressures on the water environment, with the main source being development and agriculture. Planning authorities must consider the environmental effects of increased discharges from proposed developments. By removing any need for the consideration of phosphate pollution in assessments, the new clause would threaten the protection of important wildlife sites.
I turn to amendment 3 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). I thank him for taking the time to meet me a couple of weeks ago. Flow levels are incredibly important to the health of a river and the ecology it supports, and he is a great champion for rivers. Our new abstraction powers in clause 82 will strengthen existing powers for addressing environmental damage as a result of abstraction, including low flows. The Environment Agency will clamp down further on environmental damage caused by unsustainable abstraction of water through a variety of actions, including placing new conditions on existing permanent licences.
I can also commit to my hon. Friend that I will amend the explanatory notes for the Bill to include a specific reference to flow levels. That will make it crystal clear that low flows will continue to be assessed by the Environment Agency in the exercise of these new abstraction powers. I hope that he will not ask me to write to him again and that that is clear. I commend others who have raised water so eloquently: my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew).
Moving on to amendment 30, I assure the House that restoring England’s internationally important chalk streams is a priority for this Government and for me personally. A chalk streams working group has been formed, and it is developing an action plan. Actions being considered include improving the transparency and usability of data, which can be done without primary legislation.
I turn to amendment 42. I expect sewerage companies to develop statutory drainage and sewerage plans in collaboration with risk management authorities, and I will use the power of direction in the Bill if they do not.
I turn to new clause 18 tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). While I am sympathetic to its aims, it is not necessary. The “last resort” is already a protected provision, and the Secretary of State already has a duty to review testing requirements in respect of reproductive toxicity.
Turning to amendment 24 on the REACH regulations, we have already included safeguards to protect the fundamental principles of REACH, and we cannot agree to proposed new sub-paragraph (1B) of schedule 20.
I am going to wind up now, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Are you saying that I have more time? If I did have time, I would wax a little more lyrical.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
For the sake of clarity, yes, the hon. Lady can have another three or four minutes.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I shall slow down a tiny bit, then.
I did just want to say a little more in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. I talked about the sewerage management plans, which are now going to be requirements, and said that I would use the powers of direction in the Bill if water companies were not using those properly. Section 13(1) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 already requires risk management authorities to co-operate with one another when exercising prescribed functions, but I intend to expand those functions to include the preparation of a drainage and sewerage management plan.
I hope that demonstrates that I and this Government, and DEFRA in particular, are putting this whole issue of dealing with our water right up there, centre stage. It is so important to all of us that we sort our water out, and it is thanks to so many colleagues—my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and others who have spoken—that we are taking this really seriously. I hope that everyone will be supportive of that, including my Labour shadow colleagues.
Let me go back to REACH very quickly. I said that we had included safeguards to protect the fundamental principles of REACH, which is schedule 20. That includes ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment, and replacing substances of very high concern, such as cancer-causing chromium compounds, through the REACH authorisation process. As I said, we cannot agree to proposed new sub-paragraph (1B), which would force us to follow what the EU does instead of having ownership of our own laws. We would have to make decisions and regulations with no regard to our own scientific evidence. We have no plans at all to diverge from EU REACH for the sake of it. I hope the shadow Minister was listening to that, because she particularly raised it. Protecting the environment and human health is paramount, and the UK will retain the fundamental approaches and key principles of EU REACH.
I really will wind up now, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for your time. It has been an honour to preside over the passage of this Bill. It has been long, and it still continues, but all the better. It charts a new and much-needed exciting and ambitious course for us all on the environment, and it will leave it in a better state than we found it. I want to thank all colleagues on both sides of the House who have taken part in this, helping to drive us all towards a fairer, greener future. I want to thank my Bill team. I probably do not have time to name them all, but I named them in Committee. I thank my private office, all Members who sat on the Public Bill Committee, my long-suffering family and my husband Charles, who I hope is watching me from up there.
As Members of the House are aware, the immense pressure put on the parliamentary timetable by the covid pandemic means that the Bill will sadly need to be carried over to the second Session. As I stated at the start, we will be back. I give an assurance that this carry-over will in no way reduce our commitment on the environment. Intensive work relating to measures in the Bill is already under way and will continue. One of the reasons I came to Parliament was to work to put the environment centre stage, helping to steer us to an essential sustainable trajectory for the planet. It is the right thing to do, and we are doing it.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her wide-ranging thanks and comments, but I have to say that we will be doing it all again in May, because this is only day one, and we have day two to go. Hopefully, the Bill will eventually become law, which will be really good, because that is the whole point of this.
Our amendments would make an average Bill better, but as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said, we want the Bill to go further. Labour wants to seize the opportunity before us to develop a genuinely once-in-a-generation Bill, in the words of the Minister. Changing explanatory notes about the Bill is all very well, but it does not change the legislation. If it is that important, we should put it in the Bill.
The Minister touched on the deposit scheme, as requested, but we do not want to focus on consultation; we want a proper scheme delivered at the earliest opportunity. On air quality, it is vital that we act and act now. One Government Back Bencher noted that the World Health Organisation knows best, and I urge the Minister to take heed of that piece of advice. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for sharing the experiences of his constituents who live in, as he put it, a “pollution blizzard”. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for their moving and important speeches on new clause 6, on air quality. They both mentioned the lost life of Ella Kissi-Debrah—a name we must never forget.
The Minister is right: we all want strong, effective management of our water; we want clean water; and we want to mitigate the impact of hazardous waste in our waters. I am pleased that the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), spoke earlier in the debate. He knows from the shadow Minister for water, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), that Her Majesty’s Opposition support his private Member’s Bill. Water quality is so important. That is why, when preparing for the debate, I was shocked to find that in Camborne and Redruth—the Secretary of State’s seat—all 10 rivers that pass through the constituency have failed to meet the standards of chemical pollution set by the Environment Agency. Simply put, the Government’s inaction has seen contaminated water not just across the country but in the Secretary of State’s own backyard. I hope that that will focus the Minister’s mind.
I join my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), in praising Friends of the Earth Pontypridd for its campaigning work on water, and I praise her work on nappies too. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) for their enthusiastic contributions. The vital nature of science and its purpose was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who spoke about his many decades of fighting to protect our environment and preserve our planet; he is right. The Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), made an important contribution in which he spoke to both his amendment and ours, and I thank him for the cross-party approach he has taken to these issues.
On waste, the Minister heard the message loud and clear from colleagues, and a special mention goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her years of campaigning. The Minister could quite easily accept new clause 8 and show that a cross-party approach is welcomed by Tory Ministers.
Amendment 24, which we will push to a vote, would ensure that Britain does not become a dumping ground for hazardous waste. It would prevent damaging deregulation and help to maintain regulatory parity with EU REACH and chemical-related laws that would prevent the dumping of products on the UK market that fail to meet the EU regulations and avoid the cost and complexity of regulatory divergence on the industry. Our objective is clear, and I hope that the Minister will support our amendment tonight. The need to do whatever we can to preserve our environment and protect our planet is obvious, so I hope that she will join us in doing just that.
We wish to push amendment 24 to a vote, Mr Deputy Speaker, but, with the leave of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59
Hazardous waste: England and Wales
Amendments made: 32, page 46, line 39, leave out “Before section 62A” and insert “After section 62”.
This amendment changes the way in which the location of new section 62ZA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is identified. It is currently inserted before section 62A of the 1990 Act, which is repealed by the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Amendment 33, page 48, line 45, leave out from beginning to first “the” in line 13 on page 49 and insert—
‘(8A) In the application of this Part to England, “hazardous waste” means—
(a) any waste identified as hazardous waste in—
(i) the waste list as it applies in relation to England, or
(ii) regulations made by the Secretary of State under regulation 3 of the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1540), and
(b) any other waste that is treated as hazardous waste for the purposes of—
(i) regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 62ZA, or
(ii) the Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/894).
(8B) In the application of this Part to Wales, “hazardous waste” means—
(a) any waste identified as hazardous waste in—
(i) the waste list as it applies in relation to Wales, or
(ii) regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under regulation 3 of the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1540), and
(b) any other waste that is treated as hazardous waste for the purposes of—
(i) regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under section 62ZA, or
(ii) the Hazardous Waste (Wales) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/1806).
(8C) In subsections (8A) and (8B),’.
This amendment updates the definitions of hazardous waste being inserted into Part 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to take account of the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Amendment 34, page 49, line 18, leave out from “(2000/532/EC)” to end of line 19.—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 33.
Clause 62
Regulations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990
Amendment made: 35, page 55, line 33, leave out subsection (4).—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment omits an amendment to section 62A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which is no longer needed because section 62A is repealed by the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Clause 73
Environmental recall of motor vehicles etc
Amendment made: 7, page 63, line 18, at end insert—
“and the regulations may provide that a reference in the regulations to a standard is to be construed as a reference to that standard as it has effect from time to time.”—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment provides that regulations under Clause 73 specifying relevant environmental standards may specify standards as they have effect from time to time. This power to make ambulatory references will avoid the need to amend the regulations each time standards are updated.
Clause 91
Disclosure of Revenue and Customs information
Amendment made: 8, page 91, line 31, leave out
“section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003”
and insert
“paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has been replaced by paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020. This amendment updates the cross-reference in consequence.
Schedule 20
Amendment of REACH legislation
Amendment proposed: 24, page 244, line 19, at end insert—
‘(1A) Regulations made under this paragraph must not regress upon the protections or standards of any Article or Annex of the REACH Regulation.
(1B) Subject to sub-paragraph (1A), the Secretary of State—
(a) must make regulations under this paragraph to maintain, and
(b) may make regulations under this paragraph to exceed
parity of all protections and standards of chemical regulation with any new or amended regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the regulation of chemicals.’ —(Ruth Jones.)
This amendment would set a minimum of protections under REACH and remove the possibility that a Secretary of State might lower standards than are in place currently, whilst reserving the right for them to set higher standards should they choose.
Environment Bill
Wednesday 26th May 2021
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 May 2021 - large print - (26 May 2021)
Environment Bill
Wednesday 26th May 2021
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 May 2021 - large print - (26 May 2021)
15:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 217 / Noes: 352 - Question accordingly negatived.
15:53 - The House divided: - Ayes: 210 / Noes: 359 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 357 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 208 / Noes: 360 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: “hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus””
Amendment (a), in subsection 2(a)(ii), leave out “instead of” and insert “in addition to”.
Amendment (b), in subsection 2(a)(b), leave out “instead of” and insert “in addition to”.
Government new clause 22—Habitats Regulations: power to amend Part 6.
New clause 2—Assessment of Plans—
‘(1) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017/1012 are amended as follows.
(2) In Regulation 63 (Assessment of implications for European sites and European offshore marine sites) the following are amended—
(a) in paragraph (1) for “must” substitute “may”;
(b) in paragraph (3) for “must” substitute “may”;
(c) in paragraph (4) for “must” substitute “may”;
(d) omit paragraph (5) and insert “In the light of the conclusions of the assessment, and subject to regulation 64, the competent authority may take the assessment into account in deciding whether it will agree to the plan or project”; and
(e) in paragraph (6) for “must” substitute “may”.”
New clause 4—Protected species: Hedgehog—
‘(1) The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) At the end of Schedule 5 (Animals which are protected) insert—
This new clause would add the hedgehog to the list of protected animals under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. This would introduce a legal imperative to search for hedgehogs in developments, and a legal imperative to mitigate for them.
New clause 16—Protection of bio-diversity as condition of planning permission—
‘(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as set out in section (2).
(2) After section 70(2), insert—
“(2A) Any grants of planning permission for residential development in England must be subject to a condition that such a development does not have a detrimental effect on the local levels of nature conservation and bio-diversity.””
New clause 25—Duty to prepare a Tree Strategy for England—
‘(1) The Government must prepare a Tree Strategy for England as set out in subsections (2), (3) and (4).
(2) The strategy must set out the Government’s vision, objectives, priorities and policies for trees in England including individual trees, woodland and forestry, and set out other matters with respect to the promotion of sustainable management of trees in these contexts.
(3) The Tree Strategy for England must include the Government’s targets and interim targets with respect to—
(a) the percentage of England under tree cover;
(b) hectares of new native woodland creation achieved by tree planting;
(c) hectares of new native woodland creation achieved by natural regeneration;
(d) the percentage of native woodland in favourable ecological condition;
(e) hectares of Plantations on Ancient Woodland Sites (PAWS) undergoing restoration;
(f) the condition of the England’s Long Established Woodlands; and
(g) hectares of Long Established Woodlands undergoing restoration.
(4) The Tree Strategy for England must set out—
(a) locations of additional planting of 30,000 hectares of woodland in the UK each year, as set out in the England Trees Action Plan 2021-2024;
(b) a plan for the maintenance of the trees and woodlands planted under the England Trees Action Plan 2021- 2024; and
(c) which authorities or individuals are responsible for the maintenance of the trees and woodlands planted under the England Trees Action Plan 2021-2024.
(5) The Government must publish—
(a) an annual statement on progress against the Tree Strategy for England; and
(b) any revisions of the Tree Strategy which may be necessary.
(6) The Government must publish a revised Tree Strategy for England within the period of 10 years beginning with the day on which the strategy or its most recent revision was published.”
The aim of this new clause is to ensure that the Government prepares a tree strategy for England. It will ensure that the Government has to produce targets for the protection, restoration and expansion of trees and woodland in England.
New clause 26—Enforcement action against breaches of planning control in statutorily protected landscapes and areas of ancient woodland—
‘(none) In the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, after Section 171B(2), insert—
“(2B) There is no restriction on when enforcement action may be taken in relation to a breach of planning control in respect—
(a) a Site of Special Scientific Interest;
(b) an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;
(c) any other landscape that is statutorily protected for environmental reasons; or
(d) ancient woodland.”
New clause 27—Tree preservation orders on statutorily protected landscapes—
‘(none) In the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, after Section 201, insert—
“(201A) All trees shall automatically be subject to tree preservation orders if they are in any of the following areas—
(a) a Site of Special Scientific Interest;
(b) an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;
(c) a National Park; or
(d) any other landscape that is statutorily protected for environmental reasons.”
Amendment 45, in clause 95, page 96, line 18, after “biodiversity objective” insert—
“and contribute to the achievement of relevant targets and objectives under the Convention on Biological Diversity”.
Amendment 29, page 97, line 1, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
‘(5) After subsection (2) insert—
(2A) The authority must act in accordance with any relevant local nature recovery strategy in the exercise of relevant functions, including—
(a) land use planning and planning decisions;
(b) spending decisions, including land management payments;
(c) delivery of biodiversity gain; and
(d) any other activities undertaken in complying with subsections (1) and (1A).””
This amendment would require public authorities to exercise relevant functions in accordance with Local Nature Recovery Strategies. This would ensure that decisions that affect the natural environment such as planning decisions, net gain habitat enhancements and targeted investment in environmental land management are informed by the Strategies.
Amendment 46, in clause 102, page 101, line 36, at end insert—
‘(2A) The objectives of a species conservation strategy must be—
(a) to identify the factors that adversely affect the conservation status of relevant species of fauna or flora;
(b) to identify measures to improve the conservation status of relevant species of fauna or flora;
(c) to inform the definition of favourable conservation status of relevant species of fauna or flora; and
(d) taking the information set out pursuant to paragraphs (a) to (c) into account, to contribute to relevant planning, land management and conservation policies for those species of fauna or flora.
(2B) All provisions in a species conservation strategy must be in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy.
(2C) The Secretary of State must publish guidance relating to the content, interpretation and implementation of species conservation strategies.
Amendment 47, page 102, line 27, at end insert—
‘(8A) The Secretary of State must give financial assistance under the Environmental Land Management scheme to applicants who have contributed to the achievement of species conservation strategies, provided that the following conditions are met—
(a) the applicant meets the eligibility criteria under the Agriculture (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021; and
(b) evidence is provided by the applicant in support of that payment request under The Agriculture (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021.
This amendment would ensure that those receiving money from the Environmental Land Management scheme (ELMs) would be able to claim financial assistance for their contributions towards achieving species conservation strategies.
Amendment 48, in clause 103, page 104, line 27, at end insert—
‘(8A) The Secretary of State must give financial assistance under the Environmental Land Management scheme to applicants who have contributed to the achievement of species conservation strategies, provided that the following conditions are met—
(a) the applicant meets the eligibility criteria under the Agriculture (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021; and
(b) evidence is provided by the applicant in support of that payment request under The Agriculture (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021.
This amendment would ensure that those receiving money from the Environmental Land Management scheme (ELMs) would be able to claim financial assistance for their contributions towards achieving species conservation strategies.
Amendment 22, in schedule 14, page 216, line 37, leave out “maintained for at least 30 years” and insert—
“secured in its target condition and maintained in perpetuity”.
This amendment requires habitat created under net gain to be secured in perpetuity.
Amendment 41, in schedule 15, page 224, line 41, at end insert—
“Planning decisions, felling without a licence and failure to comply with restocking orders
6A (1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows:
(2) In section 70(2) (Determination of applications: general considerations), after “material considerations” insert—
‘(none) “including previous convictions held by the landowner for unlawful tree felling, and failure to comply with restocking and enforcement orders.”
This amendment seeks to include a provision for local planning authorities to be able to take unlawful tree felling and a lack of compliance with Restocking and Enforcement Orders by landowners into account when considering planning applications.
Amendment 26, in schedule 16, page 225, line 35, at end insert—
“, and free, prior and informed consent has been obtained from affected indigenous peoples and local communities”.
This amendment would require that the prohibition on using a forest risk commodity must also be in accordance with having obtained the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples and local communities, in addition to complying with relevant local laws.
Amendment 27, page 229, line 30, at end insert—
“Regulated financial person
7A (1) A regulated financial person must not provide financial services for commercial enterprises engaging in the production, trade, transport or use of a forest risk commodity unless relevant local laws are complied with in relation to that commodity.
(2) A regulated financial person who provides financial services for commercial enterprises engaging in the production, trade, transport or use of a forest risk commodity must establish and implement a due diligence system in relation to the provision of those financial services.
(3) A “due diligence system”, in relation to a regulated financial person, means a system for—
(a) identifying, and obtaining information about, the operations of a commercial enterprise engaging in the production, trade, transport or use of a forest risk commodity to which it provides financial services,
(b) assessing the risk that such a commercial enterprise is not complying with relevant local laws in relation to that commodity,
(c) assessing the risk that a commercial enterprise is not complying with paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Schedule, and
(d) mitigating that risk.
(4) A regulated financial person must, for each reporting period, provide the relevant authority with a report on the actions taken by the regulated financial person to establish and implement a due diligence system as required by paragraph 3.
(5) A “regulated financial person” means a person (other than an individual) who carries on financial services in the United Kingdom and—
(a) meets such conditions as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State; or
(b) is an undertaking which is a subsidiary of another undertaking which meets those conditions.
(6) In this paragraph—
“group” has the meaning given by section 474 of the Companies Act 2006;
“undertaking” has the meaning given by section 1161 of that Act,
“financial services” means—
(a) the provision of banking services including the acceptance of deposits in the course of business;
(b) the provision of loans in the course of a banking, credit or lending business, including by way of term loan, revolving credit facility, debentures and bonds; and
(c) regulated activities as defined under section 22 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 (SI 2001/544), in each case as amended, or
(d) such other financial services as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
“commercial enterprise” means a person (other than an individual) who carries on commercial activities in any jurisdiction relating to the production, trade, transport or use of forest risk commodities.”
This amendment requires that persons who carry out financial services in the United Kingdom do not provide financial services to commercial enterprises engaged in the production, trade, transport or use of forest risk commodities unless they are complying with local relevant laws.
Amendment 36, page 229, line 34, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would make it a requirement, rather than just an option, that the Secretary of State make regulations under Part 2 of schedule 16.
Amendment 37, page 229, line 38, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would make it a requirement, rather than just an option, that the Secretary of State makes regulations to appoint the relevant enforcement authorities.
Amendment 38, page 229, line 39, after “persons” insert—
“, independent of the Secretary of State,”.
This amendment is intended to require the Secretary of State to transfer the powers of enforcement (such as issuing fines) to an independent enforcement authority, as they relate to the use of products derived from a forest risk commodity (a major source of forest deforestation).
Rebecca Pow
What a pleasure it is to be back to continue our consideration of this vital legislation, which will set us on a sustainable trajectory for the future. I know that so many colleagues have been looking forward to today with great anticipation, as indeed have I.
Although the journey of this Bill may have seemed a little lengthy, I assure the House that we have not been resting on our laurels. During this time, there has been a huge amount of constructive, dedicated work, and I will outline some of it: a draft environmental principles policy statement, which will guide the Government in applying environmental principles, was published for consultation on 10 March; and on 24 March we launched consultations on the deposit return scheme and the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging, and these are two key initiatives in the resource and waste measures of the Bill.
We are working at pace to ensure that the Office for Environmental Protection will be operationally ready to stand up as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. We have also announced that new measures to reduce the harm from storm overflows on our precious aquatic environment will be added in the other place.
At this point, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his dedicated work on this issue. It has been a tremendous joint effort.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Will the Minister also pay tribute to Surfers Against Sewage, which has done a marvellous job of lobbying and achieving a great outcome?
Rebecca Pow
I am pleased the hon. Lady made that intervention, because of course I would like to pay tribute to Surfers Against Sewage, which has played a key role in all this for such a long time. Coming from the south-west, as I do, I very much know about the good work done by Surfers Against Sewage.
Today we are debating the nature parts of the Bill, which provide a framework of measures to support nature’s recovery in line with the ambition set out in our 25-year environment plan.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that England lags significantly behind the other countries of the UK on tree planting to help tackle climate change. She will also be aware that there is no ring-fenced component to the nature for climate fund for innovative, green-minded local authorities, such as my own in Harrow, to put in bids so that we, too, can play our part in increasing tree coverage.
Rebecca Pow
As the hon. Gentleman will know, or I hope he knows, we launched our tree action plan just last week. It sets out the raft of measures we will use to enable us to plant our commitments and target on tree planting, which is 30,000 hectares by the end of this Parliament. There are measures in the action plan, and we have allocated £500 million from the nature for climate fund, so I would say there is a huge commitment to tree planting in this country.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Rebecca Pow
I am going to continue.
The Bill also contains a coherent package of new duties, tools and support to drive improvement for nature: a 10% biodiversity net gain requirement on new development; a strengthened duty on all public authorities to conserve and enhance biodiversity—they will be able to do a lot of the tree planting mentioned by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas); local nature recovery strategies, which will form the building blocks for a much wider national nature recovery network; species conservation strategies and protected sites strategies to improve conservation outcomes for habitats and species; targeted measures to protect existing trees and plant new ones—back to trees again; and due diligence requirements to prohibit larger UK companies from including forest risk commodities in their supply chains.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is always very kind, which I appreciate very much. Amendment 41 would give enforcement powers to councils and local bodies with responsibility for planning to ensure that no illegal tree felling is allowed. Do the Government intend to support that amendment? I believe that the Minister and I both love trees and want to see plenty of them. Will that happen?
Rebecca Pow
If the hon. Gentleman stays in the Chamber, he will hear what I say about trees—
Rebecca Pow
Of course he doesn’t, Mr Speaker, and he won’t be able to now. I hope he will be pleased by what he hears about what we are doing to protect trees.
Finally in this toolbox of measures to improve nature, we have conservation covenants to protect natural features of the land for future generations. Just last week, we announced a raft of significant measures to further deliver for the environment, and I am absolutely delighted to say that we have committed to an historic new, legally binding target on species abundance for 2030, which aims to halt the decline of nature in England. We will table an amendment on that in the other place and we will set a final target in statute following the agreement of global targets at the UN conference on biodiversity in Kunming, in China, in autumn 2021.
It is essential that we seize this opportunity to set our ambitions high and take action to deliver them. I think it is clear in the Bill that we are doing that. That is why, in addition, I am pleased to propose two Government new clauses today—new clauses 21 and 22, which will not only help us halt the decline in species but drive recovery. New clause 21 provides for a power to refocus the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to ensure that our legislation adequately supports our ambitions for nature, including our new, world-leading 2030 target to halt the decline of species. New clause 22 will allow us to amend part 6 of the 2017 regulations to improve the habitats regulatory assessment process. Where the evidence suggests that amending the regulations can improve the natural environment, make processes clearer and provide more legal certainty, to help improve the condition of our sites, we will have the means to do so swiftly.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Rebecca Pow
I will give way to my right hon. Friend, a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Theresa Villiers
The Minister is very kind in giving way. Will she assure the House that the Government’s determination to restore peatlands will be an important part of meeting their new 2030 commitment on species conservation?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to mention our peat action plan, which was launched just last week. Restoring our peatlands is a crucial part of improving nature. It is essential that we get the 30,000 hectares that we have pledged to restore restored. We have the funding and measures behind it to enable us to do that.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who I do not see in her place in the Chamber—
Rebecca Pow
Okay—I will look up at the video screens. The hon. Lady will say that we need to lock in the protections of the habitats and wild birds directive as they are now, but if we are to deliver on our ambitious new target and reverse the downward trend of recent decades, we need to change our approach, and we need to change it now.
Now that we have the leading framework and targets set out in the Bill, we need to take responsibility for delivering the change needed to achieve our world-leading environmental ambitions. We need to create space for the creative public policy thinking that can help us to deliver those results. To that end, we have designed the new Government amendment with the specific aim of conserving and enhancing biodiversity. Under new clause 21(10), the power to amend regulation 9 can come into force only from 1 February 2023, once we have set the biodiversity targets and conducted the first review of the environmental improvement plan, as provided for in part 1 of the Bill. We have also been explicit that powers can be used only if they do not reduce the existing level of environmental protection. We will closely consult conservation groups, the OEP and others.
The clause will also require us to explain to this House how the use of the power would maintain the level of environmental protections provided by the Habitats and Species Regulations before any regulatory changes are made, and of course the House will have the opportunity to vote on any reforms. In addition, my colleague Lord Benyon will also chair a small working group, comprising myself, Tony Juniper, the chair of Natural England, and Christopher Katkowski, QC, which will gather information on how we might utilise the powers enabled through our Government amendments. We will have our first meeting before the summer recess. The group will consider the technical detail and will gather evidence from experts and stakeholders. The Green Paper will then offer a further opportunity for stakeholders to feed back on the initial proposals for reform. We will consult the new OEP on any proposals we develop before any regulatory changes are made.
On habitats protection, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), whom I am so pleased to see in his place, is right to raise the important issue of the protection of species such as the hedgehog. We all love a hedgehog, don’t we? I have released lots of rescued hedgehogs into my garden. The existing legislation focuses on deliberate harm against species, which, on its own, does not properly address the real challenges faced by species whose numbers are declining, such as the hedgehog. It is a priority for us to provide the legislative protections and policy interventions needed for our wildlife, including for declining species such as the hedgehog, and to deliver our 2030 target on biodiversity. He will therefore be pleased to learn that I have instructed my Department, as part of our Green Paper, to begin a review of this legislation, with a view to enhancing and modernising it. We intend to publish and seek views on our conclusions in the Green Paper later this year, and I give him an absolute commitment that this work will encompass the issues that he has raised and that I know he will be speaking about today, and that the final outcomes will ensure that we provide the kind of support that is desperately needed to reverse the decline in hedgehog numbers. I thank him in advance for championing this cause, because the hedgehog needs a champion.
Along with climate change, biodiversity loss is the defining challenge of our generation. Ensuring our protected sites can be restored to good condition, functioning properly as reservoirs for wildlife, and protecting our most vulnerable habitats and species is crucial to delivering on our environmental ambitions.
Bob Seely
I congratulate the Minister on seeking to improve that Bill, as that is excellent. Four amendments have been tabled—two by me, one from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and one from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller)—that address specifically tree preservation orders, more protections and closing loopholes for sites of special scientific interest. Will the Government listen closely to those amendments? If they think they are worthy of support, as I think they are, will they please incorporate them or ensure that they are incorporated in the other place?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that. I know that there are a lot of strong advocates for trees. We have some very strong measures in the Bill, as I hope he will already know—we have worked very hard on our tree protections. We believe that they, in conjunction with our tree action plan, mean that we have very strong measures for trees, but, obviously, we are always open to hear what colleagues have to say, because we have to look after and indeed increase our tree planting.
As I was saying, our ambition goes much wider than just existing protected sites; we want to see a much more abundant nature-rich Britain, with further action to bend the curve on species loss in this country. These powers to redesign our conservation regulations with these ambitions in mind form part of our plan to restore and enhance nature in this country. It is a must do, and we will do it. I commend these amendments to the House.
Mr Speaker
Before the shadow Secretary of State rises to speak, let me remind Members that the time limit on Back-Bench speeches is four minutes, as we have a lot of interest in this important Bill.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Two years ago this month, it was Parliament that declared a climate and an ecological emergency. We were the first Parliament in the world to do so in what was a truly landmark moment in the fight against the climate and ecological crisis. I was proud to work on that declaration and proud that it was a Labour motion. We need more landmark moments such as that if we are to tackle the climate and ecological emergency in a meaningful way. We were promised that the Environment Bill would be a landmark Bill.
“Landmark” is what the Government kept saying, seemingly until England’s rolling hills were littered with press releases as far as the eye could see, but, sadly, it is not a landmark Bill.
Let us be clear about what the climate crisis means. If we do not take the bold action now that is required, the freak weather, the destruction of homes, job losses, food shortages, habitat loss and species extinction will only get worse. Since Parliament declared that climate emergency, the Department for Food and Rural Affairs has issued 508 press releases about the environment. The group plural for a set of press releases evades me. It could be a discombobulation, a tedium, or a wafer. None the less, the Government seem to have been more focused on the spin than the substance of the matter. The press releases, ambitions, targets and soundbites are no substitute for the bold action that we need on the climate.
Catherine West
What does my hon. Friend make of the World Wildlife Fund’s statement that the Bill does not go far enough to protect the world’s forests and oceans? Specifically, I know that there is interest across the House in what is happening in neighbourhoods and suburbs. In my own constituency of Muswell Hill, Highgate and Stroud Green, there is a lot of concern about trees coming down unnecessarily. How can we make that vision a reality?
Luke Pollard
Both my hon. Friend and the WWF are right that we need to see bolder action on forests and the oceans. It is a shocking indictment of this Bill that there is barely a mention of the oceans, which is a really important part of our environment.
Ministers must act in a quicker and more decisive way on the environment than we have seen to date. I hoped that the delay in the Bill would have given Ministers that time to be bolder, but I am afraid that they have not used their time as wisely as I would have liked. I welcome the steps forward that the Minister has announced, but they are not enough. The pace and urgency seem to be absent. Our rivers are polluted. There is not a single river in England safe to swim in. More species face extinction at home and abroad; more bees are dying from bee-killing pesticides, the use of which is legitimised by this Government; more plastics are entering our oceans; and dangerous particulates are entering the lungs of some of our most vulnerable. Where is the vision? Where is the landmark boldness that we were promised? Where is the rock-the-boat carbon cutting innovation? Where is the determination to push harder and harder to clean our air, protect our species, plant more trees and get us back on a course for nature recovery? Where is the World Health Organisation’s air quality targets in the Bill? Where is the boldness on ocean protection? We need that bold action not only to cut carbon, but to step up and protect our natural environment as well. If we have this approach that we can either solve a carbon crisis or an ecological crisis, we will solve neither. We need to solve both of them together, or neither of them at all.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I support the amendments, which are also in my name. Many constituents have written to me about these issues. Does he agree that there is a stark contrast here with the approach shown by the Welsh Labour Government? Let us take their tree-planting programme as an example. Since 2008, the Plant! scheme has planted a tree for every child born or adopted in Wales and also in Uganda, supporting forestation globally. The Welsh Government have also introduced a new moratorium on incineration, which affects my constituency and that of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), when it comes to that crucial issue of air quality
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for that. What the Welsh Labour Government have shown is that we can be bold and decisive and that we can take people with us on that journey. The “people first” approach in Wales is something that could be replicated in an English approach, but sadly, England has fallen further and further behind other nations in the United Kingdom. That is why I want the Minister to do more to preserve our precious habitats and biodiversity. If a car is speeding off a cliff, it is not enough simply to slow it down; we have to bring it to a stop and turn things around, and that is why Labour has tabled several amendments to try to inject some of the boldness that we need into the Bill. Let me turn to those amendments now.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government’s proposals on planning reform will actually make the proposals in the Environment Bill on net gain and protecting habitats far more difficult, in that they are a developers’ charter and the wishes of local people are likely to be overridden?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is why Labour is arguing for a comprehensive, joined-up approach from Ministers, in which DEFRA’s policies align with those of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and with Treasury funding. They do not do so at the moment; we have a developers’ charter that does not match the protections that the Minister is talking about. I believe the Minister when she says she is passionate about this, but I just do not see that read-across in Government policy. The peripheralisation of DEFRA in the Government debate is not helping to protect our habitats when other Ministers are able to get away with habitat-destroying policies and seemingly all we have is a Minister patting himself on the back for this Bill. That is not enough, and I am glad my hon. Friend raised that example.
I am worried that the Government’s approach to species conservation is seemingly ad hoc and represents an unambitious approach that seems to have overtaken DEFRA. Labour’s amendment 46 demands a strategic approach to species conservation through protecting, restoring and creating habitats over a wider area to meet the needs of the individual species that are being protected. It acknowledges the vital role that species conservation can play in restoring biodiversity and enabling nature’s recovery. Indeed, it builds on Labour’s amendment to the Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) at the last stage that would see a nature recovery by 2030. I welcome the steps forward on that but I would like to see more detail, because at the moment it seems like a good press release, but without enough action to ensure that the delivery is ensured.
Mr Speaker, you will know that I am a big fan of bees. I should declare an interest because my family keep bees on their farm in Cornwall. Since 1900, the UK has lost 13 of its 35 native species of bee. Bees are essential to our future on the planet, to pollinating crops and to the rich tapestry of biodiversity that depends on them. Bee health is non-negotiable; we must do all we can to protect our precious pollinators. On the first day on Report, the Conservatives voted down Labour’s amendment that would have restored the ban on bee-killing pesticides; on day 2 on Report—today—will the Government back or defeat Labour’s amendment 46 on species conservation? This really matters because bees really matter, and I think the concern is shared across party lines. The steps that the Minister has taken to support sugar beet farmers, especially in the east of England, is welcome. I want to support sugar beet farmers as well—I want to support British agriculture, which is especially needed given the risk of an Australian trade deal—but lifting the ban on bee-killing pesticides is not the answer. It will not help us in the long term.
Like many campaigners and stakeholders, we on the Opposition Benches are concerned that the overt focus on development in the explanatory narrative on clause 108 supplied by the Government suggests that it could fall into a worrying category. Labour’s amendment 46 seeks to correct that by putting nature-recovery objectives, underpinned by evidence, into the heart of the strategies and ensuring that each one abides by the mitigation hierarchy, starting with trying to conserve existing habitat and then moving to habitat compensation only when all other avenues have been exhausted. That will ensure that each strategy serves to recover a species, rather than greenlighting the destruction of existing habitats that are important to that species, in return for inadequate compensation elsewhere. Our amendment is common sense, it would strengthen the provisions in the name of the Secretary of State and, if passed, will show that this House cares about getting the most out of the Bill. I hope the Minister will give additional attention to those provisions when the Bill enters the other place.
On the other amendments that have been tabled on the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations and Government new clauses 21 and 22, I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—she and I share an awful lot in common on this matter—because on the face of it we are minded to agree that we cannot rely on the Government not to dilute the environmental protections currently in the nature directives. I heard what the Minister had to say and think her heart is in the right place, but I want to see things put in law. She may not be a Minister forever and we need to make sure that whoever follows her will have the same zeal and encouragement. I am afraid that unless it is on the face of the Bill, there is a risk that that might not happen.
We support amendments 26 and 27, tabled by the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), on deforestation, the extension of due diligence requirements to the finance sector and the strengthening of protection for local communities and indigenous peoples. That is a good example of a Select Committee Chair proposing something meaningful and important that might not always get the headlines. He is playing an important role and we encourage power to his elbow.
In conclusion, the Bill has been stuck for too long. I had hoped that the delay in bringing the Bill forward caused by the Government would have altered the Government’s pedestrian approach and resulted in bolder action, with more amendments to the Bill to take on the concerns of non-governmental organisations, stakeholders and, indeed, the constituents we all represent. But on air quality, it fails to put WHO targets into law. It fails to require enough trees or seagrass to be planted. It fails to look at our marine environment in a meaningful way. On targets, it is weak, and the difficult decisions required to hit net zero seem to be parked for future dates. It is absent on ocean protection, which is surely a key part of our environment as an island nation.
Labour’s amendments would strengthen the Bill. In all sincerity, I encourage the Minister to look closely at them, because they are good amendments. But that is precisely why I fear that the Government will Whip their MPs to vote against them. I do not think that Ministers want a strong, landmark Bill; I think they want a weak Bill that allows them the freedom to park difficult decisions, delay urgent action and act in their own best interests rather than the planet’s. This Bill is enough to look busy—to do something—but not enough to make meaningful change. It is in that grey area that a real danger lies: enough to convince the public that something is being done without fundamentally changing the outcomes at the end of it—to lull people into a false sense of security that change is happening and does not require the difficult decisions that we all in our hearts know are coming.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, as always. I do not think it is fair to say that it is a weak Bill. May I probe the Opposition, as we are on Report, on the whole issue of biodiversity as a condition of planning permission? There are amendments on the amendment paper in that respect today; where do the Opposition stand on planning permission and biodiversity as a precondition thereof?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention; I know he always listens carefully to my speeches on this subject, and his question is a good one. We are facing a bit of a planning crisis. I am concerned that the developers’ charter that has been set out by the Government regarding planning on one side of Government practice does not fit neatly with what is being proposed in this Bill, on this side of Government practice.
If we are to have the expansion in a free-for-all for development that is being proposed by one Government Department, it is hard to see how that fits with the biodiversity protections on another side of Government. I would like them to gel together, because I want developers to provide the more affordable homes, the zero-carbon homes and the low-carbon homes that we need in all our constituencies. To do that, we need to send a clear message to them about how biodiversity is to be built into the planning system. Where, for instance, is the requirement for swift bricks to be built into new developments—building nature into them? Where is the requirements to have hedgehog holes in some of the fences, as we have seen from some developers?
There are an awful lot of good interventions on biodiversity and planning that create not unnecessary red tape or cost, but an environment where we can build nature into our new planning system. At the moment, I am concerned that those two things do not match together, which is why we want to see biodiversity much more integrated into the planning system. If I am honest, I think Government Members also want that to happen, which is why the planning reforms proposed in the Queen’s Speech do not fit with this Bill and why there is such concern.
Bob Seely
These are good individual ideas, but the problem is actually a much wider one. If we do not have a recycling culture in housing and planning, we are just going to use lots of greenfield sites. Doing so would damage not only our environment, but our communities; we would be doing social damage by leaving brownfield sites undeveloped. We need to start taxing greenfield sites and doing radical stuff, so that we get joined-up Government and use that money massively to clear the way for developing brownfield sites. That is what we need to be doing—not just putting in nice little bee bricks, as important as they are.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am a big fan of bee bricks as well as swift bricks. I fear that his intervention was aimed more at the Government than at me. I hope that the Minister will be listening carefully to her own Back Benchers, because, whether she agrees with the words of the Opposition or not, we need a bolder Environment Bill. We need it to be better joined up across Government because we are not there yet.
DEFRA was at the heart of Government when the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) was in charge, but it has lost its way. It has lost its va va voom. It is now dominated by a bland and dreary managerialism. Where is the energy and drive needed to tackle the climate crisis? The Department has a lot of decent junior Ministers—one of them is opposite me now—but I think it has lost its way. This Bill is okay. It is passable. It is a bit “meh”. But it is not landmark. Indeed, it is deliberately not a landmark Bill.
I say to the Minister: look carefully at Labour’s amendments and please let us work together to get this Bill back on track. I agree with her on the need for bold action; I just do not think that this Bill delivers it. If we are properly to address the climate and ecological crisis, we need more, bolder and decisive action than I am afraid this Bill includes.
Mr Speaker
I remind Members that the speaking limit in effect for Back Benchers is four minutes. The countdown clock will be visible on the screen of hon. Members participating virtually and on the screens in the Chamber. For hon. Members participating physically in the Chamber, the usual clock in the Chamber will now operate. I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Neil Parish.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate.
I welcome the return of the Environment Bill and commend Ministers on bringing it back so quickly after the Queen’s Speech. Let me start by welcoming the recent publication of England trees action plan, which sets out ambitious targets for tree planting. I was pleased to see that it also includes plans to deliver what I have previously described as smart tree planting. What I mean by smart tree planting is not simply planting large numbers of trees, but planting the right trees in the right areas so that they can help to mitigate soil erosion and form natural flood defences. I welcome the fact that new woodlands are to be planted that will enhance biodiversity and have recreational benefits, but I emphasise that trees are also a living crop; we want to see them grow and mature, and we will use them for building our houses and will capture the carbon. I therefore want to see the right varieties planted to form the timber of our future buildings.
While we are rightly going to great lengths to deliver sustainable forestry policy in England, we must not miss the opportunity to send equally ambitious targets to protect forests overseas, many of which are very sadly facing an unprecedented threat. In 2020 alone, some 11,000 sq km of the Amazon were lost to deforestation—the most in 12 years. That is an area nearly twice the size of Devon lost in one year. Large-scale commercial agriculture accounts for a large proportion of that. We cannot allow this to go on.
Steve Brine
I am very happy to put my name to amendments 26 and 27, in particular amendment 27, on financial services. Many of our constituents will invest with and use UK financial institutions, banks and pension funds, and they will have very little sight of the investments that they make around the world that could assist deforestation of the Amazon. Is not the key point that we cannot just rely on transparency—that it is a duty of the House to act, and this legislation is a golden opportunity to do that?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, especially in terms of pension funds. People do not always know which companies their pension funds are investing in and what those companies are investing in—are they investing in Malaysia or in large cattle ranches in Brazil, where deforestation may be taking place? We need to tighten up on this, and I very much welcome his intervention.
Not only are rainforests a carbon sink, but they hold 80% of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity. They help to maintain our delicate global ecosystem, so I am pleased that, as part of the Bill, companies that cause illegal deforestation will be held accountable. The requirement for large companies to undertake due diligence on their supply chains is an important step, but the Bill should go further in tackling the practice.
As Members will know, I have tabled two amendments to the Bill to ensure that the measures have the teeth to tackle the problem. First, amendment 26 proposes that we put into law protections for the rights of indigenous people, requiring that
“free, prior and informed consent has been obtained from affected indigenous peoples and local communities”
before big companies go in and develop land. That is important because, while the Government’s new provisions reference the need for companies to ensure that local laws are respected, they do not consider that the rights of indigenous communities are not always respected in law.
I have visited Brazil; I have seen the trucks going through the forest and the people in the back of them with sub-machine-guns. I can assure the Government that it is not easy for indigenous people to have rights in places where there is no real rule of law in parts. Indeed, 80% of indigenous lands do not yet have secure legal rights. In those places, local people are rightly defending their own land from aggressive development, but at great risk. In February 2019, I had the honour of meeting the chief of the indigenous population in the Amazon. He told me of the daily struggles that he and his people experience in protecting their homes from illegal land clearance. Research shows that more people than ever were killed in 2019 for defending their land. Over 200 were killed—an average of around four people a week. Not only are indigenous people being killed, but many are seeing the land on which their livelihoods depend being destroyed. Amendment 26 would not only save lives but would save livelihoods—something that I know the Government care greatly about. I ask them to look carefully at this issue.
The second measure that I would like the Government to implement to tighten up the Bill is amendment 27. I firmly believe that we must ensure that the legislation includes the financial sector, which is in many cases bank-rolling deforestation in places such as Brazil and Malaysia. If we do not include the financial sector in these measures, we are missing out one of the most integral parts of the supply chain and leaving a large loophole in the law.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
Mr Speaker, you might recall that there used to be a TV game show called “Bullseye”, in which the legendary Jim Bowen consoled failed contestants with that cruellest of catchphrases, “Let’s have a look at what you could have won.” As we come to the end of the long process of this Environment Bill, a lot of folk might be thinking that it was Jim Bowen presenting it.
I will be as generous as I can and say that there were good intentions behind the Bill, or at least the stated intentions were good back when it appeared many, many moons ago. There was admirable ambition to enshrine environmental protections in law, to set proper targets and to establish the Office for Environmental Protection—high aims, except those rules would not apply to one of the most polluting and environmentally damaging parts of the state, the military. They also would not apply to anything that might be classed as national security or taxation or spending. Those are pretty big areas of government: if taxation and the allocation of resources are exempted, a massive part of governance will walk happily by without casting a glance in the direction of the environmental protection regulations.
Then of course in the Bill’s Committee stage the Government introduced amendments and new clauses that limited the power of the Office for Environmental Protection to take enforcement action, creating thresholds for reviews, moving the review from tribunal to court, limiting the OEP’s power to intervene in judicial reviews brought by others, and imposing even greater limitations on its own power to initiate judicial reviews. To top that off, Ministers took the power to be able to direct the OEP on what it should be enforcing. It has gone from a powerful and independent body to a mere arm of the Government before it is even born—a bit sad, really.
There are still things to be welcomed, however, the setting of a species recovery target being one. It should be a declaration of intent—a commitment to reversing some of the harm that has been done—but it needs clarifying and it needs political will behind it to get to any kind of a delivery phase. It also needs cash—plenty up front to get it started, as well as an ongoing commitment to keep funding the work.
We have seen what has happened to Natural England: how the funding cuts stripped that body of its ability to do its job; how its feet got cut away from under it; how a decade of austerity has rendered it unable to function properly. Budget cuts have led to pay cuts, cuts in grants, cuts in staff numbers and cuts in assessed programmes. That is a terrible way to treat staff—a horrendous betrayal of their loyalty and hard work—and I hope Ministers, and those hoping one day to replace them, think on that. Natural England’s Government funding was cut by two thirds between 2010 and last year. Staff numbers have gone down by a quarter since 2010 and those who remain have seen real-terms pay cuts. The ability of the agency to do its work is compromised, if not fatally damaged. Its recovery, if it can recover, would depend on substantial investment in cash and in political capital, but, given how the Office for Environmental Protection has been gutted even before it has been created, I cannot see much hope for Natural England. Perhaps the Minister can tell us in her closing remarks how that will pan out.
This is almost entirely England’s problem of course, because it is England’s Government failing on the environment and this Bill is largely an English Bill, but what is done in England affects Scotland in many ways, including funding, because we are stuck in this constricting Union, for the moment at least. I would be happy to see England sort it out for Scotland’s sake, but even more so for the sake of the environment.
We will, however, of course all be in agreement with amendment 26; who in Parliament would ever think it appropriate to go taking the resources of other peoples and lands without the consent of those peoples? Such pillaging of communities should be beyond the pale.
The UK Government could just for once look to Scotland and the initiatives a Government who are ambitious for their citizens and mindful of their duty to protect and improve our environment can legislate for, such as our commitments to active travel and the restoration of our peatlands, our deposit return scheme soon to be implemented, further planting of new woodlands, implementation of the WHO recommendations on PM2.5 on air pollution, creation of the largest green space project in Europe, the central Scotland green network, and much, much more, with green recovery placed at the heart of successive policy publications: actions rather than just words.
Even in this year when COP26 is to be hosted in Glasgow, the commitment of the UK Government to sorting out some of the mess is minimal if it exists at all. France managed to create the Paris agreement when it headed the conference of the parties; the UK is busy greenwashing what it can and dismantling the rest. Biden is doing the work the UK Government should be doing: dragging commitments out of other Governments. The UK Government like to pretend that the UK is a world leader, but it cannot even lead a conference.
There are elements missing from the Bill that will have to be addressed in the near future, including the lack of clear and binding plans to reduce waste. The World Health Organisation guidelines on particulate levels reduction are missing, and there is nothing on plastic pollution—many public bodies are exempt from the law. I have already mentioned the military and anything that can be covered by the nebulous national security definition, but there are plenty of other examples. To spare the blood pressure of the ardent Brexiteers, I promise I will not mention the rolling back on existing EU protections, but it is there. As the EU continues to press ahead, keeping to environmental protections that the UK’s Environment Secretary described as “spirit-crushing”, the UK will fall behind.
Protecting the environment and making some progress on addressing the climate emergency takes effort, fortitude and a bit of guts to tackle the unpopular things that need to be done. I do not see any evidence of that kind of grit in Whitehall and that is a great shame. Jim Bowen never had the environment behind that screen, but I cannot help reflecting on the fact that this should have been a big win, but is instead a sorry look at what we have not won.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I tabled new clause 2 to address the proposed general licensing requirements for the release of game birds and the environmental benefits of shooting. A campaign group named Wild Justice is repeatedly challenging DEFRA. As a result, Natural England must make assessments of the potential damage to EU-protected sites before granting licences for the release of game species. The proposed assessments are intended to take years to achieve, thus halting the granting of licences. The new clause would shift the requirement for Natural England from mandatory assessments to doing them on a common-sense, case-by-case basis.
Campaign groups such as Wild Justice would like to end all country sports. Often fuelled by emotive and ill-informed rhetoric, such campaigns do not recognise the importance to the environment of country sports and their contribution to not only the rural economy but the conservation of land. The gross value added of shooting stands at £1.7 billion in England and £2 billion in the United Kingdom—£240 million in the west midlands alone. Shooting adds 350,000 direct paid jobs to the market and accounts for 10% of the total amount spent on outdoor recreation each year.
Every year, 3.9 million work days are spent on conservation —the equivalent of 16,000 full-time conservation jobs. Up to 700,000 hectares of farm land are planted with wild bird seed mixes and pollinator strips as a result of game bird management. That is five times greater than the land owned by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
Game shooting estates often have 65% more hedgerows than normal farm land. Most statistics show that the sport is not the preserve of the elite: figures from 31 March show that 159,483 firearms certificates and 567,358 shotgun certificates were on issue in England and Wales. That means that at least 1.6 million people are shooting in the UK.
Pheasants have been in the UK continually for the last 2,000 years. Their release, management and subsequent hunting predates all site protections. Indeed, game bird release and management have largely been responsible for the existence of sites of high nature value that are worth protecting. Some 28% of woodlands in England are managed to some extent for game birds—more than are managed for nature conservation. We therefore need to do considerably more to ensure that, if the new clause does not suit the Minister exactly, such provisions are taken on board.
Natural England has two tools to monitor sites: the improvement programme for England’s Natura 2000 sites—IPENS—and a designated sites view, or DSV. The latter identified game bird release as causing an impact across seven sites of special scientific interest—the equivalent of 134 hectares. For context, England’s SSSI network covers 4,100 sites and that is more than 1 million hectares. The worst impacts on nature, unfortunately, are caused by dogs and walkers, and nobody wants to see them campaigned against, so I hope that DEFRA will adopt the gist of this amendment to protect itself—
Kerry McCarthy
I would like to begin by praising the work of Wild Justice, whose members are far from ill- informed, absolutely passionate about nature conservation and do some excellent work. I was waiting for the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) to mention Labour’s amendment on peat burning. I know that is in the next group, but it was quite surprising that he—
Kerry McCarthy
Yes, well, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can come back for the next debate and make an intervention to show that he supports that amendment. [Interruption.] He can intervene on me, of course.
I would like to speak primarily in favour of amendments 26 and 27, tabled by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish); I believe that birthday congratulations are in order today. Deforestation, which destroys vital carbon stores and natural habitats, is both one of the central drivers of the climate emergency and a driver of the devastating decline in biodiversity. As we have heard, it also plays a role in displacing people from their land and leads to modern slavery and exploitative working practices. It is clear that we need a no-tolerance approach to any deforestation in our supply chains, legal or illegal.
The Bill comes before us in a slightly better state than its many previous incarnations due to the Government’s new proposals on due diligence in deforestation, but unfortunately they fall far short of what is needed. The primary issue is that they act only to eliminate illegal deforestation. That ignores the fact that some nations, most notably Bolsonaro’s Brazil, are chipping away at legal protections on deforestation and enforcement mechanisms to identify and prevent it. For instance, the Brazilian Parliament is set to approve new legislation dubbed “the destruction package” that will accelerate deforestation in the Amazon by providing an amnesty to land grabbers and allowing deforestation on indigenous lands for major construction projects. Preliminary WWF research shows that 2 million hectares of forest and natural ecosystems could be legally deforested in the Brazilian territories that supply soya to the UK.
This Bill is a unique opportunity to send a message to those states that fail to act to protect our planet. That is why I urge the Government to think again and to strengthen their proposals to include legal deforestation to show true climate leadership ahead of COP26. I am sure that, if we do not accept these amendments today, the noble peers in the other place will have strong words to say about that, and I hope they will send the Bill back to us suitably amended.
Amendment 27 would prevent financial services from working with firms linked to illegal forest-risk commodities. We cannot claim to be tough on deforestation if we allow British financial institutions to support firms linked to it. These damaging investments are deeply embedded in our economy and sometimes even in our own personal finances. Shocking analysis from Feedback published today shows that even the parliamentary pension fund has investments in companies such as JBS Investments that have been repeatedly linked to deforestation. It is not good that we are being drawn into complicity in this situation through our parliamentary pension fund. I therefore hope the Government will accept these amendments and begin to show global leadership.
I very much support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench, including new clause 25 calling on the Government to prepare a tree strategy for England. We are trying to do this in Bristol in terms of doubling the tree canopy and with our One City ecological emergency strategy, which I encourage other cities and towns to emulate. I also support amendment 22, which would embed the net gain of habitats in perpetuity. I urge colleagues across the House to accept these amendments. If we fail to do that today, as I said, I am sure that the noble Lords in the other place will take up these causes with their customary vigour.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this landmark Bill, which aims to ensure that the environment is at the heart of Government policy. I am pleased that it intends to better conserve our environment, tackle biodiversity loss and regenerate parts of our great countryside.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for his tireless efforts on environmental issues, including his work on food labelling and environmental sustainability. I was very proud, in the previous Parliament, to co-sponsor his Bill on that matter, much of the contents of which are set to come back to this House later today. This, along with new clause 4, demonstrates that so much more can be done to strengthen our commitments to the environment by protecting vulnerable species. I welcome the Minister’s statements today and her commitment to review ways that we can reverse the decline in hedgehog numbers.
I think we can also help the population to make informed choices. Recently, I visited Rodbaston College in my Stafford constituency. I was delighted to tour the animal zone, where a number of my young constituents are learning to work with a variety of animals, learning how to protect our native species such as the otter and learning to train for careers in conservation. New clause 4, which aims to insert hedgehogs into the Bill as a protected species, is an important reminder of how interconnected nature is, and the important need to retain and to protect species such as the hedgehog.
It may surprise some people to know that a key factor in the reduction of the number of hedgehogs is in fact keeping gardens too tidy and the lack of wildlife corridors in fenced-in gardens. Last week, I was pleased to re-form the all-party parliamentary group for fruit, vegetables and horticulture, which I co-chair, and I led a conversation with Alan Titchmarsh, in which we discussed how gardeners can work with nature to improve habitats for other wildlife, including hedgehogs. New clause 21 aims to protect habitats better. I think we can all do our bit by providing wildlife corridors and creating hedgehog homes, as I have in my own garden. No Mow May is an initiative that is very popular with my constituents: people do absolutely nothing to their lawn in May, which can significantly improve the ecosystem of their garden. The wonderful thing about nature is that it wants to recover. We just need to give it the opportunity to do so.
I believe that the measures in this Bill lay the groundwork to significantly improve our environment. The Bill, particularly new clause 21, clearly demonstrates our Government’s commitment to protecting the unique and diverse habitats that we have in Britain. I was pleased recently to visit the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust’s Wolseley Centre to see at first hand its project to replicate a wide variety of habitats in Staffordshire, including woodlands, ponds, and wet and hay meadows. These habitats are providing homes for a range of flora and fauna. The measures in the Bill ensure that we can protect these for generations to come.
One of the reasons these steps are so effective and increase biodiversity is that we are helping other species in the ecosystem to thrive, which in turn leads to a richer and more resilient environment. That is why I believe it is so vital that we reverse the biodiversity loss we have already suffered in the UK, and that is why I welcome the focus in the Bill. I welcome the Bill along with the new clause I have discussed due to their aim to conserve our environment and increase biodiversity. We need to protect and improve our precious environment for generations to come.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this important debate today. I would like to cut to the chase, because time is short. I think it is worth reiterating the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard): we do face a climate emergency and an ecological emergency. Put simply, these are existential threats to humanity on this planet. We must, as he rightly said, not only slow down the car that is speeding towards the cliff, but stop it, turn it around and drive the other way.
The question we need to discuss today is whether this Bill is enough to stop that car. In my opinion, it simply is not. It does make some small steps forward—I grant the Government that, and I am very keen to work with colleagues across the House on this matter—but I think we have to be honest with ourselves: it does not take the significant series of steps that we all support, I would hope, and that we as a country and the wider world urgently need.
I will highlight three key issues before mentioning a few local points. On tree planting, I am not sure the Government fully understand the difficulty of rolling out a major programme of tree planting, given the wide range of landowners they need to work with, the importance of supporting local authorities and the practical difficulties, such as the number of man and woman hours that it takes to plant a large number of trees. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), rightly spoke about the importance of biodiversity and supporting trees—which are not only good in themselves in capturing carbon, but have a beneficial effect on the landscape, for example, stopping erosion—and about promoting native trees rather than those that do not support such a wide range of animals and plants. The interesting comparison here is a sycamore versus an oak tree. An oak tree might support 1,000 plants and animals, but a sycamore, which is not native, does not support anything like that—it supports only a few species.
There are also important weaknesses in terms of air quality. This is a major issue in my Reading East constituency, where a huge amount of traffic flows through the town, a legacy problem with the way roads are laid out in our area, and many families have severe concerns about the health of children, older people and the population as a whole.
On the oceans—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport also mentioned this issue—we face a huge challenge around the world, with the growth of plastics in the oceans. There are many other problems as well.
I would like to work on a cross-party basis with colleagues, but we need to understand the urgency of the matters that should be addressed by the Bill. Our residents in our local communities are telling us that. I am sure I am not the only person here present today who has a groaning postbag, with many different concerns raised by local people. There are far too many to mention in full, but I want to just cover a couple of them.
A good example is the scale of concern about sewage flowing into rivers. Reading sits on the River Thames and the River Kennet. We have a large population, with people who want to wild swim in the Thames and other water users. Many people enjoy boating and fishing. We need to deal with this problem urgently and it relates to the other issues we have talked about today.
In my area, we are also very concerned about the planning liberalisation proposed by the Government, which is completely mistaken. As many Conservative Members who represent similar seats in southern England will know, it could dramatically change the local landscape, lead to a huge amount of infilling between existing towns and cities, degrade the quality of life in existing suburbs by putting large blocks of flats between rows of existing houses, and lead to building on the green lungs of towns and cities. So I urge the Government— I realise this does not relate directly to this Bill—to address this matter, completely scrap and reconsider their approach to planning, and revert to the traditional tried and tested approach which has stood us in good stead since world war two.
Very briefly—I realise I am in danger of running over time, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will indicate my support for new clause 25, on trees; amendment 46, on the rainforest, from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, which I whole- heartedly support; amendment 22, on habitat protection; new clause 12, on banning fracking—a very important measure and there are local concerns about that in our area—and new clause 24, on banning heather burning.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I will speak to amendment 45. Clause 95 is an important step forward because it changes the duty on public authorities: the duty is not just to conserve biodiversity, but to enhance it. That is a big change and one of the big measures in the Bill. Amendment 45 would add to that by requiring public authorities to consider what action they can take to contribute to the achievement of targets under the UN convention on biological diversity. This is a big year with COP26 coming up, but we also have, at Kunming in October—about the time the Bill may well become law—the renewal of the convention and the plan for the next 10 years. I invite the Minister to consider how we can leverage the nature target, for example, which has just been announced, to make such commitments international so that we are changing not just Britain, but the world.
The last CBD that set out a 10-year plan was in 2010; the Aichi targets. It is true that in our country we have done a lot of the things that were proposed, but internationally only one target out of 20 has been achieved: number 11, on protecting 17% of land and water. There is an opportunity, later this year, to go much further. The Government have already made commitments on the sort of measures we should be trying to negotiate, such as protecting 30%, not 17%, of land and seas, and protecting species. I think there is an opportunity to put this in the Bill, although I am just probing the Minister on that. Really, I want to know what the Government’s plans are to take the initiatives in this landmark Bill and make them international. I know the Minister probably has a lot to say when she winds up the debate, but it would be welcome if she touched on the global aspects.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will restrict my remarks to amendments 47 and 49, which stand in my name, and amendment 29, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). The amendments have in common the aim of protecting the landscape and the environment both in very rural areas like mine and in urban and suburban parts of the UK that are threatened by the Government’s planning reforms.
Amendments 47 and 49 would ensure that environmental land management schemes contain a mechanism to deliver adequate financial support to our farmers for delivering landscape benefits, in particular species conservation and protected site strategies, and so rewarding our farmers for maintaining the beauty of our landscape. We have done that inadvertently through various funding schemes over the past few decades, but it is about to drop by the wayside. It is hard to put a price on landscape beauty, but it is vital that we do so.
In the lake district and the Yorkshire dales, in a normal year our Cumbria tourism economy is worth more than £3 billion and employs 60,000 people in our county—tourism is comfortably the biggest employer in Cumbria. Underpinning that economy is the beauty of the landscape.
Neil Parish
I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. Farming, landscape and tourism are closely integrated. As we deal with the Environment Bill, we have to remember that agriculture and tourism are interlinked, especially in the rural parts of this great country of ours.
Tim Farron
The Select Committee Chair is absolutely right, and I completely agree. We have to find a mechanism to make sure that we reward those who maintain the beauty of our landscape.
I have often been in places such as Barbondale, Dentdale, Langdale, Kentmere, Longsleddale and other glorious bits of my part of the world. I almost feel compelled to express envy of the hill farmer I am with in his or her glorious environment, but often the response is a slightly sad look that says, “I can’t eat the view.” It is all very well having a beautiful place, but if those who work there make a pittance, what good is it to them? That is what is happening in the uplands, where people are steadily moving away as farms fail and close. The Government’s plan to offer early retirement to farmers offers no mechanism to get young people in to replace them, and just in the last few days, the only agricultural college in Cumbria has closed.
I am desperate to ensure that the ELMS rewards farmers for landscape value, but there is currently no effective mechanism to do that. That should be added, which is why the amendment matters. I am also concerned about what the Bill means for the status of some of the beautiful parts of the United Kingdom. UNESCO awarded world heritage site status to the lake district just a few years ago. The report that resulted in the award of that status gave as much credit to the farmers as it did to the glaciers. These are managed, crafted landscapes, and we should reward the farmers who provide them.
There are many bad things about our not being in the EU, but one good thing is that we do not need to borrow EU measures. We do not need to borrow the plan for funding ELMS through the mechanism of income forgone. We should be rewarding farmers for the value of what they do, not paying the pittance they were paid in the first place.
In the time left, I will speak to amendment 29. Local nature resource strategies are a good idea. They are welcome, but they are weak, and they will not be worth the paper they are written on if they are not material to the considerations and decisions made by local planning committees. If we are to protect our green belt, whether it be in such places as the constituency of the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), other parts of the ring around London, or indeed a very rural area like mine, we must not put planners in a situation where they have no power to prevent developers from damaging the countryside or, as is the case in a place like mine, to prevent developers from delivering up to 50 houses without having to deliver a single affordable property.
Nine out of 10 planning permission applications get passed. More than a million planning applications for homes have not been delivered. Planning is not the problem; planning is the protection for our communities and our environment. That is why this amendment is important to try to undo and mitigate some of the Government’s attack on our rural communities.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and it is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. It was over a year ago that I made my maiden speech specifically so that I had the opportunity to contribute to the Second Reading of this Bill, so it is a pleasure to be back here again.
It is worth reflecting on the context of where we are now, because in the intervening time, the pieces of our country and the world have been almost thrown into the air, and we still do not quite know where they will land. The pandemic makes the Bill even more important than it was over a year ago. It is fair to say that all of us have had time to reassess priorities. We have considered our priorities in life—our quality of life, our family, our health and our friends—and this Bill has become even more important, because many of us, with the roads quiet and having limited time to get out, have reflected on the importance of our natural environment and what is around us. Our appreciation of nature and the need to focus on species loss and the things that make our environment unique to our localities are even more important than they were.
With respect, I must disagree with the shadow Secretary of State’s characterisation of this as not being a landmark Bill, because it is a landmark Bill. It is a bold Bill. I particularly reject the characterisation that it is a mark of a Government or, indeed, any Member on the Government Benches not caring about the environment, because it absolutely is not that.
Sir Oliver Heald
In our area, there are a lot of chalk streams. Does my hon. Friend agree that for our population and our area, points that the Government have agreed on, such as not having sewage overflows into the streams and treating low flows as damage that has to be restored, are incredibly valuable things?
Julie Marson
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend and neighbour, because I will come on to mention chalk streams, which are such a vital part of our environment as a country, particularly in Hertford and Hertfordshire. In Hertford and Stortford—I may be biased—we have one of the most beautiful places in the world to live and work, and this Bill is important to me and my constituents.
We are going to rely on many of the Bill’s provisions. Development is a major driver of species loss and environmental degradation, so the biodiversity net gain requirements will be critical for us in protecting our environment. We have swathes of green belt that will be developed, and there is lots of infill development. This Bill will be really important to help us to retain our environment in those circumstances. I thank the Minister for her engagement with the all-party parliamentary group on chalk streams, because that has produced some strong commitments and practical solutions.
In my constituency in Hertfordshire, we have five amazing chalk streams: the Stort, the Mimram, the Beane, the Ash and the River Lea. We all know that they have been called the rainforests of the environment, because they are so key to diversity in the ecosystem. I absolutely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the provisions in the Bill about chalk streams are extremely welcome and important.
I am pleased to speak also as the RSPB champion for the kestrel, because these things are inextricably linked. In Rye Meads nature reserve in my constituency, the kestrel has declined drastically, but focus on chalk streams and the wildlife they produce will help the kestrel as well. The environment is so complex, and I welcome the progress we have made and thank the Minister for her engagement on that.
When I spoke last time, I quoted Rudyard Kipling, and although I will not overuse his beautiful words, what he said is that we cannot just sit back and expect everything—our beautiful land—to happen without us playing our part. I believe that this Bill is very much us playing our part.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The environment is the bedrock of our economy and our wellbeing. It is not something separate from ourselves; it is in the food we eat and the places where we live. I know this, as do my constituents in Feltham and Heston. Whether they are emailing me about biodiversity, badger culling, air pollution, habitats, parks, clean and green streets or everything in between, it is clear that they care about the environment and about the other creatures that we share nature with. Indeed, I was a member of Friends of the Earth before I joined the Labour party as a teenager.
As we prepare to host COP26 in November and as we leave the EU’s regulatory frameworks, now is the time to create positive, impactful, long-lasting environmental protections. Unfortunately, the Government do not seem prepared to strengthen our legislation fully on environmental protections, instead seeming to give the Secretary of State too much discretion and refusing to implement too many of the changes that we need. Lockdown highlighted more than ever the importance of nature for our nation’s health and our wellbeing, but under the Tories, wildlife has been on a downward spiral, with 44% of species in decline over the last 10 years and tree planting targets being missed by over 50%. I want to see nature protected, which is why I am also supporting new clause 25—along with others I have signed that are in the name of the Opposition Front Benchers—to ensure that we are focused not just on planting new trees, but on protecting and maintaining existing woodlands. Hounslow Council’s work on this has been inspiring, and I am proud to also be an environmental champion.
I want to speak briefly about plastics, because the pandemic has also vividly illustrated the scale of waste created by single-use and throwaway packaging. Public, political and corporate concerns over plastic pollution are strong. We have a real opportunity to reduce the volume of single-use plastics that are harming our environment, our oceans and our health.
In March 2018, the Government first confirmed that they would introduce a deposit return scheme in England for single-use drinks containers, including plastic, glass and metal. This went out for consultation in February 2019. Respondents to the consultation overwhelmingly backed a deposit return scheme, which is also very much supported by Heston Action Group, Cranford Action Group and many others across west London and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury).
The Government were going to introduce a deposit return scheme from 2023, but two months ago, a consultation document confirmed that it would not now happen until late 2024 at the earliest. There is a clear case to proceed, so can the Minister explain why they need to explore whether there is a continued appetite for a deposit return scheme in a post-covid context? This is an excuse, not a reason. We should be introducing a deposit return scheme well before late 2024. Although proposals to establish a DRS are contained in the Bill, it does not say what materials will be included within a scheme, nor the deposit price.
World Environment Day is on 5 June, just next week. We need to be engaging young people on the importance of our natural world. I recently held an environment photography competition inviting young people aged 18 and under to send in a drawing or photo that represented nature to them, so we can see the environment through the eyes of young people. The entries have shown how much young people in Feltham and Heston care about the environment and about the importance of reducing, reusing and recycling. We cannot let these young people down. It is their futures that this Bill will affect, and it is this Parliament’s responsibility to protect our environment for the generations to come. This needs a serious long-term plan and the political will to deliver it.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) [V]
Many of us will be glad to see the back of endless Zoom calls that merge into one another. One that will always remain with me was the first time that I met Des, the brown long-eared bat. It was the first time that I had seen one of these remarkable creatures close up, and he did indeed have the most spectacular ears, almost as long as his body. I was meeting Des because I am the Bat Conservation Trust’s species champion for brown long-eared bats—a species that are quite common in Rushcliffe and across Nottinghamshire, but whose numbers are in decline owing to habitat loss. Sadly, Des and his fellow bats are not alone. In the UK, there has been on average a 13% decline in species abundance since 1970, with a steeper decline seen in the past 10 years. Species extinction is a very real danger for one in 10 species here in the UK. That is why the provisions in the Bill are so important. I strongly welcome the requirement for all new developments to have a biodiversity net gain of over 10%.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
I am pleased to speak in this vital debate. Given the short time that we have, I shall focus on new clauses 21 and 22, two wide-ranging new clauses tabled by the Government, and my amendments (a) and (b), which I plan to press to a Division.
These new clauses would give the Secretary of State the power to amend the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. These are critical pieces of legislation, the mainstay of conservation law. Although there is undoubtedly a strong case for aligning laws that protect habitats and species with the goal of halting the decline of nature by 2030, I am concerned that the Government proposal is for new regulations that in fact could replace the habitats regulations and risk losing vital protection for wildlife, rather than adding to them. Yet the Bill is not a replacement for the nature directives. They serve two distinct purposes. The first—the Bill—sets an overarching nature’s recovery. The second provides protection for particular species and habitats, including particular local populations and individual specimens.
In order to fully restore nature, we need both species and site-specific protection, as well as a bold overall goal. As these new clauses are currently drafted, though, they risk removing the much needed protection of species and nature-critical areas, such as great crested newts or special areas of conservation, with significant damage to particular wildlife being masked by hoped-for overall trends of improvement. We know that the scale and health of individual populations are crucial to restoring biodiversity. I am also concerned that there has been no prior consultation or engagement with stakeholders on these amendments and that neither an impact assessment nor the supplementary delegated powers memorandum has been published.
In the light of those concerns, I have tabled two small amendments to new clause 21, simply replacing “instead of” with “in addition to”, which would ensure that the existing objectives in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations are not replaced, but added to. They would enable the habitats regulations to be aligned with the objectives outlined in the Environment Bill without risking the protection of specific sites, species or populations.
These amendments are not about being frozen in time. I recognise that change is necessary—I was online earlier listening to the Minister’s introductory remarks, so I heard what she said—but the new framework must be about improving environmental protection rather than creating the potential at least to weaken it. Even if this Government have no plans to weaken regulations, as I hope they do not, this is a once-in-a-generation Bill and it must be future-proofed. There is no guarantee that a future Minister in a future Government will not choose to use this opportunity to water down protections, and we need safeguards against that. These are therefore entirely reasonable amendments, which I hope very much the Government will support.
In the last bit of time that I have left, I simply want to say a few words about new clause 16, tabled by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), which would make the protection of biodiversity a condition of planning permission. I am sure the Minister is aware of the threat currently faced by Knepp estate, one of the UK’s best known and most successful rewilding projects, by a development being proposed by Thakeham Homes, which would destroy local habitat and obstruct vital wildlife corridors and connections between Knepp and neighbouring areas. As this project will deliver on the objectives laid out in the Environment Bill, I would welcome confirmation that the Minister is in contact with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that he is championing its cause and will intervene in this case.
It has been 25 years since the last UK-wide Environment Act was passed. In that time, the speed and scale of destruction have increased dramatically. We need a bold new Bill and we need to do more to make this Bill what we need.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on this important Bill and on a vital issue that is central to the people of Derbyshire Dales and, indeed, of the world. This is a landmark Bill and I have been waiting for it for many years.
Environmentalism is at the heart of building back better, not just on these islands but as part of the Prime Minister’s vision for a global Britain. Tackling climate change and biodiversity loss was listed as the United Kingdom’s No.1 international priority in the recent review of defence and foreign policy. There can be no doubt that the environment is safest when it is in the hands of a sensible Conservative Government. Rather than delivering hot air, this Government are delivering conservation.
Of special interest to Derbyshire Dales is what the Government are doing in relation to tree planting and peatland restoration. These are huge issues locally and should be so internationally. It is through the nature for climate fund and also with the creation of the Nature Recovery Network that we will see better policies and better things going forward. We will also get a more connected and richer wildlife habitat.
I welcome the fact that, in a 25-year environment plan, the Government will be introducing three new schemes, which are very well thought out and planned, to reward farmers and land managers for producing public goods. Such planning is non-existent on the Opposition Benches. These schemes are most welcome and will be adapted, I am sure, to suit all of our farmers, including my upland farmers in Derbyshire Dales.
In the months since my election, I have been delighted to meet and work with organisations locally that care deeply about this—they are committed to the environment in Derbyshire Dales—such as Moors for the Future partnership, which is leading the country in this area, and the Minister knows full well about its work. This work is vital and it is the Conservative Government who are supporting it. Free of the shackles of Europe, we can focus on what we can do on our part of this precious planet.
I have visited many farmers in my constituency. They are a quiet and rugged people. They do not need to be attacked; they need to be supported. They live and work in a day-to-day partnership with nature, and this Government are doing that. I know just how much all the people of Derbyshire Dales care about the environment. I recently met with the Wirksworth Anglican church and other churches in the Wellspring group, which care passionately about the environment. Whatever people’s politics, if they care about the environment, I will work with them and get this Government to continue their good work on the environment.
With new technology and industry, under this Conservative Government we will be leading the way for not just a greener UK but a greener world. Derbyshire County Council, ably led by Councillor Barry Lewis and his newly elected Conservative colleagues, is at the forefront of plans to try to introduce a fleet of zero-emission hydrogen buses, supported by smart mobility hubs. These are huge advances being made by Conservatives working together across the whole nation. There is also the county council’s new £2 million green entrepreneurs fund, which will support small and medium-sized businesses. In terms of the emphasis on local authorities, Derbyshire Dales District Council, led by Councillor Garry Purdy and his hard-working councillor Sue Hobson as deputy, works tirelessly on environmental issues, promoting things as small as wild flowers and trees, which are hugely significant.
In conclusion, the people of Derbyshire Dales, the farmers who till this land and care for their livestock and the people who live on our moors and our uplands are in touch with the environment; they need support and help, and this Government are giving it. While they need no prompting to look after that landscape, the provisions in the Bill will make their job a lot easier. This is a Government who are actually delivering.
Bob Seely
I will speak briefly in favour of four amendments. First, I pay tribute to the Minister for her hard work in seeing the Bill through and the fact that, even now, she is determined to try to improve it by adding new clauses, showing diligence on her and her team’s part, which we all welcome. I especially welcome the action on sewage. We had problems in Ryde and Sandown recently with sewage coming from Southern Water, so such action is welcome on the Isle of Wight, and I congratulate Surfers Against Sewage and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) on his great work, as well as the Minister on supporting it.
Of the four amendments I will refer to, one is tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), one by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and two by me. They are probing amendments, seeking reassurance. If the Minister thinks that the work is in the Bill, that is good enough for me, but I would like to put these ideas forward to ensure that they are.
On amendment 41, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke amendment, I find it absolutely bizarre that character is not a prerequisite for major planning applications—I am not talking about a bungalow extension or a patio but significant development. Criminal records, poor behaviour, threats to intimidate others and mass tree felling do not seem to be things that we can take into account.
We have a Mr John Cooper in the Isle of Wight who owns a caravan park in an area of outstanding natural beauty. He has recently cut down 50 oak trees to build a caravan park extension. If that planning permission comes forward, we cannot turn him down on his appalling behaviour. He has gone to ground since then, and it would be nice if he made a public statement to folk on the Isle of Wight on what he is up to. I thank Councillor Peter Spink for pointing this out. Character needs to be part of the planning process, because we know that there are some rogue developers. I know that this is about planning, but importantly, as I am sure the Minister would agree, it is also about environmental protection. The more layers and safeguards that we can put in to protect landscape, the better.
I will not go into new clause 16, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, because I know that she will speak to it soon very eloquently. In the remaining minute and a half, I would like to speak to my two amendments. New clause 27 would require tree preservation orders for all mature trees and protected landscapes. It is a no-brainer, unless the Minister says, “Actually, Bob, I think we’ve got this covered. We accept the argument, but our proposals go further,” and I will take that on trust.
New clause 26 is on SSSIs, which are very important. I have an SSSI on the Isle of Wight that is about to be concreted over because of a loophole in planning and environmental law. I have written to Ministers about this, and I am afraid to say that the responses have been a little perfunctory, to put it mildly. There is clearly a problem here, because there is a time limit under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which means that if someone has a caravan or temporary home on a SSSI and it is not taken away within a certain timeframe, they can effectively develop that SSSI. They may not be able to stick permanent homes on it, but they can stick 200 caravans on it and concrete over the entire SSSI. How on earth can that be right? I know the Minister is concerned about the environment, so if she thinks that is covered in the Bill, I take it on trust, but if not will she please take forward this new clause and incorporate it either here or in the other place? This is absolutely a useful provision that closes an important loophole where SSSIs are damaged recklessly by people who deliberately game the system. I thank her for listening.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on clauses relating to nature, biodiversity and conservation in this important Bill. Although some of them relate to devolved matters, as with most of the big challenges of this century the environment and nature do not respect borders and it is important that strong legislation is in place across these islands to reverse the decline of nature and protect native species and biodiversity.
The Social Democratic and Labour party has just undertaken a big consultation ahead of private Members’ legislation on biodiversity loss in Northern Ireland. We found significant support for stronger legislation to protect nature, including the need for short-term and long-term targets, cross-departmental responsibility and a co-ordinated response and approach across Britain and Northern Ireland.
The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, in particular Northern Ireland, with more than 11% of indigenous species at risk of extinction. This is the price being paid for a fairly obsessive approach to economic growth and expansion at all costs. To date, the UK and others have continuously and consistently missed targets in relation to biodiversity recovery, including any of the 20 Aichi targets agreed in 2010. Although this is by no means a failure of the UK Government alone, as one of the largest economies and a major contributor, directly and indirectly, through activities across the world, the UK must take seriously its leadership role, particularly in this year when it hosts the G7 and COP26. I welcome the commitment to conservation strategies in the Bill and believe that they can be strengthened by amendment 45, which seeks to avoid a repeat of the IT failures and to ensure that those targets are meaningful and met.
We are experiencing the impact of the decline and destruction of nature in the wellbeing of people around the world, from the destruction of the habitats of indigenous people and the emergence of climate refugees to, of course, the spread of disease. We are well beyond crisis point, and if that was not clear before the pandemic surely that has educated us all about the stark links between the destruction of nature and our lives. An intergovernmental report has warned that we are in the era of pandemics unless the destruction of the natural world is halted. Again, that has happened not by chance but through an obsessive pursuit of growth.
Among the most important provisions in this Bill are those that can force UK companies to look at their supply chains and ensure they are not supporting illegal deforestation in other countries. I particularly welcome amendments 26, 27, 36 and 37, which I have signed, which would strengthen and enforce provision against illegal deforestation. The UK is one of the biggest sources of finance linked to companies involved in deforestation and we cannot hide any longer behind the lack of transnational governance or the lack of enforcement or binding regulations in countries of operation; we cannot look the other way from activities done overseas to the economic benefit of companies here or to underpin consumption habits here. It is positive that global brands have urged the strengthening of that law, but it is important that the Government ensure that supply chains are transformed.
This is a very important Bill offering a big opportunity to strengthen legislation, but it needs to be improved by many of the amendments that have been tabled, including those I have mentioned.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. This place is admired for its rigorous scrutiny—the new clauses and amendments proposed by Members from across the House are no exception—and I believe the Government are genuinely listening to concerns. Further amendments have been made to the Bill since I served in the Public Bill Committee last year.
The changes being debated today are important to the residents of Truro and Falmouth, because Cornwall is on the frontline of the UK’s battle against climate change. With respect, I disagree with the shadow Minister, because in my opinion this is a landmark Bill. It is not the end of the story or even the beginning of it, but it is a landmark moment. It puts in place a world-leading framework for environmental improvement and governance, including legally binding targets and environmental improvement plans; an independent green watchdog which will help Parliament and more importantly, my constituents to hold the Government to account on their commitments; and measures to reverse the decline in nature at home and overseas and to tackle waste. Ministers know that this is part of an ongoing process and that we Back Benchers will continue to press further, harder and at pace.
On water quality, the extensive work and lobbying by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, have resulted in the Government’s commitment to publishing a plan by 2022 to reduce sewage discharges and to report to Parliament on progress, and to place a legal duty on water companies to publish data on storm overflow operations on an annual basis. The Bill also requires the Government to set a legally binding target for water quality. That will be particularly welcomed by Surfers Against Sewage, which is based in St Agnes in my constituency and campaigns tirelessly on this issue. I continue to press Government on its behalf and on behalf of everyone who, like me, regularly swims outdoors.
I praise the Government on new clause 21, which Ministers set out previously. It amends the Bill to set additional legally binding targets for species abundance for 2030 to halt the decline of nature. That could be the “net zero” for nature, finally addressing the biodiversity decline, and I am pleased that that target will go alongside other legally binding targets for waste, water quality and air quality.
I have concerns about how compatible this is with the forthcoming planning White Paper, and I wish to give an example of what can be achieved if the will is there. On the A30 between Chiverton and Carland Cross, in the midst of my constituency, Costain is delivering an 8.7-mile dual carriageway for Highways England. Journeys on this part of the road are regularly delayed and congestion often brings the traffic to a standstill, especially in peak holiday time, and as a result the Cornish economy is being held back. Following a recent visit to the project and a meeting with the team, it is evident to me that they are committed to protecting nature’s net gain. Biodiversity and conservation improvements are at the heart of the scheme. The project has a 10% biodiversity net gain target and is predicted to smash it. Developers take note: this is possible. Costain and its environment manager, Ali Thomas, are deeply committed to and passionate about protecting the environment. The landscape and ecological design proposals they have developed include planting nectar-rich wild flowers indigenous to Cornwall; tree and hedge planting, which will replace loss; crossings for otters, bats, badgers and other animals that will be built along the road; and a variety of foraging, nesting and roosting opportunities for other species. Other innovative measures are happening, but I do not have time to go into that this afternoon.
To conclude, with the G7 in Cornwall next month and COP26 in Glasgow later this year, we hope that this Environment Bill, which is a truly groundbreaking piece of legislation, will signal to the rest of the world that this Government and this country are serious about protecting our environment for the long term.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. The World Wide Fund for Nature’s “Living Planet Report 2020” showed an average 68% decline in mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish since 1970. That is heart- breaking. We are in a climate and ecological emergency, but, as we all know, with this Bill we have a real opportunity to change course. We could still restore biodiversity, increase wildlife numbers and protect nature. Sadly, the Labour amendments proposed in Committee were rejected and defeated by the Government. Those amendments concerned protecting and enhancing the powers of the OEP, World Health Organisation air pollution limits and comprehensive action on waste and recycling. The draft Bill was a missed opportunity. It has since been improved in some ways, but as colleagues and many environmental non-governmental organisations have highlighted, we have much further to go. The Government need to stop resisting concrete protections set down and start putting their money where their mouth is and protecting our environment.
Like other Members, I want to talk about deforestation. We need to remove deforestation and conversion from UK supply chains, and increase due diligence obligations. There are elements of due diligence in the Bill, but, according to the World Wildlife Fund, they do not go far enough to protect the world’s forests and other natural ecosystems, nor do they meet the UK’s goals on climate and nature. That is why I support amendments 26, 27, 36, 37 and 38, which would ensure that these due diligence measures covered deforestation and financial institutions, as well as being subject to a more progressive review requirement.
The Bill as it stands does not address the financing behind deforestation. Global Witness’s research points to evidence that suggests that financial institutions are failing to act on deforestation risks and will not be required to do so until bound by law; it is time that we did that. It is crucial that free, prior and informed consent is obtained from indigenous peoples and local communities, and that relevant local laws are complied with. It is also crucial that decisions affecting the natural environment, such as planning decisions, are informed by local nature recovery strategies.
On biodiversity, Labour is drawing a clear line through amendment 22, which would require habitats secured under biodiversity gain to be maintained in perpetuity, rather than the current 30 years specified in the Bill. It would also ensure that the habitat secured under biodiversity gain is secured “in its target condition”.
On trees, new clause 25 has my full support, as the Blaydon constituency has breathtaking woodlands and forests. The Government should publish a proper tree strategy for England. The current plan sets targets for tree planting, but has little else on protecting, maintaining and restoring existing woodlands. We need a full strategy that holds the Government to account and sets targets for such areas.
Amendment 46 would ensure that species conservation strategies contribute to nature recovery, and that the measures within them contribute to the enhancement of the conservation of species they concern. This could, for instance, ensure that effective strategies are put in place to restore the populations of bees and other pollinator species, and protect them from pesticide use.
On local government, the Bill’s aspirations could be undermined by the planning White Paper. Local authorities must be funded properly if they are to make the most of biodiversity gain in planning applications.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
It was an honour to serve on the Environment Bill Committee, as it is to speak today on Report. My thanks go to the Minister and all who have worked so hard on this landmark Bill.
The biodiversity amendments are particularly important to my constituency of Ynys Môn, with its incredible biodiversity supporting common and rarer species. The rare lesser-spotted yellow rock rose—the county flower of Ynys Môn—grows near my home, and at a visit to the National Trust Plas Newydd last week, I was lucky to see native red squirrels. Anglesey Sea Zoo offers an introduction to the secrets of the local marine world. When I joined a North Wales Wildlife Trust beach clean this month, I was horrified to find hundreds of plastic cotton bud shafts, tiny plastic nurdles, foreign plastic containers and bottles old enough to be labelled in shillings.
Last week, one of my young constituents, Wilfy, took me on a walk past Llyn Penrhyn to Ysgol y Tywyn as part of National Walk to School Week. He and his friends in Mrs Griffiths’s class spoke of their concerns about the impact of non-biodegradable waste on their natural environment. We all do our bit for the island. Next Tuesday, I am running my own beach clean as part of Spring Clean Cymru. Gerald Thomas and other farmers plant and maintain native species hedgerows, and sick and injured hedgehogs are restored to health by Sue Timperley at Hedgehuggles. Sue will be delighted to hear the Minister’s news on hedgehogs today.
We cannot achieve the biodiversity targets proposed in the Bill without global action. Non-biodegradable waste is a global problem, and it affects the symbiotic relationship of our natural environment. Both the UK and Welsh Governments have already banned the supply of some non-reusable plastics. Part 6 of the Bill covers England only, but I urge the Welsh Government to enact similar legislation on biodiversity targets as soon as possible.
This year, the UK holds the presidencies of both the G7 in Cornwall and COP26 in Glasgow, and I hope we will use this Conservative Government’s landmark Bill to lead the way on global action to make long-term improvements for habitats and biodiversity worldwide. If we achieve nothing else, let us give Wilfy and his class- mates on Anglesey a natural environment that improves as they get older, not one that continues to decline.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Every aspect of this Environment Bill will have an impact not only now, but for decades if not centuries, so I am pleased to see it return to the House because we cannot afford to wait. Inaction risks the lives of our children, grandchildren and future generations, and legislation on targets, plans and policies is essential to turn the tide. Yet, sadly, this Conservative Government have not shown the ambition needed, while pushing back responsibilities on legally binding targets for two decades and failing to put in place concrete protections for the environment from trade agreements. Given their current record for making promises and not delivering, forgive me if I am not surprised.
Sadly, my Slough constituents know the impact of the environment on their lives acutely. Slough has the second highest death rate from the deadly air pollutant PM2.5. While excellent work is being done at local level by Slough Borough Council, with its low emission strategy and air quality action plan, if nothing further is done at a macro level by Government, we will continue to breathe these dangerous levels of pollution. So can the Minister outline why the Tories voted down the Labour party’s attempts to write World Health Organisation air pollution limits into this Bill?
It seems as though Government rhetoric far outweighs action when it comes to the environment. This is epitomised by the England trees action plan, with targets being missed, staggeringly, by over 50%. This has a real impact because, being a densely populated urban area, Slough has the lowest level of tree canopy in Berkshire and is below the national minimum target of 20% tree cover. While the Labour council with its limited resources is planting 9,000 trees locally, again, more must be done nationally by providing adequate funding, direction and resources to local authorities. As the WWF rightly notes, this Bill does
“not go far enough to protect the world’s forests and other critical natural ecosystems.”
How can the Minister and the Government allow this to continue?
Sadly, this trend extends to biodiversity and species conservation, with very real consequences for my constituency and our planet. Another local project I recently visited, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, has seen this in Slough’s Salt Hill stream:
“Fish were dying. It was clogged up with old car tyres, carrier bags and household waste. Water quality had deteriorated and its future looked bleak.”
However, its incredible work with the community has meant improved water quality, new homes for wildlife, and engagement and education for local people, but it should never have got to this point. Why are the Government so slow to act to stop the ecological devastation brought about by the continual discharge of untreated sewage, plastics and other effluents into our rivers and oceans?
Nationally, over the past 10 years, wildlife in Britain has seen a 44% decline in species, with some charities calling it a “lost decade for nature”. Again, targets have been woefully missed. The Government conceded last year that they have failed on two thirds of targets agreed at the convention on biological diversity in 2010, but analysis by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds later showed that on six of those targets the UK has actually gone backwards. We must set ourselves ambitious targets and ensure accountability so that they are achieved. This is not the time for complacency, and we should be under no illusion: warm words will not tackle the pressing environmental and climate crises that we are facing as a society.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendment 41. It is a probing amendment, which aims to strengthen this important Bill further by including a provision to enable local planning authorities to take unlawful tree felling and a lack of compliance with restocking orders into account when considering planning applications. I thank my former researcher, Annabel Jones, for her work in making the case for change that I am presenting today.
I very much welcome the work that my hon. Friend the Minister has done to make sure that the Bill is the groundbreaking measure that is before us today. I also give my wholehearted support to new clauses 26 and 27, which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) tabled. He spoke eloquently about the need for that change.
I want to focus my remarks on the provisions about tree protection. The Government should be applauded for the trees action plan and the measures in the Bill, which have significantly strengthened protection for one of our vital pieces of green infrastructure. I particularly welcome schedule 15, which directly addresses some of the problems that my residents experienced when a group of landowners illegally felled more than 600 trees, causing environmental devastation in what was an environmental buffer zone. With the Government’s support, the Forestry Commission used its enforcement powers to issue restocking orders, but the landowners did not comply with much of that. Under the Government’s new proposals, enforcement would be much tougher and that is welcome. However, I look forward to the Minister’s response to my amendment to see if we could strengthen it further.
The problem is not unique to Basingstoke. The illegal felling of trees is on the increase and a common motive is taking advantage of the housing development value of the land. In recent years, there have been countless flagrant breaches of felling regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight mentioned a case in his constituency, but there are other cases—in the New Forest, Swansea, Horley and Langley—where trees have been unlawfully felled and in some cases not replanted, even after enforcement action from the courts.
Landowners flout the law because they think can get away with it. Schedule 15 roundly deals with cynical actions by landowners by allowing the courts to reissue planning notices, but amendment 41 is designed to create even more of a disincentive for landowners to flout the law by amending the Town and Country Planning Act to allow local planning authorities to take into account unlawful tree felling and a lack of compliance when considering planning applications. I hope that the Minister can consider that today because I and many of my constituents feel that it is inherently wrong for landowners to profit financially from their unlawful deforestation of land. I hope that this probing amendment will capture her attention and I am keen to hear her response.
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and I endorse her comments about amendment 41 and tree felling. I totally support what she hopes to achieve with her probing amendment. In an intervention on the Minister, I asked a similar question and the Minister kindly gave a commitment, so perhaps the right hon. Lady and others will be encouraged by the Minister’s response.
The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) talked about the importance of trees, not only here but across the world and mentioned amendments 26, 27, 36 and 37, which refer to deforestation around the world, and the importance of playing our part in tackling it. I also endorse that.
I want to speak about parts 6 and 7 of the Bill on tree planting. They tackle a particular issue of many trees being felled and the land built over without proper licensing or adhering to permissions. Amendment 41 provides for local planning authorities to take unlawful tree felling and landowners’ lack of compliance with restocking and enforcement orders into account when considering planning applications. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke referred to the removal of 600 trees, some of them important trees. I would like to know and have on record whether the Minister believes that the Bill addresses that issue robustly.
Trees are our lungs, so it is imperative that, any time a tree is felled, it is thought out and the consequences considered, and that steps are taken to replant the trees that have been chopped down. On the family farm we have been able to plant some 3,500 saplings, which is a commitment we have given, and they have grown into trees. It is a beautiful spot on the farm but, importantly, it has also helped our environment by reducing CO2 and creating wonderful habitats for local wildlife.
I believe that more can be done to encourage landowners to plant trees. The Minister in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has committed himself and his Department to plant 1 million trees on Northern Ireland Water land.
I commend the recent publication of the “England Trees Action Plan”, which contains some important initiatives. It is believed that the Government could do more tree-themed activity on a statutory footing, to fill in the gaps left by the ETAP on protection, restoration and regeneration.
I fully support the comments made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) about the value and importance to the rural countryside of game shooting and the jobs and tourism it creates.
I understand the rationale behind the strategy for conservation, but it does not include help for tree planting. I believe the Minister is committed to tree planting, but perhaps she will comment on that in the wind up.
I endorse the shadow Minister’s comments on the importance of bees to creating the correct balance of habitats in the countryside, and the importance of ensuring the Minister takes that on board. I also endorse and commend the Government, and the Minister in particular, for their commitment to the preservation of hedgehogs. I read in a magazine the other day that badgers are one of the greatest predators of hedgehogs, so perhaps we can protect the hedgehogs by controlling the badgers.
Theresa Villiers
As I have said before in this Chamber, there can be few things more important for any Member of Parliament than being able to say, “We played our part in protecting our natural environment for future generations.” This Bill contains one of the most ambitious programmes to conserve and enhance nature ever undertaken in this country. That includes, as we have heard today: setting a demanding 2030 target for species conservation and biodiversity; delivering a nature recovery network and local strategies for nature; creating a whole new income stream for conservation through biodiversity net gain; committing land to nature for the long term using conservation covenants; and cracking down on the use of commodities produced via illegal deforestation.
The Bill is just one element of an even wider conservation package being taken forward by this Conservative Government, including replacing the common agricultural policy with environmental land management schemes, a massive uplift in tree planting and an action plan to protect our peatlands. Peatland areas are an iconic part of our landscape in these islands, and they are our largest terrestrial carbon store, they are a haven for rare wildlife and they provide a crucial record of our past. I warmly welcome the Government’s promise that they will take action to reverse the loss of peatland habitats and restore more of these landscapes to their natural state. I very much hope that will include delivery of the great north bog project.
New clause 16 would require planning permission to be refused if it would have a detrimental impact on nature conservation. I am afraid that much of the good work done under this Bill could be undone if radical changes to the planning system mean that we concrete over our green and pleasant land. Implementing the “Planning for the Future” White Paper would mean a massive centralisation of power through setting development management policies nationally rather than locally. Compliance with design codes could become sufficient to override long-standing principles restricting density, massing and bulk, and local democratic input would be removed altogether in zones designated for growth.
Bob Seely
I am so grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. It concerns us that there is potentially a dichotomy between these fantastically good ideas on the environment and the fact that we may undermine ourselves by having the wrong culture behind the new planning Bill.
Theresa Villiers
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. This is a great Bill and we do not want it undermined by the planning Bill that is to come. My constituency of Chipping Barnet already feels under siege from inappropriate, high-density development, even before these radical planning reforms come into force. If the Government are truly committed to the environmental aspirations of the legislation before us this afternoon, they must think again about their planning Bill, and I urge them to do that.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Hon. Members will be pleased to know that the children of Our Lady of Victories Primary School in Putney have been writing to me about the issue under debate this afternoon. Thirty members of year 6 wrote to me with lovely pictures all about the environment, and most of them said that the most important issue to them was the environment and tackling climate change, so I know the eyes of those children and children across the country are on us this afternoon as we debate this.
I was on the Environment Bill Committee last November. We spent a long time discussing it line by line, with many, many amendments, and this is the third time that I have debated the Bill in the Chamber. I am very glad that it is back. It is not missing in action—it is here today—but I am disappointed because it could have gone further. Despite all our work poring over the Bill and all the evidence submitted by civil society groups, we see a Bill before us that will still fail to tackle the climate and ecological emergency. I am worried that it is just warm words without the back-up of a really strong Office for Environmental Protection, whose remit and powers have been watered down since the Bill was last before the House.
I will focus today particularly on trees. It is welcome that the Government have announced, in the past week, the England trees action plan, but we now need strong wording and a much more ambitious plan in this legislation that will drive the action that is needed across Government, the economy and society. In Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, we love our trees and our green spaces and we know that, across the country, trees are essential for climate reduction, meeting that net zero target, biodiversity and our mental health. However, the UK has one of the lowest areas of tree coverage of any country in Europe. At current rates of planting, it will reach its own target only by 2091, as was pointed out earlier by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). That is 40 years off the target of 2050 and it is an example of where we can have a lot of warm words and keep talking things up, but if we do not have enforceable action by the Office for Environmental Protection, as there should be, we will be coming back here in one year, in five years or in 10 years’ time and we will not see the amount of tree planting that we need.
The action plan was originally promised as a 30-year vision for England’s trees and woods, but it has been published as a shortlist of commitments, with three years of funding. Long-term funding is needed for any real environmental action. Clear timescales are needed to ensure that objectives are met, and clarity on that funding beyond 2024 will be absolutely necessary to give the sector long-term security. I welcome the provision for consultation with local people about tree felling that will happen in their roads, and I think that will give people the power they need to stick up for their local trees, which will be very good. However, Ministry of Defence land should have been included in the Bill. We have power over so much of our swathes of land in this country and the armed forces have environmental targets and actions, so they would be able to put such provision into place. Why is MOD land not included, because we could have lots of tree planting? I share the concerns that other Members have expressed today that this Bill will be undermined by the planning Bill.
Despite the progress over the last week, there is an urgent need for a medium to long-term strategy with clear targets to ensure that we protect, restore and expand our woodlands and trees. New clause 25 sets out what targets these should consist of and I hope it will be supported by the House. It will go some way towards rescuing the Bill, as will the other amendments that I will be supporting today, along with my Labour colleagues, and I urge colleagues to support them to improve the Bill.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). I have sympathy with a lot of what she says about trees, but it is really important for the House to remember that it is also a matter of restoring marine conservation areas and wetlands. Many alternative habitats offer better ways of capturing carbon than simply planting new trees, so we must focus on the full range of habitats and not just on one aspect, however important trees are—and I will be talking later, if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, about deforestation.
For this section of the debate, I want to talk about why I tabled new clause 4. I welcome the Minister’s comments and I welcome the announcements from the past week. What the Secretary of State said last week is enormously important if we are to start to reverse the decline of species in this country. It is tragic: back in the 1950s, there were something like 30 million hedgehogs in this country. Now, there are estimated to be 1.5 million. That is a catastrophic loss. When I was a child, hedgehogs were around in the garden all the time. I have never, as an adult, seen a hedgehog in my garden or anywhere near it. This is a tragic loss and one we have to work to reverse.
There is a whole range of reasons why that has happened, including habitat loss and the loss of wildlife corridors. It is enormously important, in looking at planning policies, that we focus on how we ensure we maintain wildlife corridors. It is also about the protections available. As the Minister knows, I have had a lively debate with the Department over the weeks. I welcome the approach she has taken. I understand the shortcomings in the existing law, but the reality is that it is nonsense that the hedgehog, which has had a 95% decline in its numbers, is not protected, whereas species that are much less in danger and whose numbers are recovering are protected.
The existing law protects primarily against malicious action by human beings, but of course not all species that are endangered have faced malicious action from human beings. A hedgehog does not face that, particularly, but some other animals on the list, such as the lagoon sandworm, valuable though it may be, is not in my view facing direct malicious action from human beings either. It faces threats to its habitat, and so do hedgehogs. We have a situation today whereby if a developer is going to clear a bit of land for development, he or she has to do exhaustive work to establish if newts are present. Much as we love the great crested newt, which is a fine species, it is not actually endangered in this country. We have laws about it in this country because it is endangered elsewhere in the European Union—happily not in the United Kingdom—but there is no obligation to see if other species such as the hedgehog are present. Developers can just bulldoze a hedgerow without checking if there are hedgehogs asleep in it.
I would like to see a holistic approach to any new development, where it is necessary to do a broader assessment of the presence of species and take action accordingly to protect them, and not have a focus on one individual animal as opposed to another. We have too many species that have declined in numbers. We should be protecting them all. Of course, we will need to develop in the future to ensure we have homes available for people in this country, but that needs to be done in a careful way: protecting wildlife corridors, protecting numbers, and ensuring that the steps we take maximise the potential to retain, restore or develop habitats of our species.
I welcome very much what the Minister has said today about hedgehogs. I think everyone in this House will welcome any measures we can take to protect them. I pay particular tribute to the former MP for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, Oliver Colvile, who was the first champion of hedgehogs in this House. I hope we will all be hedgehog champions going forward. We shall be holding the Minister’s feet to the fire to make sure her Department delivers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We should be going by video link to Mike Amesbury, but we shall come back to him.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I can boldly say that Stroud is not only the best place to live according to a national newspaper, but it is the most environmentally focused constituency in the country. The letters I receive from young people are frequently about the environment. Importantly, while politics and the news are often focused on carbon targets, children lobby me about biodiversity and species. They are smart and we must listen to them. I look at my own baby daughter’s enthusiasm for small creatures and nature, and I wonder what will be left by the time she is growing up.
Nature is in decline; this is an issue globally. Despite the protections being put in place in the Bill, there is a stark decline in the UK too, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) set out in relation to hedgehogs. I campaigned with colleagues in the Conservative Environment Network to set a target in the Bill to halt species decline, as it matters to my constituents and my family. The Secretary of State listened, and the Bill will now include a legally binding target for species abundance by 2013. This is a genuinely world-leading measure that shows real commitment to our future generations, as it puts nature firmly as a priority across Government. It could be the net zero equivalent for nature, and we need that. As I know from knocking on thousands of doors over the years that even in places such as Gloucestershire there is still a lot to do to get people to understand what is needed to help the environment. Families are busy and stretched, and sometimes do not think there is anything they can do to make change in their daily lives. I therefore applaud the fact that in such a wide-reaching Bill there is a determination to include a local effort.
In Gloucestershire our Local Nature Partnership is already well advanced. I give credit to the board led by Doug and Matt. The LNP has developed a national exemplar approach to nature capital mapping, which will enable us locally to measure performance in future and identify opportunities for environmental investment locally. We have discovered that Stroud has a tree coverage of 11% and we want to get to a target of 20%. This is all alongside an LNP commitment to create scale-led woodland and to extensive tree planting to sequester carbon while providing many other benefits for wildlife and our wellbeing. I also give credit to groups such as Transition Stroud and our fantastic climate action nature groups throughout the district. I have spoken to the Minister before about these community groups, who are dedicated to action on climate change. These local teams will soon have legislation that is as ambitious for the planet as they are.
I cannot be on my feet without talking about my expert conservation friends at Slimbridge Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust. I am supporting them in their proposals to create 100,000 hectares of wetland to address the climate, nature and wellbeing crisis. A blue recovery would achieve habitat creation to assist the Government’s goals in this Bill and also in the 25-year environment plan. Of course, 2020 was a tough year, but in the WWT we still saw some species bred for the first time on-site, including kingfishers and a number of butterflies such as the brown hairstreak. WWT received £1.6 million from the Government’s green recovery challenge fund to help safeguard the south-west Somerset coast against the effects of climate change, and we are restoring 130 hectares of habitat for wildlife. I should also mention that the skilled Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust received £250,000 to rebuild landscapes for nature’s recovery in our beautiful county.
I am concerned that we need more information to set out how our biodiversity targets are being met. We need to make sure that farms are being supported to help their work on their land. I also share colleagues’ concerns about the planning issues and whether that will undermine efforts. However, I thank the Minister and the Government for this Bill. I do think it is positive and I encourage everybody to get behind this work.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
Obviously my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) will be supporting this Bill. It does not go as far or as fast as perhaps we would all wish, but it is what is before us, and given the scale, nature and urgency of the crisis we are facing, it deserves our support.
Even though this Bill is primarily English and Welsh, we will be supporting it, and there are two good reasons for that. First, it is a global issue that this Bill and indeed other aspects of policy are seeking to address. Climate change and the actions that are damaging our biodiversity everywhere across the planet transcend all national borders and all national boundaries. It may be tragic and sadly ironic that many who have contributed the least will suffer the worst, but the fact is that all of us will be harmed and all of us are required to act. Secondly, there are issues that Scotland can learn from. Although a legislative consent motion has been given by the Scottish Government to move on some matters, there are issues that the Scottish Government themselves could do with picking up on, and I will refer to those if I have time.
We support the amendments, particularly amendments 26, 27, 36 and 37, because we have to seek to expose those who are taking actions to fund and fuel this crisis, especially those who are based domestically. We are a global village. What we do in this country does affect other places. Our carbon footprint is reducing, although we have to do much, much more. We can never forget that it was in this country that industrialisation took off and that it contributed greatly to the problems we face today. That is why there is a great deal of legitimacy in the calls from the undeveloped or developing world for this country and other developed nations to go further and faster, rather than simply looking at them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The time limit is now reduced to three minutes. I call Flick Drummond.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I know the Bill is welcomed by many people in Meon Valley. It will help to secure the health of our environment and biodiversity. I am in touch with local organisations such as Hampshire CPRE and Winchester Action on Climate Change, as well as our farmers, local councils and community groups, who have all sent in their views to me as the Bill has evolved. There is support for our work across society. It is an important part of levelling up that contributes to the future of us all. The action on peatlands taken under the Bill will protect about 10% of our land area and is very welcome, as is our commitment to tree planting.
In Meon Valley, the health of our chalk down land is of primary importance to agriculture and the environment. While we are encouraging farmers to plant more trees and hedges, it is important—especially for small farmers—that we support the productivity and health of pasture land through soil improvement and restoration. The Bill sets the framework for the development and introduction of targets, and I am pleased to see the environmental improvement plan mentions soil health and makes a commitment to achieve sustainable soil management by 2030. As I mentioned in a previous debate, 80% of our soil is dead, so I am particularly interested in how we can promote soil health, which is vital to farm productivity and nature recovery generally. We have cut right back on pollutants we put into the ground, but there remains more we can do to promote healthy soil.
We must ensure that there is a plan for all five of the identified soil types to promote better health and recovery. Pasture land is a key component of this and is vital to farmers across Meon Valley, with many finding that soil can be regenerated through improved carbon capture, water infiltration, soil fertility and nutrient cycling. They see an increase in biodiversity, and we need to support them. In addition, healthier pasture lands lead to lower fertiliser and pesticide use, which can in turn benefit the health of our rivers.
I welcome the clauses on water abstraction from rivers. I have two chalk stream rivers in my constituency: the River Meon and the start of the River Itchen. Chalk streams across the country are already in a shocking state of health. The WWF report says that only 12 out of England’s 224 chalk streams are protected, and of those, only 15% are classed as adequately protected and meeting conservation objectives. I am pleased that both rivers in my constituency are among the few protected, but better management of pasture land will reduce the need for pesticides and fertilisers that run off to pollute rivers. Through working alongside farmers and ensuring pasture land and soil health are valued alongside woodland and peatland, we can improve the health of our rivers and our environment. There is a lot to welcome in this Bill, and I know that it is just the start to making our environment better for everyone.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
My constituency is home to beautiful countryside and woodlands, with picturesque walks that even Downing Street advisers and Select Committee witnesses have been known to enjoy. The bluebells in Houghall woods are particularly beautiful in April.
Whether it is water quality, habitat conservation or air quality, I receive hundreds of emails from constituents on environmental issues. In Durham, we are proud of the natural beauty of our county. We want to protect and cherish it. Out of all the emails I have received on the Environment Bill, every single one without fail argues that it simply does not go far enough. So far, this Bill is largely full of half-measures and token gestures. Like me, my constituents cannot understand why the Government opposed our amendments on improving air quality and limiting the use of bee-killing pesticides when the Bill was last debated. No doubt we will be similarly frustrated if the Government vote down our common-sense amendments today.
The Government need to face the reality of our current situation. We are in a climate and ecological emergency, the effects of which are already being seen in the UK and across the world. We need firm and decisive action. Whether it is the social and economic recovery from the covid-19 pandemic or agricultural regulations, every decision the Government make should consider the environmental impact and how we can best restore this planet.
It is widely accepted that, when it comes to tackling the climate emergency, we cannot go far enough or fast enough, yet everything the Government do lacks the seriousness and urgency that the situation demands. The WWF has said that
“the Bill does not achieve what has been promised: gold standard legislation, showing global leadership”.
Of course, we need an environmental Bill, but we need one that has teeth.
There is nothing in the Bill to ban fracking. The world’s oceans are being disregarded while environmental protections under the European Union framework have been replaced with flexible targets that could weaken the environmental standards we have been so proud of for so long. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Government are avoiding committing to iron-clad environmental protections in case they need to sell out British standards in future trade deals.
To finish, I cannot help but agree with my constituents’ belief that the Bill remains a missed opportunity. As the newest supporter of the climate and ecological emergency Bill, I urge the Government to introduce legislation that treats the climate emergency with the gravity it requires and to launch a green industrial revolution that places the environment at the heart of our economy and society.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) [V]
The climate and ecological crises are the gravest threats we face, and no one, in no part of their lives or those of their children, is immune from the challenges we face due to climate. Despite being decades in the making, we no longer have decades to solve or tackle the challenges ahead of us.
The 2020s must be the decade for decisive and bold action. For the UK to be a global climate leader, the steps we take here at home must align with climate commitments overseas and vice versa. We must work collaboratively with our international partners and support developing nations. There must be mutual reinforcing and climate must be a thread that weaves through all parts of government. If done correctly, this can act as a catalyst for real advancement in health, wellbeing, security and prosperity at home and overseas. It can both free us and equip us with the tools we need now and in the future to live better and healthier lives.
However, in the year when the UK hosts both the G7 and COP26, we are far from reaching the necessary action we need. We are failing to meet 17 out of 20 UN biodiversity targets. We are one of the most depleted countries in the world. Wildlife in Britain has been seriously threatened over the past decade. Half our species are in decline and one in seven native British species are at risk of extinction. We have seen flooding increase in recent years, up by more than a quarter across the UK compared with previous decades. We know that, like health, the impact of climate breakdown is disproportionately felt by those who have contributed to it the least, but rather than put us on a path to net zero by 2050 and build the solutions we need now to protect the environment, delay, indecision, short-termism, arrogance and recklessness are all on display from this Government. This will aggravate and deepen the challenges, which will impact future generations.
This is the fourth time I have spoken on the Environment Bill. The purpose is to debate and improve, not to debate and stonewall. We need—and future generations deserve—a piece of legislation that is up to scratch to meet our objectives and that acts as a launch pad for reforms and progress for the era that must come next, so that we can get the job done, not only to protect but to strengthen and advance our environment.
In Wales, we see Labour showing how it is done, with a Welsh Government forestry industrial recovery scheme, an effective ban on fracking and the restoration of our peat bogs with a national peatlands action programme. We need bigger, bolder action to address this climate and ecological emergency right now.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), is a diligent and well-respected Member of Parliament, and we have worked together on many issues in the past. Indeed, we have worked so well together that I have often felt he might be more comfortable on this side of the House. However, earlier today, he described the Bill as a “meh” Bill. I have been going through the Bill, and I would like to draw all Members’ attention to what this “meh” Bill actually delivers.
The Bill delivers targets for air quality, biodiversity, water, waste reduction and resource efficiency. It introduces an environmental improvement plan. It introduces environmental principles embedded in our domestic policy making. It creates an Office for Environmental Protection. It ensures that, under all new Bills containing environmental law, statements must be laid before Parliament on how they will maintain environmental standards. It ensures that the Government must conduct a review every two years of significant and effective international environmental legislation to ensure that we are leading the way internationally on the environment. It extends producer responsibility to make producers pay 100% of the cost of disposable products. It creates powers to introduce new resource efficiency standards for products to ensure better durability and recyclability. And I could go on, and on.
This is not a “meh” Bill. This is a transformative, world-leading, exciting, ambitious Bill that is delivering not just for the British people but on our duty to future generations and indeed, this planet. I represent a Scottish constituency, and the only thing I regret is that quite a lot of the provisions in the Bill will not affect my constituents. I can only hope that the Scottish Government go as far and as fast as this Government are proposing to do for the rest of the United Kingdom.
There is one area of the Bill that I think stands out above all others, and that is the introduction of powers allowing the Government to set out mandatory requirements on larger businesses that use agricultural commodities associated with wide-scale deforestation. Deforestation is one of the biggest threats to the health of this planet. Right now, one fifth of the Amazon rainforest is emitting more carbon dioxide than it absorbs. That is a terrifying statistic: 20% of that major rainforest, the lungs of the planet, is emitting more carbon dioxide than it is absorbing. Our proposals to ensure that we sustainably source all products that might be used in agriculture are essential in delivering on our commitment to cut down on illegal deforestation, which accounts for 95% of deforestation in the Amazon and other rainforests around the world.
This is a great Bill, and I know that, deep in his heart, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport welcomes it strongly.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I shall be seeking to press my amendment 29 to a vote.
I very much welcome this Environment Bill and many of the provisions that it makes. All over the country, we are suffering from severe environmental decline and degradation, and the results are visible in every community. From the damage to our chalk streams to the decline in our native wildlife species, the evidence of the impact of modern life on our natural environment is irrefutable. Nobody can fail to understand the implications of this decline.
A year or so ago, I attended a fascinating talk by the Kingston Beekeepers Association, which really enhanced my understanding of the essential role that bees play in maintaining the healthy plant life on which our human species depends, yet bees are among the species most threatened by modern industry, agriculture and housing development.
It is clear to everyone that much more needs to be done to strengthen powers at national and local level to prioritise the environment at every level of our decision making. As the decisions that have the most impact on our environment are made by our local authorities, especially around planning, it is vital that we enhance the powers that local government has to protect our environment.
I welcome the requirement in the Bill for every local authority to prepare a local nature recovery strategy to address the specific challenges in their own local environments. That will help to co-ordinate all local policy and decision making with an environmental impact by identifying and addressing the specific biodiversity challenges of individual areas. However, the Bill only requires local authorities to “have regard to” the LNRS. My amendment seeks to ensure that all local authorities must take the local nature recovery strategy into account when making decisions about planning or land use, as well as spending decisions.
We have seen successful trials of local nature recovery strategies in Buckinghamshire and other places. Buckinghamshire, in particular, is the site of many areas of vitally important woodland and chalk streams. We know that local people are deeply concerned about the degradation of those valuable natural assets and support the development of strategies that can combat environmental decline. It is essential that local authorities have the tools and powers that they need to be able to protect their communities.
I was fortunate enough to be able to visit Ham House, a National Trust owned property in my constituency, last Friday. The staff there talked me through the sustainable management of their grounds, including the adaptations that they have had to make to deal with climate change. The National Trust, as part of Greener UK, a coalition of environmental charities, supports my amendment. Like me, it recognises that the value of LNRSs can be realised only if they are properly applied to all aspects of decision making.
This Government have a record of delaying decisive action in the face of a looming crisis. They have an opportunity with this Environment Bill to learn from their past mistakes and pursue a course of action that is equal to the size of the challenge. None the less, the Bill needs to be strengthened by my amendment if it is to make the difference that we need to see.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney).
The events of the past 12 months in particular have shown us the advantages of getting out and exploring nature on our doorstep. It is crucial, as we build back greener from the pandemic, that we take advantage of this opportunity to protect those green spaces and reflect on the world that we want to see for our children and their children.
I was very proud that this Government was elected on the strongest ever manifesto for the environment, and this Bill is critical to implementing that commitment. Central to this legislation is a commitment to leave the environment in a better state than when we found it. This is a world-leading measure that could be the net zero equivalent for nature. It is critical in our action to address biodiversity decline.
I am particularly pleased to see the commitment to tree planting in the Bill. I also welcome the introduction of local nature recovery strategies, which will allow us to map local assets and identify areas suitable for recovery.
Our changing climate is becoming associated with more extreme weather, higher risks of drought and an increase in flooding, which affected so many of the homes in my constituency in Sankey Bridges, in Heatley, and in Dallam and Bewsey during Storm Christoph in January. The Minister was incredibly supportive and helpful during that time. Many local residents, though, are still not back in their homes, and are unlikely to be so anytime soon. Will my hon. Friend look at what more she could do to support those residents and Warrington Borough Council? I am very pleased that the Bill introduces additional requirements on water companies, enabling more resilient solutions.
Many of the environmental issues that we face have distinct local elements, and responding to challenges at a local level, in Warrington, not only allows for bespoke and more appropriate responses, but drives the potential for innovation. I want to mention air quality briefly. Warrington has historically had some of the worst air quality in the north-west of England, because of its location surrounded by motorways with high levels of congestion, and historically because of the location of a coal-fired power station at Fiddler’s Ferry. Now that has closed, and the air quality is already improving. My question to the Minister is, how can we leverage the Government’s nature target and commitment to improve air quality, not only in Warrington but across the UK, and given our presidency of COP, set out an ambition for a global improvement too? Finally, I welcome the work being undertaken by the Cheshire Wildlife Trust to protect some of our most vulnerable habitats locally, particularly through its peat free campaign.
The Bill will manage the impact of human activity on the environment. It creates a more sustainable and resilient economy and, critically, it engages our constituents and local government to improve environmental outcomes. I very much look forward to supporting it.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I want to speak to new clause 25, amendment 46 and amendment 22, which would cement in legislation forward-looking protections for trees, deforestation, species conservation and biodiversity gain.
We are in a climate and ecological emergency. Many of my Luton South constituents have contacted me deeply concerned about nature and biodiversity in the UK and across the world. The Bill was an opportunity to embed ambitious environmental protections in law and to kick-start a nature recovery ahead of COP26 and the convention on biological diversity, COP15.
The state of nature is very alarming. Wildlife in Britain is in freefall, with 44% of species in decline over the last 10 years. One in seven native British species are now at risk of extinction. UK tree planting targets were missed by over 50% in 2019-20, and across the world the World Wide Fund for Nature’s “Living Planet Report 2020” found that there had been an average 68% decline in the populations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish since 1970.
So instead of a radical plan that shows global leadership in addressing the climate and nature crisis, the Government’s Bill dramatically falls short of what is needed. As the Environmental Audit Committee stated, the draft Bill
“is a missed opportunity for taking a holistic approach to environment and climate change, placing them at the heart of Government policy.”
I believe that the Government are resisting concrete, ambitious protections, so that our environment can be used as a bargaining chip that would undercut Britain’s environmental standards.
I hope that the Government will support the Opposition’s amendments that seek to enhance the protections in the Bill. We need the Government to publish a tree strategy for England, coupled with clear targets that would drastically increase woodland coverage, to protect and maintain new and restored existing woodlands. New clause 25 would ensure that the Government’s tree strategy was transparent about the protection, restoration and expansion of trees and woodland. As the planting of trees is a local issue as much as a global issue, will the Minister commit to ring-fencing a significant proportion of tree-planting grants of the £640 million Nature for Climate fund for local authorities, so that they can plant trees at scale and play their part in tackling the global crisis?
We also need the species conservation strategies to contribute to nature’s recovery. Amendment 46 would help deliver that, and could ensure that effective strategies are put in place to restore bees and other pollinator species and protect them from harmful pesticides. Amendment 22 would require the Government to commit to maintaining habitats that are secured under biodiversity gain in perpetuity, rather than the 30 years currently specified in the Bill. These amendments would embed sustained, forward-looking action in law to begin to reverse species decline and loss of species, and set nature on a path to recovery.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s closing remarks.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a real privilege to once again speak in this place to express my support for the Environment Bill. It was fantastic to have the opportunity to serve on the Bill Committee and to see all the hard work that has gone into this piece of legislation. I repeat my for all the work that she has done in bringing forward this Bill.
All of us in this House will agree that the environment is precious, and I care deeply about protecting and enhancing it for future generations. As the Minister will be well aware from my interactions with her, from lobbying to stop the development of the Aire valley incinerator to the recent granting of bathing water status on the River Wharfe in my constituency, I and many of my constituents across Keighley and Ilkley care deeply about enhancing our environment. As I deliver this speech, two of my constituents, Patrick Godden and Jack Hanson, are completing a walk from Ilkley to Westminster to raise awareness and funds for the Ilkley clean river campaign, a group that has campaigned hard to improve water quality in the River Wharfe. Measures in the Bill such as the statutory duty on water companies to develop sewage management plans and the changes to the water companies licensing process will ensure that the River Wharfe and many other rivers up and down the country have better water quality and biodiversity and enhanced aquatic ecosystems, and I wholly wholeheartedly approve of that.
I am delighted that this Government are following other countries in introducing conservation covenants. The Government have acknowledged the important role landowners can play in conservation efforts. The current system makes it difficult for legal obligations on environmental protection to stay in place once land is sold or passed on, and conservation covenants will help. These long-term commitments will ensure positive opportunities for conservation are not missed, and the conservation covenants will introduce obligations to improve conservation as long as public good will is there and will help restore the natural qualities of our land.
There are other great measures in this Bill, such as local nature recovery strategies; the Government have recognised that local nature recovery must start at the local level, and that will make a huge difference locally. I would briefly like to mention my support for amendment 41 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), a probing amendment which seeks to include a provision for local planning authorities to be able to take unlawful tree felling and lack of compliance with restocking and enforcement orders by landowners into account when considering planning obligations.
We have an obligation to ensure that the next generation inherits a healthier planet and the Environment Bill goes a long way to achieving that.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the opportunity to speak once again on this important piece of legislation and am thankful to the many constituents who have urged me to support the strongest possible protections for our natural world, as well as Cheshire Wildlife Trust, which is such a powerful and passionate advocate for nature across the Wirral and Cheshire.
The UK is in the midst of an intense biodiversity crisis. In just 50 years, 41% of all species have declined, with 15% brought to the brink of extinction. Most worryingly of all, bees, which play such an important role by pollinating 70% of all the crops we eat, are under existential threat; since 1900, 13 species have been lost with another 35 at risk.
Time and again the Prime Minister has promised bold and decisive action to tackle the existential threat of biodiversity loss and ecological crisis, but, as is so often the case with this Government, the reality fails to match the rhetoric: not only does this Bill fail to bring forward the measures that are badly needed to halt ecological collapse, but it does not even maintain the comprehensive environmental protections that we had as a member of the European Union. I am therefore very grateful to the hon. Members who have tabled important amendments to this Bill, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones).
I was especially glad to add my name to new clause 25, which would commit the Government to publishing a national tree strategy for England. England is one of the least wooded countries in the western world, with just 13% of all land covered by woodland compared with an average of 44% in mainland Europe. Increasing woodland has a vital role to play in tackling climate breakdown and promoting biodiversity, but fewer than 50% of the annual tree planting targets were met in 2020. That is simply not good enough.
I also urge Members to join me in supporting new clause 24, which would enshrine vital protections for our peatlands into law and introduce a comprehensive ban on the burning of heather on all upland peat. Peatland plays a vital role not only in promoting biodiversity but also as a natural carbon sink, yet the Government have failed to safeguard this precious natural resource. Some 80% of the UK’s 3 million hectares of peatland are chronically damaged, with around 60% enjoying no protection whatsoever.
Warm words simply are not good enough; today’s votes provide us with an opportunity to prove we say what we mean in tackling the biodiversity crisis, so I call on the Government to put their money where their mouth is and join me in supporting these and many other amendments tabled today.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
This is a landmark Bill, and I am hugely proud to support it. We quite rightly talk a great deal about climate change, net zero and the world-leading targets we are setting, but specifically what are we doing to protect nature and biodiversity? It is a headline we hear less about, and it needs to sit alongside our climate change agenda, because our duty to protect habitats and species is as important as our need to decarbonise. That is why I am delighted to back Government new clauses 21 and 22. Restoring nature and committing to a legally binding target on species abundance by 2030 must be at the forefront of our agenda. This builds on our commitment at the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature in September 2020, where we were one of the leading nations to commit to reversing biodiversity loss by 2030.
Through our recent Environmental Audit Committee work, it was shocking to learn that only 14% of our rivers are considered to be in good ecological condition. What must we be doing to our biodiversity in the protection of nature? In a developed country in the 21st century, we must do better, and now we will. We have to put a stop to 50 years of decline in nature’s rich habitats and pay heed to the Dasgupta review.
For instance, I am delighted to see that biodiversity net gain is to become a key component of the Town and Country Planning Act. This is very important in my constituency, and I call on my local council, North Norfolk District Council, to get ahead of the game. It should be employing ecologists on its planning team to lead in early design and planning, to ensure that biodiversity and nature recovery are incorporated in the heart of local planning and needs. As well as local and domestic issues, we have to lead on the world stage. The new clauses will ensure just that by aligning the commitments and international biodiversity targets that are to be negotiated in China later this year.
We know that it is people who have contributed to the destruction of nature, and it is people who will put it back together again. Nowhere is there a finer example of conservation in my constituency than the sterling work of the North Walsham and Dilham Canal Trust volunteers and the Old Canal Company. I recently visited them to see their restoration work and improvement of nature and biodiversity on the waterways that they have restored. It was quite breathtaking. It shows that these new clauses, if followed, will make a real difference to nature.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
We cannot continue to take nature for granted. This pandemic has highlighted the importance of nature for our physical and mental wellbeing. It has also exposed the inequalities that exist, as so many families do not have close and easy access to open green space. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world: 14 of 24 biodiversity indicators show long-term decline; 41 of the UK’s species have declined, with 15 at risk of extinction; and 0% of England’s waters are now classed as in good health, compared with 16% in 2016.
The Government have failed on nearly all the UK’s commitments on nature made in 2010. They have failed on the health of our rivers, lakes and streams. We must take every opportunity to address the UK’s ecological crisis without delay. We need a strategy for doubling nature. The Environment Bill is an opportunity to do just that, but it needs to be much stronger. As it stands, the duty to use local nature recovery strategies is much too weak. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to support amendment 29, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). This amendment would give teeth to the local nature recovery strategies, because it ensures that biodiversity will be embedded in all public authority decision making. Like climate action, biodiversity gains begin at home. Liberal Democrat councils across the country are fighting to do just that.
There are very simple things that can help. In Bath and North East Somerset, for example, we have introduced a strategy whereby we just do not mow grass verges in order to allow flowers and blooms to spread. Local authorities are best placed to understand the needs of their communities and landscapes, and we must give them the powers and resources they need to help the UK to tackle its nature emergency.
Rebecca Pow
I thank all hon. Members who have tabled amendments. However, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), in his tirade at the beginning seemed totally unaware of just how many measures this Bill will introduce to look after and protect our environment, the countryside and nature. It truly is a landmark Bill. I will give him some quotes from environmental non-governmental organisations just last week: Greener UK said this was a “watershed moment for nature”; the RSPB applauded us for taking this “ambitious step”; and Countryside Link called this
“a tremendously important milestone toward world-leading environmental law”.
I think the shadow Secretary of State has been under a stone like some rare species. I would like to drag him out into the light so that he is able to appreciate what we are doing, like so many colleagues here today who have all grasped it, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), for Warrington South (Andy Carter), for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) and for Keighley (Robbie Moore).
I do not have much time, but I am going to touch on as many points raised in this debate as I can. I ask Members please to come and see me if I have not managed to address their points. I turn first to amendment 22, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). Setting a minimum duration in law would deter developers and other landowners from offering land for habitats. Furthermore, this amendment would risk creating permanent obligations to maintain particular types of habitat that may not be resilient to future ecological or climate changes.
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) for applauding our nature target, and totally agree that international action is imperative so that we show that we are leading the way, particularly with the CBD.
I turn to new clause 16. I can reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) that the Environment Bill lays the foundations for environmental protection that will be supported by the Planning Bill. Our planning for the future White Paper reiterates our strong commitment to biodiversity net gain. I also reassure her that in line with our manifesto commitment, existing policy for greenbelt protection will remain.
Amendment 29 would risk limiting the decision-making direction of public authorities with regard to local nature recovery strategies. It would be unreasonable for national bodies such as Network Rail or Highways England to be required to comply with many strategies. In fact, this amendment could, perversely, result in lower environmental ambition.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) rightly brings the issue of illegal tree felling into this debate through amendment 41. The Bill does provide a deterrent to the illegal felling of trees by introducing unlimited fines and making tree restocking orders a local land charge. It will close a loophole raised by so many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely).
I turn to the tree strategy in particular and new clause 25. I am pleased to report to the House, as I have already mentioned a number of times, that we launched our trees action plan just last week, and that renders this new clause completely unnecessary.
Let us turn now to hedgehogs, of course. I keenly support the intention of new clause 4, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). Although I cannot accept the amendment, I hope that he is reassured by the commitments I made earlier. I fully reiterate his comments about the importance of habitats. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke) also rightly raised the issue of hedgehogs.
New clause 2 would significantly reduce existing protections and remove the duty on decision makers to reject plans or projects that could harm protected sites.
I must touch on the due diligence clause mentioned by so many people, including the hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). The Environment Bill will benefit nature not just abroad, but internationally.
On amendments 26 and 27, I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—happy birthday, by the way—that deforestation must be tackled if we are to achieve our climate and biodiversity targets, and legality is at the heart of our requirements.
In conclusion, new clauses 21 and 22 introduce powers that will restore protected sites to good condition and they are critical for the Government. This Government are clear about their commitments on the environment, and I hope I have been able to assuage the concerns of all Members who have tabled amendments today.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 21 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 19—Labelling scheme for the environmental sustainability of food—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a scheme requiring food manufacturers to label foods offered for sale in the United Kingdom to indicate the environmental sustainability of their origins.
(2) That scheme must make provision for a kitemark indicating the environmentally sustainable origins of a food.
(3) The kitemark may be applied to:—
(a) raw food commodities,
(b) processed food products, and
(c) the ingredients of processed food products.
(4) The definition of ‘environmentally sustainable origins’ under the scheme must incorporate an assessment of whether the agricultural or manufacturing processes involved in the production of a food—
(a) protect the habitats of species listed internationally as endangered,
(b) avoid biodiversity loss,
(c) avoid deforestation, and
(d) avoid significant increases in net carbon emissions.
(5) The scheme may make provision for—
(a) enforcement, and
(b) civil sanctions in relation to labelling and use of the kitemark.
(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.
(7) Before making regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the Welsh Ministers, and
(c) the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.
(8) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft statutory instrument containing the proposed scheme before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”
New clause 24—Prohibition on burning of peat in upland areas—
“(1) A person must not burn specified vegetation on land in England which is within an upland area on peat.
(2) In this section—
‘specified vegetation’ means heather, rough grass, bracken, gorse or vaccinium, and
‘upland area’ means all the land shown coloured pink on the map marked as ‘Map of Upland Area in England’ held by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs but does not include the land coloured pink in the Isles of Scilly(a).”
The new clause extends the coverage of the peat burning ban from the 142,000 ha of upland peat currently covered to the full 355,000 ha of upland peat in England.
New clause 28—Labelling scheme for the informed purchase of environmentally sustainable food—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a scheme requiring food manufacturers to label foods offered for sale in the United Kingdom to indicate the environmental sustainability of their origins.
(2) The scheme in subsection (1) must make provision for a kitemark indicating the environmentally sustainable origins of a food.
(3) The kitemark may be applied to—
(a) raw food commodities,
(b) processed food products, and
(c) the ingredients of processed food products.
(4) Food labelling under the scheme must include a declaration about food miles, which is defined as the distance travelled from the country, or in the case of domestically produced food the region, of origin.
(5) The declaration in subsection (4) must be given in words and numbers, but may also be presented using graphical forms or symbols provided that the graphical forms or symbols meet the following requirements—
(a) they are based on scientifically valid consumer research and do not mislead the consumer as referred to in Article 7 of the retained Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council as amended in the Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019;
(b) their development is the result of consultation with a wide range of stakeholder groups;
(c) they aim to facilitate consumer understanding of the contribution or importance of the environmental impact of the food;
(d) they are supported by scientifically valid evidence showing that such forms of presentation are understood by the average consumer;
(e) they are objective and non-discriminatory; and
(f) their application does not create obstacles to the free movement of goods.
(6) The scheme may recommend to food business operators the use of one or more additional forms of presentation of the environmental indications that they consider as best fulfilling the requirements laid down in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (5).
(7) The scheme may make provision for—
(a) enforcement, and
(b) civil sanctions in relation to labelling and use of the kitemark.
(8) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.
(9) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft statutory instrument containing the proposed scheme before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”
New clause 29—Review of public health effects—
“(1) The Secretary of State must review the public health effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on air pollutant levels across the UK,
(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on different socioeconomic groups and population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the 2010 Equality Act,
(c) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy in the UK, and
(d) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.”
Before I call the shadow Minister, I should say that there will be a four-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions.
Ruth Jones
New clauses 12 and 24 were tabled in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon)—all members of the shadow DEFRA team—and with the support of colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West); my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott); my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), for Eltham (Clive Efford), for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for Neath (Christina Rees), for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield); and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). That is to name but a few.
I give a massive vote of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) for his work on the early stages of the Bill and for all his work to challenge the outdated and unambitious approach of this Government to the future of our planet.
Here we are, back in the House and back discussing the Environment Bill and, I hope, setting out a clear plan to preserve our environment and protect our planet. We are in the middle of a climate and ecological emergency. I know that the Minister knows it, and so do the people of this country, but this climate emergency is no surprise to any of us and did not start yesterday. That is why I remain disappointed that the Tories have voted against every single Labour amendment in Committee and on day 1 on Report. I fear they will do the same today—although, of course, I am happy for the Minister to prove me wrong.
Today has been a long time coming, and I know that many stakeholders, campaigners and people up and down England will be pleased that we are finally here discussing the Environment Bill and looking to make it fit for purpose. Many stakeholders and campaigners will want to see less party politics and more environmental politics in this debate and throughout the Bill’s remaining stages before it moves into the capable hands of our colleagues in the other place.
A person does not need to be a green-fingered disciple of Alan Titchmarsh or an animal-loving admirer of Sir David Attenborough to know that wildlife in Britain is on a downward spiral. We are in a period of crisis that demands real action, not empty words.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that she and her team do on these issues. Does she agree that the Minister would do well to look to Wales to see what a bold, ambitious and committed Labour Government can do to protect the environment and preserve our planet?
Ruth Jones
I do agree with my hon. Friend: Wales is leading the way and I urge the Minister to seek meetings with the First Minister of Wales and his Environment Minister Lesley Griffiths as soon as possible, so that lessons can be learned and rolled over to England.
As we heard in the previous debate, we have seen 44% of species decline over the past 10 years—and that was on the Minister’s and her party’s watch. Now that we have left the European Union, it is vital that we seek to maintain the highest of environmental standards. That is the approach that the shadow Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport—and my colleagues and I in the shadow DEFRA team have taken to this Bill, from Second Reading through to Committee and to today’s Report and remaining stages. We have proposed fair, balanced and necessary amendments, all of which were defeated by this Government. Not one of them was partisan, and not one of them was done to play games. All were done to make this Bill fit for purpose, and our new clauses 12 and 24 do just that. They are balanced and they are fair, and they reflect the will out there of those in communities across England who want an Environment Bill that will preserve our planet and protect our environment.
That brings me on to another opportunity the Government have missed with this Bill. This Bill, this debate today and this moment were the Government’s chance to tell the fracking companies, “Your time is up”, but given the choice between doing something bold and doing nothing at all, we know what DEFRA under this Secretary of State always goes for.
My position and that of the shadow Secretary of State and the Opposition is clear: fossil fuels need to stay in the ground. This is doubly true when we take into account just how damaging fracking is for our environment. When a third of England’s drinking supply is in the groundwater, do we really want to engage in a risky industry that could poison it for good? Even more disturbingly, fracking is causing earthquakes of up to 2.9 on the Richter scale.
In our recovery from covid, we need to focus on creating good green jobs for the future. Fracking is not green and it does not create jobs. According to the fracking company Cuadrilla’s licence application in Lancashire, for example, just 11 jobs will be created across two sites—just 11. Labour MPs up and down the country are standing up for their areas in opposing this. I want to give a special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who has done so much work in this area, and I commend her for all she does. Now is the time to join France, Germany, Ireland, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Scotland and, of course, Wales, and put this destructive industry to bed once and for all.
Chris Grayling
I would be grateful if the hon. Lady clarified that. Clearly, I support the principle of our leaving fossil fuels in the ground and not using them for the future, but we are going to need natural gas for the time being, albeit I hope that in time we can phase it out. The Germans are planning to bring it in by pipeline from Russia. We are currently bringing it in by tanker from the middle east. What does she think is the best source of natural gas for the coming years, while we still need it?
Ruth Jones
We are in a transition phase, and we need not just to look at natural gas, but to look forward to renewables because that is where the future lies. Renewables are the future. We know already, in this country, that there are certain days when no coal is being burned and some days when just renewables are being used. That is the future for the whole of the UK, not just England, and that is where the Opposition would want to be seeing our future. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
I encourage colleagues across the House to get behind Labour’s new clause 12, which would ban fracking and show we really are serious about tackling the environmental crisis that our country and our planet faces—a crisis this Government want to tackle with a 25-year environment plan. Talking about the Government’s 25-year environment plan, it feels as though the last few months have given us less of a plan for the next 25 years and more of an impression that it will take 25 years to develop a plan to preserve our planet and protect our environment. This just is not good enough. While I do not doubt the Minister’s personal commitment, I do wonder if Government Back Benchers really understand what is at stake here and what they need to do.
I now want to move on to the issue of peat burning and to speak to Labour’s new clause 24. I fully accept that soil does not always grab the headlines—it is not particularly sexy—but the impact that peat burning has on our environment is profound, and that is why Labour has tabled this new clause. I want to thank stakeholders, such as Matt Browne at Wildlife and Countryside Link, for all the passionate campaigning on these important issues.
The Government’s peat action plan came three years late. In the meantime, our peatlands have been continuously burned and degraded, releasing approximately 10 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The Government have committed to restoring 35,000 hectares of peatland by 2025, which is great, but that is only one tenth of the 355,000 hectares that need to be restored in England, and we have no clear targets for peatland restoration after 2025. What is going to happen then?
The Government have committed to ban some peat burning, but, again, it is not enough. All we get from this Government are words and hot air, and we need cool, focused and comprehensive action. Labour’s amendment would prohibit the burning of peat of any depth in upland areas. We cannot wait for action any longer. We need a foolproof strategy to restore and protect this vital carbon sink. I hope the Minister will do the right thing and get her colleagues to do what so many out in the real world want us to do, which is to provide action to stop burning peat. It is as simple as that.
Today, we have the chance to improve a weak Bill—a Bill that is lacking in ambition, in focus and in delivering a real and tangible plan to preserve our environment and protect our planet. I encourage the Minister to send a message to the Secretary of State—I wonder where he is today, because this is supposed to be his landmark Bill— and to the Government Whips and tell them that the time has come to get real, to act and to deliver by supporting Labour’s new clauses 12 and 24. There is no better way than by supporting us in the Lobby tonight to show that this Government are finally willing to act, to get real, and to deliver on their rhetoric. The future of our environment and the preservation of our planet demand no less.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
There is much to welcome in the Government’s aims. Like most MPs, I look forward to cleaner water and cleaner air. It is right that we take more care of the other species that we share our islands with, and I look forward to those greener and pleasanter lands having more protection and more support. I also welcome the idea that we should plant many more trees. However, at this point in our deliberations, we should ask the Minister to give us a bit more background and information about the costs of this transformation so that we can know that it is realistic and that it will be properly shared.
When we look at the legislation itself and at the impact assessments, we see that there is very little by way of hard information about how much cost may be entailed and who should primarily bear that. There are wide-ranging powers to introduce more waste charges, for example, but the statements in the impact materials say that an impact cannot be assessed and that it will depend, in due course, on what actual charges are brought in. When we look at the very expensive rules on producer responsibility—taking more responsibility for packaging, batteries, waste, electrical equipment and end-of-life vehicles—we are told that a partial cost of the first item is about £1 billion a year, but there is no information on the full cost and there is no information on the others. There is a bit of information on the cost on housebuilders for the habitat provisions, and there is not a lot of worked-through financial information on the deposit return scheme.
I think that there are ways forward where we can make sure both that we have a better environment and that we are earning more revenue from suitable and sustainable exploitation of nature’s abundance. I hope that the Government will work hard on finding ways that enable livelihoods to be increased and improved, just as we are also doing the right things by the environment.
Let us take the case of trees, for example. I do hope that, as we plant many more trees, there will be more sustainable forestry. I always thought it quite wrong that we import so much wood from across the Atlantic to burn in the Drax power station, when surely we should be looking for sustainable sources at home. It is also quite wrong that we import so much of the timber that we need for our big house building projects, when, again, this is a good climate for growing softwood. Surely we can go about our task of finding sustainable ways. We need to cut the wood miles and to have that sustainable forestry here, as well as having the beautiful and diverse trees in our landscape in suitable places where the Government will offer their own taxpayer-based financial support.
Let us hear a little more about the livelihoods and the opportunities. Let us show how we can have both a beautiful countryside and a working countryside, so that we can cut the wood miles and the food miles, ensure more buy-in from business and individuals to these great aims of having a better natural environment because of the opportunities to do more at home, and have that happy conjunction of success in business, harnessing nature’s abundance and the beauty of nature’s abundance, while respecting all the other species that share our islands with us.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now go to the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.
Deidre Brock [V]
I will be brief, because as I have already laid out, this is almost entirely an English Bill, but I wanted to touch on new clause 12.
The new clause is a good addition that the Government should welcome. Scotland banned fracking some time ago and Wales has made it very difficult to get the permissions needed. Adding a fracking ban to the Bill would complete the set, and we in the SNP certainly support that, because when our neighbours keep trying to set their house on fire, we want to help them to stop.
Fracking releases gas—at a greater input cost than other types of gas well, I might add—and not all the gas is collected for commercial exploitation. Fracking is associated with a greater escape of gas to the atmosphere than other forms of gas production, which in itself contributes to the climate crisis. The seismic effects may cross borders, of course, and the large amounts of road traffic needed for frack wells gets in the way of other transport needs and themselves contribute to the climate chaos. It is in everyone’s interest to make sure that neighbouring countries do not frack the place up, but responsibilities for the licensing of oil and gas development since the Scotland Act 2016 was passed rest with the Scottish Government; the clause therefore impacts on devolved powers.
Finally, I want to correct a statement the shadow Secretary of State made earlier. He said that the UK was the first country to declare a climate emergency. It was not. The climate emergency petition started in Australia—many very good things come from Australia—and dotted around the world for a while before the Scottish Government became the first to declare a climate emergency, closely followed by Wales. England caught up a wee while later—aye ahint.
Chris Grayling
I will focus my remarks on the issues I raise in new clause 19. We have talked about deforestation this afternoon and I pay tribute to the Minister in particular, because she has been a driving force in ensuring that the Bill takes significant steps on deforestation, in effect making it illegal and much more challenging to bring the fruits of illegal deforestation to the United Kingdom. That is absolutely right. The stronger the law on that front, the better.
What the Bill does not do, and what it is difficult for any Government to do, is prevent the fruits of legal deforestation arriving in the United Kingdom. Only now do we see the issues in Brazil, where the Bolsonaro Government are looking to pursue further legislative change that could lead to further deforestation in the Amazon—something none of us can afford to let happen. Through the new clause and its underlying principle, I am encouraging the Government to take a step that I believe would make a real difference to those who seek legally to deforest in other parts of the world—to put the power not in the hands of regulators, but in the hands of consumers. I passionately believe that if consumers around the world say no to the consequences of deforestation, it will be much more difficult for Governments or individuals to pursue deforestation, whether it is legal or illegal.
In this country, if I go to the supermarket and want to know whether the product I am buying contains anything that has damaged forests, it is pretty difficult to tell. If I do not want to buy a product with palm oil in it, I have to scrutinise the small print of the ingredients on the back to establish whether it contains palm oil. If there is palm oil, it is even more difficult to work out whether it comes from a sustainable source. Some aspects of our supply chains are invisible, such as whether the soy meal fed to the animals whose meat we eat came from a sustainable source or—much, much more likely—from an unsustainable source. We have to address that issue, and I think one of the ways to do that is to have a proper system of food labelling in this country that indicates whether a product comes from a sustainable source.
There is a lot of work taking place right now in the private sector, by retailers and others, and in the academic sector to look at how we would assess the sustainability of a product. It is about not just the food we buy in a shop, but the ingredients that go into that food. I think labelling should be placed on the sacks of soybean meal that go to feed pigs in our pig farms, as well as on the products that we buy in the shops, to indicate very clearly to buyers and consumers when a product comes from a carefully thought-out, sustainable source and when it does not. Work is being done by big supermarkets, academics and some really innovative smaller food companies to try to ensure that there is a good way of tracking the sustainability of a food source.
In the end, what we cannot have is the wild west of food labelling. What we need is a coherent, single approach that enables a consumer, in an easily recognisable way, to say, “I know that I can buy that in good conscience,” or “I know that that’s a product that creates problems for the environment.” The truth is that that label alone will ensure that the buyer does not buy the product and that it never appears and there is no market for it. My request and message to the Secretary of State and the Minister—I will follow this up over the coming months—is please to follow the path of introducing a single system of sustainable food labelling, sending the message to consumers, “You are empowered to make the right choices.”
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I want to address most of my remarks to new clause 12 and fracking, but before I turn to that specifically, I want to put on record my concerns about flooding, because we are in a climate and ecological emergency and we are seeing increased instances of flooding. I have certainly witnessed that in my Lancaster and Fleetwood constituency, and it concerns me that at the same time the Environment Agency budget has been cut by a third and the fire and rescue service by a fifth. It is simply not enough to wring our hands while making these cuts, when we cannot respond to the flooding emergency, so I urge the Minister to look again at these cuts and at investing in upland water management.
The Environment Bill is the Government’s first opportunity to bring in equivalent standards to those in the EU regulations, so, frankly, if we cannot secure strong environmental protections in this Bill, it certainly bodes ill for securing workers’ rights and workplace protections. New clause 12 would revoke current fracking licences and prevent the Oil and Gas Authority from being able to provide future licences for hydraulic fracturing, exploration or acidification. Fracking is a big deal in Lancashire. When Cuadrilla started, in just two months 57 earthquakes were detected. Cuadrilla stopped fracking five times because it triggered earthquakes bigger than the Government rules allowed. Even more disturbingly, a year later, an earthquake measuring 2.9 on the Richter scale led to a review by the Oil and Gas Authority, which, worryingly, concluded that it was not possible to predict the probability or size of the tremors caused by fracking.
My Lancashire constituents and, indeed, much of the country were relieved when the Government got around to launching a moratorium halting fracking and exploration with immediate effect, but in the past two years the Government have failed to deliver the legislation that is needed to give effect to their promise. If the Minister is not willing to support new clause 12 today, when will that come? It was a relief that the Government got as far as the moratorium almost two years ago, but we need something concrete—something solid—behind that. If the Minister is to assure my constituents that the Bill is not just empty words, will she accept Labour’s new clause and legislate to ban fracking once and for all?
We know from the Lancashire experiment on fracking that it is a risky way of extracting dirty energy. We have seen that France, Germany, Ireland, Bulgaria, New York state and the Netherlands, as well as Scotland and Wales, all agree, so this is our opportunity to bring England into line. There are so many risks surrounding fracking, and the Government know that or they would not have called the moratorium in the first place. The British Geological Survey is very clear:
“Groundwater may be potentially contaminated by extraction of shale gas”.
In England, groundwater supplies a third of our drinking water.
In addition, the assertion that fracking will lead to a jobs boom is simply not true. Cuadrilla’s application in Lancashire talked about starting just 11 jobs, and that is before we start looking at the jobs that would be put at risk by fracking happening on the Lancashire coast, because so many of our jobs on the Fylde coast are in the tourism industry, and people are not keen to holiday next to fracking wells.
Most importantly, scientists agree that if we are to avoid dangerous levels of global warming, fossil fuels need to stay in the ground. With every application comes huge environmental concern. There is a risk of additional carbon emissions, as well as the understandable anxiety for local people about the impact of earth tremors and water contamination. When will the Minister listen and finally take action? Now is our chance, once and for all, to tell the fracking companies that time’s up, and to put the future of our planet and our communities first.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
More pearls of wisdom for the Government to listen to.
I am delighted we have reached the Report stage of this landmark Environment Bill, which examines our vital relationship with nature and how that affects wildlife generally. The Treasury-sponsored Dasgupta review on the economics of biodiversity calls for transformational change as our demands of nature outstrips its capacity to supply for us. I am delighted with our Government’s commitment to invest in new green industries to create jobs while protecting the environment, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050, although we certainly need more charging points for electric vehicles in Southend. However, legislative changes need to be implemented urgently to ensure that our action towards the environment and animals is responsible and sustainable.
Ultimately, if we damage the environment, we will destroy ecosystems that animals rely on. It is estimated that because of our activities over the past 200,000 years, the total amount of living matter on the planet has actually decreased by 50%—shocking. As biomass falls, so does biodiversity. We see large depletions in insect numbers and bulky oceanic fish such as tuna and cod, and the conversion of natural habitats to agriculture. Most wildlife hotspots are now down to small percentages of their former ranges.
I want to see our country leading on this issue. Our presidency of the COP26 summit in November will, I hope, spur urgent action throughout the world. We should review our international aid budget, and direct it towards global habitat and biodiversity protection, which unfortunately has recently fallen to below 0.5%. One way we can enhance domestic biodiversity and allow nature to recover is to rewild our seas, uplands, peatlands, flood lands and coasts. We should ensure that at least 30% of our seas are no-activity marine conservation zones. I certainly welcome the reintroduction of the beaver and I hope we will be able to reintroduce many more species that were once native to England.
The Bill, I believe, will be critical in setting out how farmers protect nature and the environment. Intensive farming and industrial fishing practices are two of the main drivers of biodiversity loss. I am sorry if that upsets colleagues who have many farms in their constituencies, but factory farming is unsustainable as a system. It is polluting our air and water, killing our wildlife, degrading our soil, and altering our climate. We are out of balance with nature and our environment. That must change. The natural world and the man-made world are closely linked, and therefore planning reforms should be legally implemented to enable nature’s recovery, strengthening protections for sites designated for nature, and increasing developer contributions to nature’s recovery. Our population continues to grow at a fast pace, which puts pressure on our greenbelts and countryside. I hope the Government will not allow more of our green and open land to be covered by large-scale developments.
In conclusion, it is so important that we approach the challenge of building back better by creating a brighter future with respect for our environment and other living beings with which we share our planet. We must think sustainably about our health, the billions of sentient animals and the protection of our precious planet, as I am sure David Attenborough would agree.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
I will speak to new clause 29, in my name and that of my colleagues, which would compel the Environment Secretary to assess the impacts of the Bill on air quality, how different population groups will be exposed to air pollutants and, subsequently, how that differential exposure will impact on their health.
It is our exposure to health risks and hazards that determines our health status—how long we are going to live, and how long we are going to live in good health. The money, resources and power we have will determine where and how we live. It will determine whether our family’s home is on a busy road or motorway, or in a leafy suburb. It will determine not only our risk of being involved in a road traffic accident but our exposure to toxic emissions from traffic. The poorer someone is, the greater the likelihood that they will be exposed to pollutants at levels that are hazardous to their health. We also know that, if someone is disabled, black, of Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage or a single parent, they are more likely to be poor.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
While I welcome the measures in the Bill to standardise the collection of plastic waste across all local authorities, I remain very concerned at the continued increase in the production of single-use plastic. Too much of this plastic ends up as litter around our country and around the world, harming human, animal and marine health. We must start to reduce the amount of single-use plastic we make, as some of the projections for its continued production are truly alarming.
We also need to massively improve our performance on littering and fly-tipping. Part of the area in my constituency that a group of us cleared up litter from on Saturday as part of the Great British Spring Clean was already covered in litter again by Sunday. As Lord Kirkham said in the Queen’s Speech debate,
“research suggests that we have few, if any, rivals for the unwanted title of ‘most littered country in the developed world’…It is soul-destroying and dangerous to humans and animals; it pollutes the very air we breathe; it depresses and saps a nation’s morale.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 May 2021; Vol. 812, c. 409.]
We need more covert cameras to catch the culprits and more prosecutions, with greater fines, to act as a significant deterrent. Parents and schools need to do their bit to deter the next generation from littering, which is not only antisocial but criminal.
I am told by South Bedfordshire Friends of the Earth that we have, at times, continuous sewage discharge into the River Ouzel, which is a valuable wildlife corridor through Leighton Buzzard. There are very low numbers of freshwater shrimps in the river, and a chemical quality that was good in 2015 and 2016 was reported as a fail in 2019, according to the Environment Agency. We will therefore need to continue to strengthen legislation on continuous sewage discharges.
While I warmly welcome the world-leading parts of this Bill to mandate larger businesses not to source commodities from illegally deforested land, I am concerned about commodities sourced from legally deforested land, and rainforests in particular. I would like to see a certification scheme, similar to the Fairtrade one, so that we can all be reassured that the food we are eating has not come to us at the expense of virgin rainforests.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
No. 10 on the speakers’ list is not here, so we will go to Barry Gardiner.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]
I am delighted to support new clauses 12 and 24, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones). It is vital to preserve our most effective carbon sinks. The UK’s peatlands cover only 10% of our land, yet they store about 3 billion tonnes of carbon. Sadly, we have degraded our peatlands to such an extent that only 20% are now in their natural state. Heather and grass burning regulations currently only cover upland peat in areas designated as SSSIs and special areas of conservation, so new clause 24 extends the ban on rotational burning across all upland peat habitats.
Burning vegetation on our most important natural sinks not only hinders our ability to meet our emissions targets, but impedes our biodiversity and water quality ambitions. Currently, only 40% of our peat is covered by the existing regulation. I support new clause 24 to protect the full 355,000 hectares of upland peat in England.
I also support new clause 19, tabled by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). Land conversion to agriculture for our high-meat, high-dairy diets is a key driver of biodiversity loss. It is responsible for 14% of global emissions and for 35 million tonnes of CO2 in the UK alone. Tackling deforestation in UK company supply chains is therefore essential, and the new clause would introduce a labelling scheme so that consumers can be assured that the food they are eating is not a driver either of biodiversity decline or the climate emergency.
The right hon. Member also spoke about new clause 12, arguing that we should permit fracking in the UK as an interim fuel as we transition to a fully renewable energy system. The problem is that the interim is too short and the return on investment demanded by the companies takes too long. That would mean that fracking companies left us with stranded assets. Some would say that is their problem, but when the Government have offered the fracking industry the most generous tax reliefs anywhere in the world and 75% capital allowances, it is not their problem, but that of taxpayers. So fracking in the UK should be prohibited and new clause 12 would do that.
The Government have now accepted the need for a statutory target to halt the decline of nature by 2030, and I welcome that, but the Minister must set out further details of the measures she proposes to deliver on the targets and how implementation will be reported to Parliament. The Minister will be aware of the work of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology on biodiversity indicators. Indicators can be used to aid policy decisions, but the difficulty of setting appropriate baselines for reference and the ambiguity of biodiversity targets are compounded by the differing sensitivity of indicators to change over time. Indicators may be about biomass, endangered species or trends of common species. The ability to obfuscate about whether targets have been reached is too great, unless the Minister is specific about the indicators that will be adopted, what the baselines are, how they will be measured and what their implications are for policy development.
POST sets out how it is possible to pursue biodiversity targets that would have a positive outcome in the UK, but would offshore far greater negative biodiversity impacts to other countries. I ask the Minister to respond to the POST note on biodiversity indicators by setting out which DEFRA will use to achieve which ends and which targets it will use. Will she adopt a coherent global perspective to ensure that we achieve a reversal of the loss of biodiversity not just in the UK, but in the overseas territories, for whose biodiversity we are responsible under the convention, and with a globally net positive outcome?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
As there have been some withdrawals and some people have not turned up, I am unusually going to put the time limit up to five minutes.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
That is incredibly kind, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am extremely grateful.
In case Members of the House have forgotten, I should declare my interest: my family are farmers in my home constituency of West Dorset. I have had the privilege of speaking in every Reading of this Bill in the House so far, and I am extremely grateful again to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), for the work that she has done and for how she continues to engage with Members from across the House on this very important Bill.
To start with, there are a couple of things that I would like to remind the Minister about, in terms of particular issues in West Dorset that are incredibly important. The A35 between Bridport and Lyme Regis, specifically at Chideock, has the highest levels of nitrogen dioxide anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is incredibly important to my constituents that we can take this Bill forward, and that the Minister can do all she can to make sure that we take those powers and act on dealing with that very difficult issue.
Single-use plastics have been a continual frustration of mine. I have spoken to constituents on many occasions, and I feel that, when we walk into a supermarket, we see shelves of plastic with food inside, rather than buying food alone. This Bill makes important provisions to deal with some of that. When we see that supermarkets such as Tesco had a 2.2% increase in single-use plastics between 2017 and 2019, it proves that this issue is incredibly difficult and that we need to ensure that we take the powers in this Bill and the subsequent Act to deal with it.
I also rise to speak in support of my new clause 28, which is on food labelling, and specifically with a focus on food miles. I am tabling this amendment today because I think it is incredibly important that there is complete transparency about the food that we buy. I know that a lot of my friends from Camden and Islington are great fans of avocados, but being of a farmer’s son, I prefer West Dorset sausage to avocados, and I would rather get that meat from just round the corner, rather than have avocados that have been flown thousands and thousands of miles across the world to be brought here. I am not here to speak in support of, or in opposition to, a particular meat agenda or a particular vegetarian or vegan agenda, but it is important that we see complete transparency about what we buy, so that we as individuals and the consumers of the nation can make an informed decision that prioritises the environmental needs that we all have.
The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), at the conclusion of the Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill, very kindly offered that the Government would undertake a consultation into food labelling, and she said that that would commence this year. I would be very grateful indeed if her colleague, the Minister here today, was able to share some more details on that, because I am conscious that a substantial amount of time has passed since then. Once we have that labelling in place, I believe that we should then build on that. That labelling will indeed allow consumers to make the choice, along the same lines that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) outlined earlier, but going forward I want that labelling to be expanded. I also want it to clearly identify, for meat products, whether or not that meat has been humanely slaughtered, because that is increasingly important in this country. In concluding my remarks, I should be extremely grateful to hear from the Minister on these points, and to see exactly what the Government will do in respect of my proposed new clause.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I was elected on the back of the greenest manifesto Labour had ever proposed. We understood the scale of the climate crisis and set forward proposals to rapidly decarbonise our economy by protecting precious natural resources.
Representing the constituency of Cynon Valley, which lies in the foothills of the Brecon Beacons in south Wales, I, along with my constituents, take great pride in our natural environment, which we are determined to protect. As Members of Parliament we are in an extremely privileged position, and it is our duty to act on climate change for the sake of future generations. That is why I am disappointed with this Bill. Now that we have left the EU, it is essential that we set out in law certain environmental protections, but the measures in the Bill are not ambitious enough. Thankfully, others in the Chamber have proposed a more meaningful course of action. Many of my friends and colleagues have tabled amendments and new clauses that I support.
New clause 12 would end the deeply damaging practice of fracking, which can cause seismic activity, water contamination and ill health to local residents. The Welsh Government have blocked the process for more than five years, and I call on the UK Government to follow suit.
New clause 24 would extend the Government’s peat burning ban to cover all upland peat in England. Peat plays a crucial role in naturally trapping and storing carbon, and is among the most valuable ecosystems on earth. We need to be encouraging these habitats rather than allowing their destruction. The Welsh Government have again gone further, and last year laid out a five-year plan for peatland restoration. In the south Wales valleys, including in my constituency of Cynon Valley, 540 hectares of peatland have been reintroduced, which will not only create a vibrant habitat and trap carbon dioxide but reduce the growing risk of forest fires.
New clause 29 would go a long way towards addressing the impact of the Bill on public health and, in particular, air pollution, which is responsible for an estimated 64,000 premature deaths annually in the UK. People are starting to challenge this. I was proud to be involved with the brilliant local campaign in my constituency against waste incineration led by the Valleys For Tourism Not Trash campaign. I am absolutely delighted that that campaign was successful. I am also extremely pleased that the Welsh Government have now placed a moratorium on the building of such incinerators, and again call on the UK Government to follow suit.
Wales has recognised that we have a climate emergency that is an existential threat. The new Senedd now has a Minister for Climate Change. I am especially proud that we already have an ambitious national forest plan to enhance and create woodland habitat in a connected way across Wales. That will have a key role in replacing fossil fuels, storing carbon, and helping us to cope with the effects of a changing climate. I applaud the Welsh Government for committing to ban the use of single-use plastic. The UK Government must also give this topic the priority it needs if we are to save the planet. This requires a radical change of economic emphasis supporting the creation of at least 1 million new green jobs.
While there are many aspects of this Bill that I welcome, it does not go far enough or fast enough to ensure that future generations can enjoy the world and not suffer the consequences of our abuse and misuse of our resources.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Jacob Young has withdrawn, so we go to Geraint Davies.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The world faces a catastrophic climate change crisis, yet this Bill falls very short, particularly at a time when we are the host of COP26 and should basically be taking on the leadership of the entire world. After all, global emissions are up by 60% since the Kyoto conference in 1990, while global temperatures are up by 1.2° C on the 1850 base rate and will hit the 1.5° level by 2030 on the current forecast, which will mean loss of land and major problems of migration, food loss and so on. Meanwhile, some 7 million people are dying every year from air pollution caused by fossil fuel extraction and use. I am therefore very pleased that new clause 29 attempts to link human health with environmental health. After all, on the latest figures, 64,000 people a year die from air pollution at a cost of £20 billion to our economy.
Of course, we know that air pollution was registered as the cause of death in the tragic case of Ella Kissi-Debrah. In the prevention of death report that followed, the coroner recommended that we should enforce in law the World Health Organisation air pollution limits. Following a meeting I had with the Environment Secretary and Ella’s mother, Rosamund, the Environment Secretary said that he would look again at that, and I hope he will when the Bill comes back from the Lords.
We know that air pollution is worse in poorer and more diverse communities, and according to the Max Planck Society, it increases the risk and level of death from coronavirus by around 12%. Other studies have been done by, for example, Harvard, showing that link. Dominic Cummings has just reminded us that coronavirus is airborne and that more emphasis needs to be put on that, but we also need to place more emphasis on air pollution. We know that the infection rate, as well as the death rate, is higher with air pollution. We therefore need legally binding WHO limits.
Let me turn to fracking. Methane emissions are 80 times worse than carbon dioxide for global warming. Given that and the fact that we know from satellite photography that fracking is responsible for 5% fugitive emissions—in other words, 5% of the methane is leaked—fracking is worse than coal for climate change and should simply be banned.
We need more trees, not just to absorb but to store carbon by including them in infrastructure and construction instead of concrete. If concrete were a country, it would be the third biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. I am glad that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) said, Wales is taking a lead on this. In Wales, we have appointed a Minister for Climate Change, Julie James, who also represents Swansea West. She will push forward plans for a national forest and using wood in building. In contrast, in the UK, most of the hardwood is burned, causing not just climate change but harmful pollution. Hardwood should be pulped and put into insulation in construction instead.
Brexit means that we have more food miles. We need an initiative in COP26 to put carbon pricing into trade. China, for example, now generates 28% of global carbon emissions, with more emissions per head than Britain. We therefore need a joined-up approach, led by the Bill, that includes trade, transport, health, local government, planning and housing, not just a DEFRA-led effort, which will make little difference to the massive problems we face.
In summary, we need much more, much sooner from all our Departments. We need to improve the Bill dramatically to make a real difference and take global leadership.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a serving local councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association, which I will reference during my contribution.
There are many things to be welcomed in the Bill. The first, which is particularly important to my constituents, is that we will see some improvement in air quality as a result of the measures in it. It is clear that, in many respects, legislation is the start, not the finish of a process. Different Departments will issue a great deal of guidance to local authorities and other bodies to set out the mechanics of how the powers will be used and improvements brought about.
On air quality, I particularly highlight the need to ensure that local authorities and any others who are charged with responsibility for implementing the measures, achieving the targets and delivering the plans have meaningful powers that enable them to tackle sources of air pollution. In the context of London, where my constituency is—the capital, which has busy and congested roads—we need to ensure that local authorities have effective powers at their disposal to tackle issues such as vehicle idling, which contributes so much to air pollution, especially near schools, hospitals and other places where vulnerable people are placed at risk.
Let me move on to plastics. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who has been very active in bringing issues around plastics to the Government’s attention throughout the debates on the Bill. It is particularly important that local authorities ensure that in the provisions for producer responsibility, sufficient funding finds its way to those who will then be processing the plastic for recycling. Producers in the UK pay very little by comparison with those in most other developed countries in Europe towards the cost of recycling their products, and therefore that cost is heavily subsidised, if not entirely met in many places, by council tax payers. So we should ask those who are making these products that are then polluting our environment to ensure that they are providing the facilities and resources required to make that recycling happen in reality.
On the wider impact on recycling systems, a number of Members welcomed consistency around local authority recycling practices. We need to recognise that the sale of the recyclable elements of household waste already makes a significant contribution to the cost of household waste collections; it affects all our constituents, although there are different systems in use around the country. We need to ensure that programmes such as deposit return schemes do not hit council tax payers by removing so much of the recyclable material from household waste collections that a significant increase in council tax is needed to subsidise that difference. We need to make sure that when that guidance is issued to local authorities it reflects the discharge of their responsibilities on the ground.
I very much support the point made by a number of Members that we need to look at the whole picture for all kinds of goods and services so that we recognise the wider environmental impact, including the impact that might happen elsewhere. We are simply kidding ourselves and our constituents if we are offshoring pollution rather than dealing with it directly by ensuring that what we do in our behaviour and the way we deliver services is reducing the environmental impact.
I finally want to touch on a couple of issues that impact in particular on the natural environment and biodiversity. I very much welcome the work my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) has done in strengthening and making more robust the policy on sewage discharge. The River Colne, a beauty spot that abuts my constituency and is very popular with my constituents, is significantly affected by sewage discharge. Again, we need to ensure that there are effective measures that make a substantial difference.
On biodiversity net gain, I simply make a request to Ministers that when the guidance is issued about how that will be managed through the planning process, we ensure as far as possible that biodiversity gain through planning is maintained locally, so that the local communities that see the impact of the developments in their area also see the benefit of the biodiversity gain envisaged through the planning system.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
I rise to speak on fracking, an issue close to my constituents’ hearts and mine, and to reject clearly the unnecessary and transparently political new clause 12. Since I was elected to this place in 2017, I have spoken out against fracking, held debates, proposed Bills, submitted questions, chaired an all-party group, spoken at planning committees and hearings and appeals against QCs, and generally made a nuisance of myself to the Government Front Bench about fracking, because I wanted it stopped at Marsh Lane and in North East Derbyshire, and I make no apologies for that. I was delighted when the Government put a moratorium on fracking, and I am glad to have played a very small role in getting us to that place.
Yet suddenly, a year and a half after the moratorium was imposed, we have a burning issue—a problem so acute that a series of straw men have been wheeled out from the Opposition Benches over the course of this debate, creating the need to ban something that is effectively dead already. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who is not in her place at present, said we only have empty words. Well, empty words have a funny way of stopping any fracking happening since that moratorium in late 2017, and of ensuring that licences in her own county were partially handed back by the operator of the fracking area.
Why is it that 49 Labour MPs have suddenly decided that there is new urgency to legislate on this matter? There is not. We know there is no urgency, precisely because those 49 Labour MPs have shown almost zero interest in that issue in recent times. Forty-three of those 49 were in Parliament between 2017 and 2019. Where were those hon. Members when the all-party parliamentary group on fracking, which I chaired, talked about all these issues in extraordinary detail?
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
With the highest-ever temperatures recorded in the Arctic circle, and with just 3% of the world’s ecosystems remaining intact, we cannot delay taking radical action to save our planet and future generations, yet this Environment Bill does not go nearly far enough to tackle the climate and ecological emergency.
As we emerge from the pandemic, we must raise our ambition to forge a new social settlement, a green new deal, to rebuild the country with a more just and sustainable economy. We must fight for a society in which public health always, always comes before private profit, and it must be the big polluters and corporate giants who bear the costs, not ordinary people. It is vital that those responsible for climate chaos—the fossil-fuel companies and big polluters—are held responsible for their actions.
Fracking is bad for people and the environment; therefore we must ban it. It is vital that the protection of all workers and communities is guaranteed during the transition to a carbon-free, renewable-energies future. As we rebuild our economy from the ruins of a pandemic, it is possible for the Government to create 1 million green jobs with a programme of investment in renewable energy, flood defences and a resilient health and care service.
The coronavirus crisis has demonstrated the need for communities like Leicester to have access to clean air, green spaces, streets for people and interconnectivity. That is why we must also introduce full-fibre broadband free at the point of use, a mass house insulation programme, and a green, integrated public transport system.
Air pollution has reached dangerous levels under this Government, with 60% of people in England now breathing illegally poor air. Many of my constituents have contacted me regarding the need for a stronger environmental Bill for clean air in Leicester. The Government must enshrine the World Health Organisation’s guideline for damaging particulates known as PM2.5 in law via the Environment Bill. Currently the Bill falls short and merely commits to setting a new, unspecified target by 2022. Our current legal limit for PM2.5 is twice as high as the World Health Organisation recommends. I urge the Government to adopt a clear legal commitment to reduce these particulates, which, as we know, contributed to more than 4 million deaths in 2016.
Without much more ambitious Government intervention, the urgent action required to preserve a habitable planet will be too slow. This will cause unmanageable ecological disruption and could cost millions of lives—most sharply in countries of the global south, which have contributed the least to climate change. To ensure a global green new deal, our Government must strongly consider the cancellation of global south debt to enable investment in public health. The UK must also end international fossil fuel finance and rapidly step up financial support for a just global energy transition.
The upcoming COP26 in Glasgow provides a crucial opportunity to reset our relationship to climate justice, yet the conference risks excluding representatives from countries that are most at risk from climate breakdown. Every possible step must be taken to ensure that COP26 is accessible for all and that it is a turning point for more radical climate action. While we recover from the pandemic, a green ambition must be hard-wired into everything we do as we rebuild our economy. To achieve this, the Government must raise their ambitions, seriously rewrite the Environment Bill, work with the Opposition and begin to act on the scale that the climate crisis demands.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Nos. 17, 19, 20 and 21 on the list have withdrawn, so we go straight to the final speaker from the Back Benches: Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not often that four speakers ahead of me drop out; does that mean that I have 20 minutes to speak? I know the answer to that—you don’t have to tell me.
I am really pleased to speak on a matter of such importance. We have to get this right from the outset. I welcome the commitment of the Minister and the Government to the Bill. I was extremely pleased to see enhanced measures in the Queen’s Speech, as anything that we can do to enhance the impact of the Bill is welcome.
We have a responsibility to the generations that follow to be the gatekeepers—to instil in them a passion for our environment and a duty to be the best we can, even if it means that life is a little bit tougher. Whether our rubbish sorting takes longer, whether we spend longer at the recycling centre or whether we must leave goods to a local charity shop, we must all play our role. I remember very well when my council went into recycling and many people objected to it—probably just for the sake of objecting—but today every one of us energetically and physically recycles all the products in our house: everything that should be, in the blue bin; glass in the glass bin; the grey bin for the ordinary stuff that we had before; and the brown bin for the stuff that goes elsewhere.
I want to ask two questions. The Government’s role is to provide a Bill that enforces statutory obligations and bodies, and I support them in that aim. I was contacted by the Law Society, which has raised some concerns in reference to clause 22 that I wish to outline. It says that the appointments process for the chair and non-executive members should be strengthened so that the Secretary of State does not have sole authority over appointments. The Law Society welcomes the proposed OEP, which must play a central role in ensuring that institutions and organisations, including Government Departments, meet their environmental responsibilities. In order for the OEP to be effective in fulfilling this role, it is essential that it is fully independent from the Government.
The Government have stated that they intend the OEP to be an independent authority that is capable of holding the Government to account. If that is the case, it is exactly what the Law Society wishes to see; however, the Law Society is concerned that certain provisions for the OEP in the Bill could impinge on its independence and potentially undermine its ability to carry out its functions effectively. Will the Minister say whether issue has been addressed to the Law Society’s satisfaction?
Next I wish to speak about an issue that has not come up yet—well, it has come up in respect of the introduction, but my suggestion has not. I do not expect the Minister to endorse my request right away. It is an unusual request but one in respect of which my local council back home has brought in a pilot scheme, and I feel it is important. The carrier bag scheme run by the Government here and all the regional Governments was exceptional and it has done great stuff. It brought in a revenue fund that could then be used for different projects across the whole area.
I have a genuine request to make, on behalf of constituents who have spoken to me, for a scheme for the use of single-use nappies. I bring this request forward because of the figures, which show that around 3 billion single-use nappies are thrown away annually in the UK, costing local authorities some £60 million per year. I have three grandchildren under the age of two, so perhaps my two daughters-in-law are in that category. As we know, the vast amounts of raw materials used for production and disposal means that the life-cycle of a nappy can generate as much CO2 as 15,000 plastic bags and around half a tree in fluff pulp per child.
I bring this request forward because reusable nappies use 98% fewer raw materials and generate 99% less waste. They deliver savings of more than £1,000 for parents. My local council back home, Ards and North Down Borough Council, brought in a pilot scheme. Is it possible that by providing starter packs to parents, we may be able to encourage those who are able to do so to take up this way of helping the environment? We could use this legislation to encourage the Government, the regional Governments and others to provide the funding packages to encourage the use of reusable nappies for those who want to do it but do not know how and when to start that journey. It might not be something that the Minister can do today, but perhaps she can give us some encouragement that it might happen.
Rebecca Pow
I again thank all Members who tabled amendments and who contributed to this afternoon’s debate, demonstrating yet again the strength of feeling and the desire to improve and enhance the environment through this landmark Environment Bill. I can only say that I was slightly disappointed that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), did not quite seem to grasp the Bill’s intricacies, which together will provide such a framework to protect the environment, but I know, because she was a great Committee member, that in her heart of hearts she really does support the Bill.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who raised many issues that which will be tackled in the Bill, not least through the electronic tracking of waste. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) welcomes the nature target that we have just announced and the measures on biodiversity net gain, all of which will help to achieve the things he is so proud of and pushing for. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) for her comments. I assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we are indeed exploring reusable nappies. I certainly used them for one of my children and we are looking at their use, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion.
Let me turn to new clause 12, on shale gas extraction. The Government set out their position in full via a written statement to the House on 4 December 2019. The Government will take a presumption against issuing any further hydraulic fracturing consent. That sends a clear message to the sector and to local communities that, on current evidence, fracking will not be taken forward in England. The moratorium will be maintained unless compelling new evidence is provided that addresses the concerns about the prediction and management of induced seismicity. Such evidence has yet to be presented and the moratorium remains. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) who, with all his knowledge, spoke with such authority on the subject. I could not have put the case better myself. He stressed what a game the Opposition were playing in tabling the new clause.
On new clause 19, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and new clause 28, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), although we are sympathetic to the principles of the sustainability of labelling, existing voluntary schemes already provide consistent and recognised tools that consumers can use to reduce their environmental impact when purchasing food.
However, I would like to give assurances that we are working with industry and the Competition and Markets Authority on plans to produce guidance to businesses on how best to improve their transparency in relation to claims about environmental impact. We will also investigate opportunities to review other aspects of food labelling when we have the outcomes of Henry Dimbleby’s independent review of the food system in the early summer and then the food strategy White Paper from the Government within six months.
Ruth Jones
This has been an important debate, and I am grateful to all colleagues who have shared their thoughts on how we can make this Bill the strong and comprehensive piece of legislation that our environment is crying out for. As I indicated in my opening remarks, at every stage of this Bill Labour has proposed fair amendments. Disappointingly, all of them were defeated by this Minister and her Back-Bench colleagues. Not one of the amendments was partisan and not one was done to play games, but all were tabled to make this Bill fit for purpose. Today, new clauses 12 and 24 would do just that. I am also grateful to the many colleagues who put their names to our new clauses, and I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for her passionate speech and for her new clause 29, which has the support of those on these Benches. I support her call on the Government to put the WHO guidelines into the Bill. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and give a big, non-partisan thank you to the indefatigable hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). At this point, I wish gently to respond to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who claimed that the UK was not first to declare a climate emergency. I respectfully remind her that this Parliament was the first to declare a climate emergency, in May 2019. I should remember that, as I made my maiden speech during that debate, and let us not forget that that debate was led by Labour Members.
In moving new clauses 24 and 12, Labour has attempted to give effect to the promises made by Conservative Ministers, who are pretty good at talk, which is great, but we on the Labour Benches prefer to see action rather than words. I have heard what the Minister said—I listened to her very carefully—and I thank her for her comments, but, once again, I am disappointed. Sadly, normal service has been maintained. We have a Secretary of State who did not want to reach out and work with us to make this Bill fit for purpose.
New clause 12 is actually helpful to the Government. I know that fracking was a glaring omission, but we are trying to make sure that their forgetfulness does not result in bad policy. I especially wish to mention the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) for his passionate audition for ministerial office, but I remind him that the definition of “moratorium” is a temporary ban. If he wants to ban fracking for ever more, he should vote with us on our amendment.
I hope that the Minister will take new clause 12 in the spirit in which it was intended and accept it as an easy way of making this Bill better. I will be pushing both new clause 12 and new clause 24 to a vote. They are important issues and will fill glaring holes in this Bill.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Of course, for this Bill, it is the third time in more ways than one. Hon. Members will recall that a similar Bill was introduced in the last Parliament, and this Bill itself started in the last Session. I thank right hon. and hon. Members across the House, particularly the members of the Public Bill Committee for their scrutiny and all those involved in the previous iteration of the Bill during the last Parliament. I pay special tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), for her tireless work on the Bill, and to all the DEFRA officials for all the work they put in to get such a significant piece of legislation to this point. It is a large and complex piece of legislation, and a huge amount of work has gone into getting its provisions right.
Members in all parts of the House agree that the decline of our natural environment has persisted for too long. As we emerge from the covid-19 pandemic, we must turn our attention to recovery. We must build back greener. The pandemic has reminded us all of the difference that nature makes to our lives.
After G7 nations gather in Cornwall next month, the wider international community will attend the convention on biological diversity in Kunming in October, before the UK, as co-president, hosts the world at COP26 on climate change in November. This is a very important year for the environment internationally, and this landmark Environment Bill will deliver on our manifesto commitment to create the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth.
As I announced last week, the Government intend to amend the Bill in the other place to include a new, historic, legally binding target on species abundance for 2030, aiming to halt the decline of nature. This is a pioneering measure that will be the net zero equivalent for nature, spurring action on the scale required to address the biodiversity crisis. Our forthcoming Green Paper will also explore how we might deliver our world-leading domestic ambitions for nature, including how we improve the status of native species, such as the water vole and the red squirrel, and protect 30% of our land by 2030.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) has ensured that the plight of the hedgehog has been greatly debated during the passage of the Bill, and the Green Paper that we plan later this year will also explore how we might better protect other species currently not protected under the habitats regulations, including the hedgehog. In a similar vein, I have asked my noble Friend Lord Benyon to chair a small working group, together with Tony Juniper, Christopher Katkowski, QC, and the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane. The group will explore how our approach to conservation and habitat assessment might be improved so that we can deliver nature’s recovery and hit the ambitious targets that we are setting.
Our world-leading targets will be supported by provisions in the Bill and our new England trees and peat action plans to protect existing trees and expand woodland coverage. Our aim is to treble woodland creation rates by the end of this Parliament and to restore 35,000 hectares of peatland by 2025. Although we treasure our many species and ecosystems for their own sake and their intrinsic value, we must remember that they also provide vital services from which people benefit, such as carbon storage and pollination. As shown in the Dasgupta review, protecting and enhancing our natural assets and the biodiversity that underpins them is crucial to achieving a sustainable, resilient economy.
The Bill takes important strides in tackling air, water and waste pollution. Cleaner air from new, legally binding targets will drive action to tackle harmful air pollution across the country. Better management of our water for new drainage and sewage management plans will improve water quality in our rivers and lakes. The Bill will also give us powers to tackle storm overflows, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his efforts on that particular area of policy. We therefore intend to table an amendment in the other place requiring Government to publish plans to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows by September 2022, and for water companies and the Environment Agency to publish storm overflow operations data on an annual basis.
We are already consulting on measures to prevent waste and tackle the scourge of plastic ending up in our oceans. The extended producer responsibility scheme, which will make producers of packaging responsible for the cost of disposal, will incentivise better product design from the outset. New powers will allow us to place charges on single-use plastics, reducing their persistence in our natural environment. All of this, of course, will be underpinned by our new system of environmental governance. The Bill creates the new, independent Office for Environmental Protection to hold all public authorities to account on reaching these important goals. Work to establish the OEP is already well under way under the chairmanship of Dame Glenys Stacey and I commend the work that she has done to date.
In conclusion, I am pleased to see this Bill reach its Third Reading after a couple of attempts in previous Sessions and during the last Parliament. I am grateful for the many contributions from Members of all parties today. I believe that these provisions will ensure that this generation leaves our environment in a better state than we found it, and I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Ruth Jones
Well, here we are: the Environment Bill has finally reached Third Reading, and we all know that it has taken some time. Talking about timings, I want to wish the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), a very happy 65th birthday, although he is not in his place, because he is a tenacious campaigner, and I have enjoyed working with him on this Bill in recent months.
The last year and a half or thereabouts since this Bill received its Second Reading in this House has been one like no other. With that in mind, I want to start by acknowledging the brilliant hard work of the staff of this House, notably the Clerks, Sarah and Joanna, and of course the staff in the parliamentary offices of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—thank you, Kieran and Rob; of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner)—thank you, Rafi; of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake)—thank you, Minesh and Sam; and of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead)—thanks to Holly and Bryn. Obviously, I also thank those of my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), and of course I must not forget my own team in Newport West—thank you very much, Adam. It has not been easy taking a major piece of legislation through the House while working from home, and our staff have been brilliant. It is important to say thank you to them because, let us be honest, where would we be without them?
This Bill creates the Office for Environmental Protection, but fails to give it the powers it needs. It creates an improvement plan, but does not go far enough. It fails, among other things, to tackle fracking, deliver a proper tree strategy and deliver proper structured chemical regulation. Labour’s amendments in Committee and on Report sought to build on the limited foundation set by the Conservative party and make this Bill properly fit for purpose. It is all very well and good to set out the problem, but if we do not match that with strong and comprehensive plans, what is the point?
I remain saddened that Conservative Members voted against Labour’s amendments at every opportunity they had in Committee and on Report, but all is not yet lost—we should not worry. I feel sure, as the Bill moves to the other place, that my noble Friends Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Hayman of Ullock will take it by the horns and make it the strong and purposeful Bill the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), could have made it here in this House.
This is not about politics. I should say to the House that the Government’s approach to this Bill sits at the door of the Secretary of State. I used to say that the Environment Bill was missing in action, but the Secretary of State was missing in action, so I am very glad he has turned up safe and sound, and I am very grateful to him for turning up. However, I thank the Minister for her personal commitment and hard work. She takes these issues very seriously, and I have enjoyed working with her. I just feel sorry that her colleagues will not let her work with us in the way I suspect she would like to.
I am grateful to the many stakeholders such as Ruth Chambers from the Green Alliance, Matt Browne from the Wildlife and Countryside Link, Jo Blackman from Global Witness, Chloe Alexander from the CHEM Trust and Andrea Lee from ClientEarth, to name just a few, for their hard work and tenacity over the last year and a bit.
The pandemic, our departure from the European Union and a general election were just some of the hurdles we have had to get over in recent months, and we have done our bit. Many in this House have raised important arguments in recent weeks and months, and will continue to do so as this Bill works its way through the other place before coming back to us. I urge the Secretary of State to do whatever he can to make sure we get the Bill back sooner rather than later. We do not have time to waste. The climate crisis worsens each day, and real action is necessary now. I urge the Secretary of State to work with us and all the Members in this House when the Bill comes back and to do whatever is required to tackle the climate and ecological emergency once and for all.
John Redwood [V]
I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I welcome cleaner air and cleaner water, and I wish the Bill well as it completes its passage. I hope that we will be nicer to nature and better to the other species we share our islands with.
I would like briefly to make a few points to the Secretary of State and the ministerial team, who have worked hard to get this far. The first point is on water. I urge them to work with the water industry and the regulators to put in more reservoir capacity. We have had many homes and new families coming into my area of Wokingham and West Berkshire, but there has been no increase in potential water supply. Nationwide, we still have a rising population, and they will need good provision of clean water.
There are two great natural advantages of having more reservoir capacity. First, when we have long periods of excessive rainfall—we seem to be having one at the moment—and there is the danger of the rivers overtopping and causing flood damage, we need more good places to park the water, and we could then recharge the extra reservoir capacity. Secondly, were we once again to have one of those long, hot summers with long dry spells, as we have had from time to time in the past, we would be able to draw down in more comfort, knowing that we had adequate reservoir capacity, without having to run the streams and rivers too low or draw excessively on the natural aquifers.
On Report, I talked about the excellent news that there will be many more trees and urged Ministers to ensure that they help to build a much bigger forestry and timber industry. We import far too much and need to replace it with home production and fewer wood miles. I also urge the Secretary of State to bring forward those great schemes to promote more food production here at home. We lost too much market share, particularly in areas such as vegetables and fruit, in our CAP days. I do not think it is morally right to be drawing so much of that food from a country such as Spain, which is parched and in great difficulties eking out its inadequate water supplies, when we have plenty of water at home and could do so much more to promote a good domestic industry, cutting the food miles and giving confidence in the environmental benefits of having the home product.
I would also like to draw Ministers’ attention to the unresolved business that they have promised to work on as we complete this piece of legislation: the possible conflict between the Office for Environmental Protection and the Climate Change Committee. I urge Ministers to recognise that they need to supervise both bodies and give them clear public guidance on their remits. The Government will need to bring forward that piece of work to explain what the relative roles of the two are and how the different sets of targets—the natural UK targets on the one hand and the climate change targets on the other—will knit together and be compatible, rather than cause tensions.
For example, we need to know what the thinking is about the pace of carbon dioxide reduction and transition and how that impacts on our natural landscape, because if we are going to accelerate the move from electric vehicles or gas boilers or both, there will need to be massive investment. That investment includes the production of a lot of steel, glass and batteries. Mining activity somewhere is required to produce those raw materials and fashion them into something that can then be part of an electric product. We need to know whether we will be doing any of that in the UK, or whether the idea is that we should import much of it because we do not wish to husband our own natural resources for this purpose. If we are going to import, we should properly account for it, because it is not helping the planet if we say, “Well, we’re not putting the mine here or burning the coal to smart the steel here,” but it is happening somewhere else—indeed, it may be happening somewhere else where environmental concerns are taken much less seriously and the environmental damage of producing that product is far greater than if we had done it at home.
I hope that more work will be published on the pace and cost of transition. Again, the Bill seems to point us more in the direction of repair, maintenance, recycling and reuse, and not wanting a throwaway society but reckoning that, if we make good things, they could last for rather longer. How is that reconciled with the idea that we want a rapid transition to get rid of our existing fleet of petrol and diesel vehicles and to rip out all our gas boilers and solid fuel heating systems? Has there been proper carbon accounting on all that, and how is that reconciled with the very good aim in this Bill that we must consider the impact on our earth and the amount that we take out of our earth in order to fashion the things we may need?
There is a lot of work ahead for Ministers, who have already been very busy. As others have said, the Bill is only the first step, and it will then need to be fashioned into popular products and feasible programmes: things that business will want to collaborate with and things that people will want to do. There is an educational process involved. We also need to ensure that we know what the costs are and that they are realistic, that they are phased and that they fall fairly. I would still like to hear more from the Government on the total cost of all this work, because we need to ensure that it is realistic, that it does not get in the way of levelling up and greater prosperity, and that it reinforces our prime agenda, which is the health and welfare of the British people.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
Very briefly, I would like to thank DEFRA officials and particularly the Clerks on the Committee for their help during the progress of the Bill. It has threatened to rival “The Mousetrap” for longevity, and their staying power was quite something in the face of that. The ministerial team who managed to take so long over the thing do not get quite so much gratitude, though. I would also like to thank my researchers, Calum and Josh, whose assistance has been invaluable, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), who participated alongside me in the Environment Bill Committee.
It is worth stating again that this legislation is a missed opportunity, and it will have to be revisited again and again in the near future to add in the bits that are so clearly missing. Despite the Minister’s brave efforts over the many months to defend it, the Bill is not much at all. Although it will pass today, only crumbs are being proffered. I look forward in my capacity as environment and COP26 spokesperson for the SNP to continuing to challenge the Government to ensure that they match their warm words with firm actions that will make a real difference, particularly in the year that the UK hosts COP26. Our world’s future deserves nothing less.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Almost two years ago to the day, Parliament declared a climate emergency. Two years ago! The last four years were the hottest on record, one in seven native British species are now at risk of extinction and tree planting targets are missed by 50%. Some 60% of people in England are now breathing illegally poor air, and 44% of species have been in decline over the last 10 years. We could all go on; we all know what the situation is. Is this Bill up to it? I do not think it is, and I am disappointed by that.
People in Putney, Southfields and Roehampton are very interested in the environment and in making a difference. They have joined an environment commission that I have set up, and they are taking action in local communities and also globally. I also think of the other communities around the world that are affected by the decisions we are making today, including the community in Bangladesh that I visited when I worked for WaterAid. We had to get there by plane—there were no roads to get there—and I sat around with a group of women whose whole area had been completely decimated and become saline. They could not grow any crops and they had to walk miles and miles to get fresh water. They were stuck there, having been really decimated by climate change, and we face that here. We have a responsibility to that community as well as to all our communities across the country.
So here we are, 482 days after the Bill was first introduced to Parliament, with a Bill that still fails adequately to address this climate emergency. It fails to guarantee no regression from the environmental measures that were in place when we were members of the European Union. I was so disappointed that the Government could not agree to that when we were in Committee. We could have drawn a line and said, “That’s our baseline; we’re going to get better from there.” Instead, the Government did not agree even to measure that.
The Government have failed to put World Health Organisation air quality targets into the Bill. The Bill fails to reduce disposable nappy use, and I am glad I share an interest in that with other Members of the House. It fails to make enough meaningful change. It fails on marine conservation and ocean preservation. It fails on green homes. Only a few weeks ago, the Government scrapped the green homes grant, yet they are bringing in an Environment Bill.
The Bill fails on trees and bees—we all love bees; I know the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), loves the bees, as do many of my constituents. There is no detailed plan to meet net zero carbon emissions targets. The starting point should have been how we work to get up to there.
Above all, the Bill fails on strong enforcement. I think that is its weakest point. It delivers an Office for Environmental Protection with no teeth: it is not independent, it is resistant to concrete protections and it has a reduced remit. During the Bill’s passage, the Government reduced the remit of the watchdog, guardian and enforcer of the Bill. The Bill leaves our environment exposed to be used as a bargaining chip in trade agreements. It delivers legally binding targets that will not bite for two decades and that the Secretary of State has near complete discretion to change at any time. Marking our own homework will not lead to the change we need.
The Government, I am afraid, are ducking their responsibilities with the Bill. They have refused to listen to me, very learned and expert colleagues or the many civil society organisations that have fed in and pointed out time and again where the Bill needs to improve. Yet again, the Government have failed to agree to amendments today.
We are living in an imminent and real climate and environmental crisis. We will only solve it by working together, by listening to all voices and by all agreeing that we need the prize of climate change. We can only do that together, but my experience on the Environment Bill Committee confirmed to me that the Government have no interest in that. Amendment after amendment was put forward, all of which would have hugely strengthened the Bill, and the Government did not want to know. Any headlines today about changes of mind the Government may have had on amendments would have been immediately forgotten, because another event was going on this morning that has taken all the headlines, but it could have been done. We now have to hope that the other place will take up the mantle and agree to many of the excellent amendments and changes that we have proposed to the Bill.
The Government’s intransigence will cost future generations dear, but what are the next steps? It must be a global Bill. We must have joined-up Government. It cannot just be this small pot of legislation. For example, the G7 negotiations over vaccines must work to ensure that developing countries come to COP26 and that the whole process works. It has to join up through the year. We have to stop the cuts to international climate aid to countries around the world which undermine efforts we might take here to reduce our carbon emissions, and this must not be undermined by the upcoming planning legislation.
To summarise, this Bill will go down as a historic missed opportunity. I welcome the concessions that have been made, but they have taken too long and are piecemeal measures compared with the enormity of what is required to tackle the climate emergency. My constituents and I hope to be proved wrong. I hope that the Office for Environmental Protection gets some teeth from somewhere and does make a change, and that we see targets that are really achieved, but at the moment I am feeling, along with my constituents, very disappointed.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I put on record my thanks and pay tribute to the officials and Clerks who have been involved throughout this whole lengthy process. I will not be churlish; I will say thanks to the Ministers as well. Whether we agree with everything in the Bill or not, it is a tough job to pilot a Bill, particularly over the period of time we have been discussing it in this place.
I suspect, as the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said, that this is not the last we will hear of this, because I think our friends in the other place may have a thing or two to say about the Bill and seek to strengthen what, in principle at least, is not a bad Bill. There are plenty of things in it where there is great consensus and where we can agree. I shall focus on three areas where I do not agree so much. In particular, I will focus on my concerns about where the Bill is good in theory, but may be very weak in practice. Those concerns relate to regulation, the delivery of environmental goods through land management, and our ability to control and protect local environments.
First, on regulation, I am greatly concerned that the Office for Environmental Protection looks to be a relatively weak watchdog with few teeth and whose key figures are to be directly appointed by the Government. It will be funded by and not sufficiently independent from Government. It will therefore always be considered to be speaking with some level of restriction. The power, independence and penalties available to it do not look anything like as strong as what we had before we left the European Union. We could have easily been able to match that level of independence and robustness. The protections and firewalls have not been put in, so I fear very much that we will have perhaps great policies, poorly regulated.
Nothing highlights that more than the current discussion we are having about the potential Australian trade deal. If we are deeply committed to protecting almost uniquely high-level British animal welfare and environmental standards, how can we go ahead and do a deal with a country with significantly lower environmental and animal welfare standards? That surely undermines our ability to enact those standards throughout the whole United Kingdom and undermines British farming. British farming is the best in the world. We say that a lot, don’t we? It is important to understand why it is the best in the world. It is the best because of the regulation, but it is the best mostly because of our culture of the family farm and the unit of the family farm, which means we have close husbandry—almost hefted human beings, never mind hefted Herdwicks.
That is of massive importance to my second area of concern. Poor protections that would allow a trade deal with Australia could be a precedent for trade deals with other countries that undercut the quality of British produce and undermine British farmers. The concern is about not just weak regulation and a lack of independence, rigour and sanctions in that regulation, but the delivery of environmental goods through land management. The amendment in my name that I spoke to earlier is about ensuring that environmental land management schemes include significant and adequate rewards for maintaining the aesthetics and the beauty, as well as the biodiversity, of our landscape. That is crucial, but so far it is missing. Mr Deputy Speaker, I worry about your constituency, mine and many like them. They are absolutely natural environments, but they are managed, crafted landscapes that have been worked by our farmers over centuries. They are as beautiful as they are because they are managed. If we have a situation where they are not rewarded through the new scheme directly for the preservation of those landscapes, the risk to the world heritage site status of the Lake District is there, the risk to our tourism economy is there and the risk to biodiversity is there.
I would add that the Government’s movement towards ELM, which in theory we are all in favour of, is potentially risky because they are insisting on phasing out the basic payment scheme much more quickly than they are going to bring in ELM. That will leave upland farmers, for example, losing half their income in the next few years. Many of them will leave the industry. Indeed, the Government wish to facilitate them leaving the industry through the retirement package they announced last week, but they have no plans to bring anybody new and young into the industry to replace them. As they preside over the closure of Newton Rigg College in Penrith, for example, where are we getting our young farmers from to deliver these environmental goods? All the best environmental policies in the world are meaningless if we do not have the hands to enact them. It is like the England manager Gareth Southgate drawing a fantastic strategy in the dressing room and then having no players on the pitch. The danger is that the Environment Bill may be a great strategy, but with no players on the pitch we will not score any goals.
My third and final concern is that, when we look at the Government’s plan for local nature resource strategies, it is a good plan and it is a weak plan. There is no mechanism to ensure that those strategies have any impact on decision making locally. That is of particular relevance, given the Government’s plans to undermine planning, democracy and local communities, and to surrender the local environment to developers without proper accountability. In a community such as mine that depends so much on the beauty of our environment, that is a danger. The average number of homes built in a new development is usually fewer than 50 and the Government are looking to give developers the opportunity to do pretty much what they like up to a development of that size.
Put together, all those things draw a picture of a Bill that is broadly well-intentioned and does a lot of good, but, when it comes down to it, it does not provide itself with the mechanisms to actually deliver what it says in the first place. Good in principle—weak in practice.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Environment Bill
Monday 7th June 2021
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 May 2021 - large print - (26 May 2021)
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I am delighted to commence Second Reading. As we progress with the Bill’s passage, I will be assisted by my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist and I am very grateful to her for all her support so far. It is an enormously important Bill that will deliver meaningful change for our environment and support our goals to achieve net-zero emissions, stem the loss of our precious species and their habitats, and reduce the impacts of pollution.
2021 is a “super year” for nature, a turning point. Through the COP 26 UN Climate Change Conference, the Convention on Biological Diversity in Kunming, and the upcoming G7 leaders’ summit, the UK has both the opportunity and responsibility to provide world leadership. The Bill is an important part of demonstrating that leadership.
The Bill sets a new and ambitious domestic framework for environmental governance as we maximise the opportunities created by leaving the European Union. It will give the Secretary of State a power to set long-term, legally binding environmental targets of at least 15 years. The Bill’s framework allows for long-term targets to be set on any aspect of the natural environment or people’s enjoyment of it. However, it requires the Government to set and achieve at least one target in four priority areas: air quality, biodiversity, water, resource efficiency and waste reduction, as well as a target for fine particulate matter or PM2.5.
These targets will be set following a robust, evidence-led process that will include seeking independent expert advice, a role for stakeholders and the public, as well as scrutiny from Parliament. They will build on progress towards achieving the long-term vision of the 25-year environment plan, complement our net-zero target and help tackle some of the serious challenges that remain. We are also tabling an amendment to require a historic, new legally binding target on species abundance in England for 2030, aiming to halt the decline of nature. This world-leading measure will do for nature what our net-zero target is doing for emissions. It will spur action across government and across society on the scale required to address the biodiversity crisis.
The new independent office for environmental protection will hold us to account in ensuring that these targets, and all environmental law obligations on public authorities, are met. The OEP’s principal objective will be to contribute to environmental protection and the improvement of the natural environment. It will provide the necessary oversight to support long-term environmental governance. The OEP, chaired by the highly respected Dame Glenys Stacey, will independently monitor the way public authorities implement environmental law. Her appointment is a huge win for the OEP; she is a strong voice for the environment and will not shy away from holding this Government, or indeed any Government, to account. The OEP will track and report on progress on environmental improvement plans and targets. It will also receive and investigate complaints on serious breaches of environmental law by public authorities, taking legal action where necessary. On that note, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in particular for our detailed conversations already on this matter.
Clearly, the environment must transcend the work of Defra alone. That is why we are embedding internationally recognised environmental principles into domestic law. These principles include the integration, prevention, and precautionary principles, as well as the rectification at source principle and the polluter pays principle. Policymakers across government, from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Department for Transport, will be legally obliged through a statutory policy statement to consider these principles in all policy development where it affects the environment. This is a serious innovation in how the Government make policy.
The resources and waste measures in the Bill will move us away from a “take, make, throw” model to a more circular economy that keeps materials in use for longer. Measures in the Bill will act across the product life cycle so that we can become a world leader in using resources efficiently. The Government will not only ensure that producers are paying the full costs of the waste they create through extended producer responsibility, but empower our citizens to make more sustainable choices, with clearer product information through material efficiency and eco-labelling, in addition to a more consistent recycling system that is common to every local authority
We will provide for more effective enforcement against litter and fly-tipping. We have also taken powers to act on our manifesto commitment to ban the export of plastics to non-OECD countries. These measures combined will have tangible impacts on citizens and our economy, ensuring that the Government are reducing the impact of consumption on our planet. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for their interest in these matters particularly.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to amend REACH regulation, including the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008. Effective regulation of chemicals is essential for the protection of human health and the environment. The UK is a world leader in the management and regulation of chemicals; that does not change now that we have left the European Union. This power will ensure that legislation can keep up to date with and respond to emerging needs or ambitions for the management of chemicals. We will build on our global reputation and continue to provide a strong and influential voice on the world stage as an active party to the four UN conventions on chemicals and waste. We will continue our work to improve regulation, strengthening the evidence base and ambition globally. The intention is to make sure that we have the means to keep REACH fit for purpose.
We are learning more and more about the damage that poor air quality does to human health, including from knowledgeable advocates in this House. I was pleased to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, a couple of weeks ago to hear more about this issue from her. The Bill will require the Secretary of State to set at least two legally binding targets on air quality. This will include a concentration limit for fine particulate matter—the most damaging pollutant to human health—and a more sophisticated population exposure reduction target. Last year, we set out our plans for the long-term PM2.5 target to drive continuous improvement through reductions in exposure to pollution for all citizens irrespective of whether future statutory limits have already been achieved. We will set out further detail on this world-leading approach to air quality in due course, including through public consultation. The new powers in this Bill, alongside the existing legal framework for air quality, build on the £3.8 billion we have already invested in action to tackle air pollution.
In a changing climate we need additional tools to help us to manage our precious water resources. Modernised legislation will secure a long-term, resilient water supply and sewerage services. This will include powers to direct water companies to work together to meet current and future demand for water. Planning will be more robust; it will ensure that water companies are better able to maintain water supplies and support Defra’s broader efforts to address flooding. We will also strengthen our powers to vary or revoke abstraction licences where these cause environmental damage. These powers will be available from 2028 after our current abstraction plan is fully implemented by 2027. Through the plan, we are collaborating with stakeholders now to achieve sustainable abstraction.
I am also pleased to announce that the Government will be tabling amendments to the Bill in Committee to help to reduce the harm from storm overflows to our rivers, waterways and coastlines. A significant amount of work has gone into this and I thank the right honourable Member for Ludlow, Philip Dunne, in the other place for his work on this hugely important issue.
Many noble Lords share my passion for our natural world, and the nature part of the Bill is full of innovative measures to support our ambitions for a green recovery. I mentioned already how our collective appreciation for nature has increased over the course of the pandemic. Many have discovered new corners of refuge in our local green spaces, and the Government want to ensure that local communities can share these green spaces with the wildlife which calls these valuable habitats their homes. Biodiversity net gain will be mandated in the planning system, ensuring that developments such as new homes are not built at the expense of nature, and creating thriving natural spaces for communities. These will require a 10% net improvement in biodiversity, guaranteeing that richer natural spaces will come with new developments.
Local nature recovery strategies will create strong local leadership to support nature recovery. They will identify priorities and map opportunities for conserving and enhancing nature, helping to ensure that our investments will have the maximum benefit. Local nature recovery strategies will form the foundation of an England-wide nature recovery network. To complement these new tools for nature, we are amending the biodiversity duty in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, following post-legislative scrutiny by a Select Committee of this House, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. This strengthened duty will require an active process of improvement to conserve and enhance nature, rather than merely maintain the status quo.
The Government have also amended the Bill in the other place to provide for powers to amend the habitats regulations. This will enable us to focus our conservation efforts on our new domestic framework, developed as part of this Bill, while ensuring that we continue to fulfil our international obligations under multilateral environmental agreements such as the Bern convention. Our forthcoming Green Paper will explore how we can deliver this as part of our ambition to halt the decline of nature and protect 30% of our land by 2030. The paper will also consider measures to improve the status of native species such as the hedgehog, water voles and red squirrels.
These measures will collectively underpin the delivery of a new legally binding target on species abundance for 2030, which I mentioned earlier and will table in Committee, aiming to halt the decline of species. This will put our ambition for the recovery of nature on a par with our net-zero ambition.
I thank my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Manchester, the Bishop of Chichester, the Bishop of Oxford and the Bishop of Salisbury, as well as the Bishop of Norwich and others whom I met recently, for their valuable contributions on this issue. These new amendments will be complemented by actions set out in our recently published England tree and peat action plans, on which I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for their useful insights.
The Government are working hard to ensure that we tackle biodiversity loss at home, but we are also taking action abroad to protect the world’s most precious and significant forests. We are the first country in the world to introduce legislation to prohibit regulated businesses from using agricultural commodities that have been cultivated on land that was illegally occupied or used. Over 90% of deforestation is illegal in some of the world’s most important forests, such as the Amazon.
I am aware of the anticipation surrounding the Bill, and, while its passage has been delayed due to exceptional circumstances, work on implementing its measures has not stopped at any point. Dame Glenys Stacey has been appointed as chair of the office for environmental protection, and an announcement on appointments to the OEP’s board is being made today. A draft principles policy statement has just finished public consultation, and the Government have started developing our legally binding targets with experts. Technical consultations have been launched, for example on the deposit return scheme for drinks containers, extended producer responsibility for packaging and consistent recycling collections. I have spoken to many noble Lords already about measures in the Bill, for which I thank all noble Lords.
I would like to notify the House that, in addition to the species abundance target and storm overflow amendments, I will table some devolution-related and minor amendments. First, I will table an amendment to increase the scope of the environmental principles duty for UK Ministers to cover reserved matters in Scotland. This will ensure that there is no gap in the application of the environmental principles, and that it is in line with the devolution settlement. Secondly, I will table a couple of amendments requested by Senedd Cymru to enable better collaboration between the OEP and the equivalent devolved bodies. Finally, I will table some minor amendments to ensure that consultations will count towards the statutory duty to consult, even if they are technically conducted before the Bill achieves Royal Assent.
Finally, I hope that noble Lords will agree that this truly is a landmark Bill. It provides a holistic approach, tackling real-world issues, such as simplified recycling systems, through to more structural changes to our environmental governance, ensuring that policy decisions account for the environment. This is an ambitious Bill that will aid our recovery and help us to meet our goals of net-zero emissions, stem the loss of biodiversity and reduce the damage that pollution does to our natural world.
I look forward to what I am absolutely certain will be a rigorous and lively debate. I expect nothing less for a Bill of such magnitude and gravity, at a time when we can wait no longer to act. I beg to move.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my environmental interests in the register. As a former Member of the European Parliament, I recognise the very real challenge in satisfactorily replacing the EU’s environment policy architecture. While nothing is ever perfect, the EU has long been recognised as a global leader on many of the issues that noble Lords will reference today.
Underlying the architecture for a number of decades has been the European Commission, whose enforcement powers play a key role in making member states take their responsibilities seriously. Now that we are outside the EU, we will gradually depart from its policy framework but, in doing so, I hope that the Government will keep and build on the better features, including in their design of the office for environmental protection.
Your Lordships’ House has dealt with a variety of significant pieces of legislation in recent years. While I was not a Member at the time, I watched from afar as colleagues tackled the EU withdrawal Bill and its multitude of constitutional implications. Concerns about the environment featured during the debates on that Bill and, despite the passage of time, many remain unaddressed by the Government. Other legislation, such as the Trade Act, was highly contentious.
While we will, of course, approach this Bill in the same constructive spirit with which we approach all government proposals, it seems inevitable that its journey on to the statute book will require cross-party co-operation on key issues and a genuine willingness from Ministers to bring forward improvements.
There is little doubt that we must put in place a new system that protects and eventually enhances our precious natural environment. After all, we are in the midst of a climate and ecological emergency that threatens the survival of many species across the UK and, by extension, our survival as well. Inaction is simply not a choice.
However, we are not convinced that the Bill as drafted will deliver on the lofty promises made by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and others. In some areas, it presents a step backwards from the status quo or previous proposals. Even where important progress is being made, such as with new provisions around deforestation and supply chains, there remains a lot of room to be more ambitious.
This weekend, I was in Birmingham, talking to local authority members, including the cabinet member for the environment and transport. I learned about the journey that Birmingham is on to become carbon neutral by 2030, which is very ambitious, considering that the Government’s target is 2050 and the West Midlands Combined Authority’s target is 2041. We welcome this bold and brave commitment by Birmingham City Council, the largest local authority in Europe.
I also heard about the council’s plans to ensure that every citizen has the fundamental human right to breathe clean air. The city council recently launched a clean air zone on 1 June. While I am aware of the partnership between this Government and the council, the important thing moving forward is to understand the impact that the project has on the business community, which has struggled over the past 12 months, especially during Covid. Will the Government and the Minister commit to resourcing local authorities that are seizing the initiative to launch clean air zones—and provide the right level of support to the communities that may be impacted by them?
Sadly, the Bill as it stands does not set a target for air quality, leaving it to the discretion of the Secretary of State. This is a missed opportunity. The WHO guidelines should be seen as minimum requirements, and we call on the Government to use them nationally. Air pollution has reached dangerous levels, with 60% of people in England now breathing illegally poor air. The office for environmental protection will be effective only if it is sufficiently independent of the Government. Parliament must play its role in supporting the principle of the OEP’s independence. The public need the confidence that the Government will be properly held to account on their duty to protect the environment.
The UK is currently using and wasting resources at unsustainable levels, contributing to simultaneous climate and ecological breakdowns. UK consumption is now such that the average UK citizen will have a greater carbon footprint in 12 days than citizens in several other nations will have in a year.
Litter is wreaking havoc on British wildlife, killing millions of mammals every year and choking our seas with plastic. There must be an increased emphasis on reducing resource use and encouraging design for resource efficiency, including through reuse. Reducing resource use will ensure a more efficient economy, reduce the effects of extraction and disposal on wildlife and ecosystems and contribute to achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.
The Bill is the Government’s first opportunity to show that we will not lose out as a result of leaving the EU. If we cannot secure strong environmental protections in the Bill, that does not bode well for the workers’ rights, workplace protections and consumer protections that we need in our everyday lives.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, nearly half our species—our birds, our bees, our wild flowers—are in decline. Yet we rely on them for our physical health, and indeed for our mental well-being. So we need to respond urgently to this crisis. The Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of the Environment Bill, but it requires significant strengthening if it is to be sufficiently transformative for the challenges that our nature faces. We welcome the fact that the Government are enabling targets to be set, including, as the Minister said, the 2030 nature recovery target. We know from the Climate Change Act how important targets are for driving delivery right across government and beyond, so long as they are accompanied by legally binding interim targets.
However, in many parts of the Bill, progress is tentative: it is almost as if the Government are moving forward towards environmental protection, yet the dead hand of another government department pulls them back. For example, the environmental principles should be the means of putting the environment at the heart of all policy-making. Yet, as things stand, they are merely for guidance, and are to be proportionately applied. There are critical exemptions: they do not apply to public bodies, to the Treasury or to the MoD.
The Dasgupta review said that it was time for a new vocabulary, to put the environment and its value at the heart of the economy. But by excluding the Treasury, the Government are showing that they are not prepared even to open the dictionary. As for the MoD, that has one-third of all UK SSSIs—our most precious sites for biodiversity and wildlife. That is 117,000 football pitches’ worth of our most precious land. Yet although the MoD is subject to the provisions of the Climate Change Act, it is not subject to the provisions of this Bill. Those opt-outs are political choices, to weaken the environmental protection of our country. As things stand, that leaves the environmental principles pretty toothless.
The Minister said that the Bill would be the means of introducing biodiversity net gain. That should be a powerful way of achieving a net gain for our nature in the future. Yet major infrastructure projects are excluded. We need all planning applications and developments to be included, and all government departments to be subject to the provisions of this important Bill.
In certain respects, the Bill leaves the environment worse off than when we were under the auspices of the European Union. It will introduce the new governance body to hold the Government to account—the OEP—and we welcome the setting up of that. However, as it stands, it is insufficiently independent of the Government, whom it is meant to hold to account. It has no power to fine, and its actions are hampered by the fact that if it applies for an environmental review, a court cannot impose any sanctions if those would cause substantial hardship. That just cannot be right.
On Report in the Commons, late additions were introduced, which will sweep away important protections for our most precious habitats for wildlife and biodiversity. Those were previously protected by domestic legislation enacting the EU habitats directive, but those protections are to be swept away to ensure that Project Speed can go ahead. Particular protections for the homes of creatures such as our nightingales and bitterns are to be swept away just so that developers can have a free-for-all in the new zoned planning areas that planning reforms are bringing fast down the track.
In an awful lot of areas in the Bill, the Government are taking powers unto themselves, including on setting provisions for the critical issue of water quality. We need the best quality for our water, yet here the Government seem to be saying, “In future we’ll decide who we want to consult, and then we’ll tell Parliament what we’ve decided.” Of course we need to look to amend water quality standards as our understanding of the science changes—but the process review must be consultative and transparent, and it must make it clear how any changes will ensure that government targets are being met. As it stands, Clause 83 is not sufficiently robust, and needs significant amendment.
Where the Bill is right is in making clear the vital role of local authorities in delivering nature for their local communities. I applaud the fact that the Government have listened to the lobbying—if I may call it that—of Peers right across this House on strengthening local authorities’ biodiversity duties. That is welcome—but they will need the resources to do the job properly. Only recently, the Association of Local Government Ecologists said that only one in three councils has in-house ecology officers.
Local authorities will need the resources, particularly if they are to make a good job of delivering the new local nature recovery strategies. We accept that, as the Government say, those could be a powerful way of bringing together multiple stakeholders and funds, both from biodiversity net gain and from ELMS, to deliver ecologically coherent nature recovery strategies. They could be a really powerful tool, but at the moment they are separate from local authorities’ planning functions and strategic decision-making. I look forward to reintroducing an amendment tabled by Sarah Olney MP in the Commons, which would rectify that omission and embed local nature recovery strategies in the planning process.
We know that nature is important for people’s mental well-being, but in order to enjoy it they have to have access to it. Recent ONS figures showed that nationally, only one in eight households has access to a shared or private garden. In London that figure drops to one in five. Clause 1 says that the Government “may” introduce targets for people to be able to enjoy local nature, but that is not set as a priority area. In the list of targets that the Government produced last August, which was updated in October, there are no targets for access at all. I know that my noble friends Lord Addington and Lady Scott of Needham Market—who cannot be with us today—will seek to return to this issue in Committee, because it is critical to increase the proportion of people who have access to good-quality natural green space to enjoy.
As the Minister said, the Government will enable targets to be set for air quality. But we agree with Labour that what is in the Bill now is not strong enough. My noble friend Lady Walmsley, from the Liberal Democrat health team, will seek to work with others across parties in Committee to strengthen the air quality provisions.
In their 25-year environment plan, the Government said that they wanted to improve the environment within a generation. If they really want to do that, the Bill is a little sluggish in certain respects. For example, although I welcome the inclusion of the extended producer responsibility obligations, which could be a powerful way to embed the polluter pays principle in law, the Government have not moved on from some of the low-hanging fruit on which they have already delivered, such as single-use plastic, to address other plastic issues. Why do they not take the opportunity to say in the Bill how they are going to deal with other single-use plastics, such as wet wipes? Wet wipes contain plastic, but we know that they can be produced without plastic, and they are affecting our wildlife and clogging up our waterways.
Equally, where are the measures to address the commercial abstraction of water? There is nothing in the Bill on reducing household water consumption, whose effects we know will be exacerbated in future years by climate change. We will introduce amendments to ensure that there is labelling of water-efficient household appliances, and compulsory water metering.
Of course, this is not just about driving down consumption of our resources; it is also about looking at the UK’s global ecological footprint, as the Minister rightly said. We really welcome the inclusion of the due diligence obligation on companies selling commodities in the UK which contribute to deforestation. I would say that we welcome it, given that it was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, but, credit where credit is due, I take my hat off to the Minister for personally championing this issue. It has been well noted and we are grateful for it. He would be surprised if I did not say that I wished it went a little further, and that we hope it will address both legal and illegal deforestation, tackle the issue of businesses which finance those operations and respect the rights of local communities.
I hope that everybody who will speak today accepts that there is a nature crisis. On that front, I look forward to the valedictory comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury, who both in this Chamber and in wider civil society has been such a champion for respecting our planetary resources and encouraging people to take those responsibilities seriously. He will be missed, but I look forward to what he has to say to us today. The nature we love is in crisis. As the Minister said, this is a massively important year for us, with the CBD coming up in October. It is an opportunity for the UK to show global ambition and to have a route map to get there. We on the Liberal Democrats Benches look forward to working with colleagues throughout the House to ensure that this Bill enables the UK to stand proud and to have the ambition and the route map to protect the global and national environment that we all love.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer/landowner and as chair of UKCEH research.
This Bill is a once-in-a-generation chance to set a course for a better quality of life for all flora and fauna, including humans, that live on our overcrowded island. While a 30-year generation is a mere heartbeat in terms of our environment, the same 30 years is also a very long time in politics. So the passion for the environment which I recognise fully in the current Ministers in both Houses must be as of naught to us during our deliberations. We must ensure that this Bill continues to protect our environment as Secretaries of State and Ministers come and go over the years and decades.
It is a huge Bill with much that is very good in it. I shall not outline that because our traditional 10-minute speaking time for Second Readings seems to have been curtailed, but I support most of what the Bill is trying to do. However, there are two main areas where I think we can improve. First, if you were from outside government and were thinking of setting up a body to oversee the Government’s environmental performance and to replace the European Commission in this respect, you would definitely never put this body with Defra or under the guidance of its Secretary of State. After all, two of the main bodies that the OEP will scrutinise are the Environment Agency and Natural England, both of which have their budgets and activities almost totally controlled by Defra. MHCLG would be another no-no department, because it manages and partly funds local authorities, which are perhaps the other main target for scrutiny.
In the private sector, when shareholders appoint auditors to scrutinise their company, they have by law to appoint outside, independent auditors, not the internal accounts department of their own company, which is what is happening here. The independent auditors are there to check on the internal accounts department, for which read Defra, and not to do their bidding. Anyone—actually, everyone—can see that the currently proposed set-up is completely wrong. The OEP has not only to be independent but to be seen to be independent. As currently set up, it is neither.
The other area is one where a truly independent OEP would of course come down like a ton of bricks: the urgent need for Defra and the Environment Agency to put right the appalling pollution of our rivers. Eighty-six per cent of our rivers are not in good ecological condition. We have once again reverted to being the dirty man of Europe. Something needs to be done and done quickly. Rumour has it—and the Minister mentioned it today—that Defra has its own set of amendments here, but it would be good to know exactly what is proposed as soon as possible. Even then, I would hope to push the Government a little further. For instance, water pollution is as much about what you are taking out of a river as what you are putting in. Abstraction licences and compulsory water metering are on my target list for amendments.
Then there is the major problem of combined sewer overflows and the huge quantities of sewage we put into our rivers. I shall not bore you with statistics but, believe me, what goes on is totally shocking. From talking to scientists it is clear that river pollution is no simple matter. Every catchment is different and has different problems needing different solutions. We should make better use of existing catchment-based partnerships, increasing their number and formalising them within the Bill. Like the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities set up by the 2009 Act, these catchment conservation authorities should be given more powers to monitor and control their own rivers.
Finally, I want to air a nagging doubt that lurks always at the back of my mind. It is not really to do with this Bill, but it is something we should think on. For sure, our generation of farmers has fallen short by overfocusing on the production of cheap food, to the detriment of our biodiversity and possibly even our nation’s nutrition, but we are a very crowded island: England is three times more densely populated than France and four times more than Spain. I worry that, with all our current demands for more habitats, more trees, more forests, more carbon sinks, more rural leisure, more national parks and masses more new housing, all of which I approve of, we will wake up in 40 years’ time, in the middle of a third world war, and say, “Hang on, was it your generation that diminished our ability to feed ourselves, so that now we cannot survive?” I am sure we can fit all the land uses into our landscape, but during the frantic activity we shall all have on this Bill over the next few months, we must never forget that the primary purpose of agricultural land is to produce food for our nation.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for setting out this important Bill. I am grateful too for his long-term advocacy of many of the proposals it contains.
The Bill offers a unique opportunity to create a coherent, long-term framework for the environment that is capable of motivating all sectors and all parts of society to plan, to commit to and to collaborate on improving the environment on which we and future generations depend. I therefore especially welcome the Bill’s seeking to address the core governance elements that will be needed for the decades ahead. This is the critical component. Business will clearly have a key role to play in delivering the changes needed to meet our long-term environmental ambitions and hit our net-zero target. Unlocking private sector finance and investment will be essential, particularly given the pressures on the public purse.
For businesses to feel able to invest for the long term, it goes without saying that their trust and confidence will be prerequisites. Such trust and confidence will to a large extent depend on the governance mechanisms and processes by which long-term environmental targets and a national environmental improvement plan are set. This begs the question: do the governance mechanisms and associated processes proposed in the Bill need optimising?
The Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment—IEMA—and the Broadway Initiative are two respected bodies which think that the answer to this question is yes. They see a lack of alignment and coherence between the objectives and processes in different elements of the governance framework proposed in the Bill, which, if it remains unresolved, could result in their pulling in slightly different directions. For businesses, this raises questions about predictability and could unintentionally undermine their confidence to invest. For instance, Clause 1 places a duty on the Secretary of State to set at least one long-term target in each of four priority areas, but no directly stated purpose or outcome is specified to guide setting targets. Making good this omission would help increase certainty for businesses.
Another example is to be found in Clause 7, which covers environmental improvement plans, or EIPs. Their implementation will be key to achieving national, long-term environmental targets. While an EIP will be required to include interim targets, there is no specific requirement for one to include the policies and actions that the Government intend to take to ensure that long-term environmental targets are achieved. Is it not the case that the confidence and certainty that businesses need to make long-term investments would be strengthened if the Bill required EIPs to include the policies and actions that the Government intend to take? I can therefore understand why bodies such as IEMA and the Broadway Initiative see it as essential that the Bill closely aligns its core governance elements with a coherent set of objectives to give businesses the trust and confidence that they need to invest in the future.
Trust and confidence are also the watchwords that will underpin the development of environmental markets. There is a significant private sector interest in the potential of well-designed markets for nature alongside sources of private funding that are potentially available to support nature recovery. However, to maximise the impact of both public and private investment in nature, there is a need for agreed standards and accreditation to give confidence to markets, investors, regulators and other stakeholders. I declare an interest as chair of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service—UKAS—which is the government-appointed national accreditation body. UKAS accreditation already provides this confidence and assurance in many environmentally related areas, such as carbon trading schemes, emissions measurements, the microgeneration certification scheme and the Woodland Carbon Code, to name but a few. We work closely with our UK quality infrastructure partner, the British Standards Institute—the BSI—in the development of consensus-based standards that meet the needs of all stakeholders. In short, the UK already has in place a proven means to create both the standards framework that will be needed and the underpinning accreditation to demonstrate whether and where those standards are, or are not, being achieved. As the saying goes, if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it. This is especially true if this Bill is going to achieve its effect.
In conclusion, I strongly support this very important Bill. It is a good Bill and, with a few tweaks to its governance proposals, it could become an even better one.
Lord Oates (LD)
I declare my interest as chairman of the advisory board of Weber Shandwick UK.
The Bill comes before the House following Professor Dasgupta’s influential review of the economics of biodiversity. The opening paragraph of that review sets out the stark challenge that we face.
“We are totally dependent upon the natural world”,
it reminds us, and goes on to say:
“It supplies us with every oxygen-laden breath we take and every mouthful of food we eat. But we are currently damaging it so profoundly that many of its natural systems are now on the verge of breakdown.”
The report goes on to highlight that
“our demands … far exceed Nature’s capacity to supply”
us with the goods and services that we all rely on; that biodiversity is declining faster than at any time in human history; that our unsustainable engagement with nature is endangering the prosperity of current and future generations; and that at the heart of the problem lies deep-rooted, widespread institutional failure. The report warns us that reversing these trends requires action now. The Bill has to be measured against these challenges and, while I welcome much of it, regrettably, it falls short in a number of respects.
The first of these is on targets. Instead of action now, we have action sometime in the future. While the framework for setting environmental targets is to be welcomed, we need to have binding interim targets alongside the long-term ones so that we can ensure that we get started on the journey, underline the urgency of taking action now and ensure that Ministers can be held accountable for targets in the immediate future. In some cases, such as air and water pollution and water conservation, we simply need far more ambitious measures now.
Secondly, where we needed a powerful, independent office for environmental protection, backed up by the full force of the law, the Bill gives us a hobbled regulator, its independence compromised by the ability of Ministers to interfere in how it carries out its enforcement functions and its effectiveness undermined by the constraints placed on judicial enforcement, as my noble friend Lady Parminter pointed out. As briefings from the Bingham Centre and ClientEarth have highlighted, the Bill curtails the power and discretion of the courts. Extraordinarily, Clause 37(7) states:
“A statement of non-compliance”
by the court
“does not affect the validity of the conduct in respect of which it is given.”
Clause 37(8) compounds this reversal of legal precedent by constraining the power of the court to provide a remedy if that would
“cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of”
any third party.
In its briefing, ClientEarth gave an indicative example of how absurd this is. If a permit for a new mine was granted with a failure to consider the impact on air quality, such that the operation would cause serious pollution and adverse health impacts for many years, the court could not quash it unless it could show that it would not cause serious hardship to the mine owner or substantially prejudice their right to operate the mine. The court would obviously not be able to do that; as a result, the mine could operate indefinitely, regardless of its impact. Far from addressing the institutional failures that Professor Dasgupta highlighted, the compromises to the independence of the OEP, and the constraints on the courts’ ability to enforce environmental law, bake that failure in from the very start. I am sure that noble Lords will wish to improve the Bill in this area during its passage through this House.
Another area that will need to be addressed is the role of local authorities in protecting biodiversity. While the Bill has much to say about the duties of local authorities—as my noble friend Lady Parminter said, that is welcome—it has next to nothing to say about their powers to carry out these duties. Local authorities are on the front line in protecting biodiversity and they need to be empowered to do so. Consequently, I intend to table amendments in Committee that would allow local authorities to designate land as a site at risk of biodiversity loss, with associated powers to inspect such land and enter into conservation covenant agreements with landowners, as provided for in Part 7 of the Bill.
We welcome the fact that this Bill is finally before this House but we regret that the urgency of action that the Dasgupta Review called for is largely absent, despite the Minister’s declaration just a few minutes ago that we can wait no longer to act. We regret that institutional weaknesses remain abundant and are, in fact, reinforced by the Bill. Improvements to the Bill need to be made across a wide range of issues, including tackling air pollution, protecting local and international biodiversity, acting to end the financing of deforestation, enforcing packaging waste responsibilities, conserving water resources and protecting rivers from pollution.
However, there is good news for the Minister, who I do not doubt would prefer a much more effective Bill, given his personal commitment to this subject. We intend to help him out by working across the House to bring forward constructive amendments to strengthen the Bill and tackle the urgent challenges that noble Lords, including the Minister, have so starkly highlighted.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, like all noble Lords, I welcome this Bill and congratulate the Minister on his passion and conviction on this. However, there are a number of concerns.
The first is about the office for environmental protection. If the Government take the environment as seriously as they say they do, I do not understand at all why this cannot be an independent body, of the nature of the National Audit Office. However much the Government choose to stretch the definition, its independence will always be constrained because of its nature as a part of Defra. I fail to understand why the Government think it would be constitutionally inappropriate to allow this body to have the power to initiate legal enforcement proceedings against the Government. Just the other day, I was speaking to someone who lived on and looked after the upper reaches of the Test. This is looked after by Southern Water yet, at the same time, that company is siphoning off money from the water, which is damaging the river course further down and reducing the wetland. We are going against each other—who is going to sort this out?
I am also concerned that the OEP will not have enough funds. A lot of this is about investigation—looking, visiting, seeing and monitoring. A whole series of attention-grabbing green headlines will become meaningless if we cannot enforce the good environmental rules we need.
I would like to talk about a couple of things that are very scary right now. One, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cameron, is the UK’s rivers. I declare my interest as someone who swims in rivers a lot; I have swum in three in the past week. But I take my life in my hands, because I know that agricultural pollution is rampant and we release untreated human sewage directly into our waterways. This is due not to a lack of laws but to the inability to enforce these laws. There are regulatory agencies in England and Wales, but they have been drastically weakened by cuts to their funding and resources.
The EA’s environment and business budget, which covers agricultural regulation, waste crimes and incident response, has been cut from £117 million in 2010 to just £40 million in 2020. Even if you do not allow for inflation, that equates to an effective quartering of what we spend per year. The net effect is that in many critical areas our regulators are completely impotent. For example, in 2019-20, the total budget for agricultural enforcement across England was just £320,000, equating to 0.65 full-time staff in each of 14 areas. Such drastic cuts to regulatory agencies mean that polluters can continue, secure in the knowledge that they are unlikely to be caught or prosecuted. Staggeringly, each farm in England can now expect an inspection just once every 263 years. It is useless. The number of court actions against river polluters fell from 235 in 2002 to three last year.
Currently, the state of many of our farming and policing policies means that on the River Wye—a place I am concerned about and a place where I swam—you can erect sheds containing 40,000 birds. These are usually paid for by big multinationals, which get tax breaks, as the sheds are classed as farm buildings although they are factories. There is almost no authority to stop them putting the slurry, the chemicals, the phosphates and the sewage back into this amazing river, which is now almost without fish in large chunks.
As has been brought up by many noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Oates, I am also concerned about the planning permissions. The proposals on net gain and protecting habitats will become much more difficult.
In my remaining couple of minutes, I would like to bring the House’s attention to something very current; it happened last week. Noble Lords may or may not like Knepp rewilding estate in Horsham, but it is a beacon of an attempt to bring rewilding into this country. It is visited by hundreds of thousands of people; it has set a fantastic standard. Yet the owners of Knepp lost a case just last week. Horsham District Council declared by six to three that it will allow a housing estate of 3,500 new houses right on the border of this extraordinary natural wilding achievement. The Minister just said that we want 30% of land to be maintained for nature, so what on earth is happening? Horsham District Council, which has its own nature recovery programme, has been leaned on by the Government to produce more houses. It appears, staggeringly, that this project will go ahead.
I believe the Minister: having visited Knepp, he knows how wonderful it is. We, with Natural England, want to encourage more such places around the country—little ones, big ones and ones that entrance adults, children and teachers about the flora and fauna that are so precious to us all. Yet 3,500 houses will block the nature corridor, bringing pollution, noise and light right to the edge of Knepp, not even separated by a road. Something has to be done. I am pleased with the Bill but, my gosh, it needs a lot of work, and I will be supporting all the amendments I believe in.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford [V]
My Lords, it is a real honour to speak in this debate and share in the passion and expertise of this House in favour of clear, swift, accountable action to safeguard the environment and combat climate change. It is a particular pleasure to pay tribute to my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury, who makes his valedictory speech today, to which I look forward. I thank Bishop Nicholas for his leadership within the Church of England, this House and more widely on climate questions. That leadership has played a key role in our national Church’s commitment to net zero by 2030.
The evidence is stark. Humanity stands at a crossroads in these next five years. We have a tiny window to make rapid decisions and take action that will affect the life of the entire planet for, perhaps, centuries to come. The majority world is looking to us and this Parliament for justice, for an example and for leadership on climate and environmental matters in this year of COP 15 and COP 26. My sister and brother Anglicans in Kenya, South Africa, Bangladesh and many other places are already suffering the effects of our and others’ delay. Future generations—today’s young people—look to us to take the right actions now to give them at least a better chance of keeping global heating below 1.5 degrees. We are stewards of this good earth—God’s wonderful creation. As a nation, we bear a disproportionate responsibility for its present condition. As a Parliament, we have the opportunity for extraordinary and disproportionate leadership for the coming decade. It is a powerful testimony to human endeavour that our combined impact on the planet is now rapidly altering its climate and threatening the life of the earth. It is a powerful insight into the complexity and selfishness of the human heart that progress in environmental matters is so immensely difficult.
In that context, I warmly welcome the Bill. As other noble Lords have said, it is wide-ranging and contains a number of ambitious targets. The Bill will be closely watched as an indicator of the Government’s priorities in the run-up to COP 26. The creation of the office for environmental protection is a vital and imaginative step forward. However, I do not yet see in the Bill sufficient guarantees of financial and political independence essential to good governance. I believe this has now been mentioned by every noble Lord who has spoken thus far. The trajectory is clear, and I hope that the Government will listen very carefully and take action.
Many of the decisions required of the OEP across the next decade will be difficult and unpopular politically, but right and just in terms of risk, geopolitics and intergenerational equity. Financial and political independence for the OEP is therefore essential. Parliament and government need a voice in both appointments and budgets for the OEP not only to lead in the United Kingdom but to be a gold standard internationally.
It is never easy to share or give away power or entrust oversight to others. But this new body must be above party politics and immune to particular Ministers’ enthusiasms or lack of enthusiasm. I urge the Secretary of State to give further serious consideration to measures that will strengthen the financial and political independence of the OEP in the debates that will follow. I warmly welcome the Bill.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Bill and declare my family interest as a livestock farmer and other interests in the register.
This is a massive Bill. We can see that, overall, we have worked on this topic in many guises before, and that is well exemplified by the huge sections devoted to amending previous legislation, right up to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. In addition, there is a virtual forest of Henry VIII powers, which I hope your Lordships will be able to narrow and point more clinically where necessary.
The elements I draw to your Lordships’ attention are, first, the statement of principles; secondly, the 25-year plan to improve the environment; and, thirdly, the current calculation of our agricultural emissions. On the first, I hope we can get a bit more detail on the principles we can expect over and above the generalities listed, and I eagerly await the government amendments that my noble friend the Minister hinted at earlier. In its briefing, the Countryside Alliance outlined a few suggestions, and I think there could be merit in its innovation principle and possibly in its appropriate scale principle. The Bill already incorporates the precautionary principle, which might do with clarification on whether it applies to definable harms or must include unknown harms, as it has done before.
Other than straightforward environmental elements, the Bill’s essential contribution is that it combines the element of sustainability with environmental and species recovery. The main strategy for this is already laid out in the 2018 policy paper A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment. This incorporates and addresses more directly the questions of mitigating and adapting to climate change.
As we struggle to find a commercial solution to the capture and storage of CO2 to meet the targets set for us, adaptation and mitigation on land is still one of the major paths we have found, so there is immense pressure on land managers. Anyone who farms will see this as an attempt to manage nature—and there are few things which are more unpredictable than nature. Good scientific data in this field is available for the carbon potential of forests and peat bogs, and there is a lot on emissions from livestock. However, as yet there is nothing very comprehensive on grassland.
Traditional and organic agriculture are heavily dependent on the benefits that accrue from having ruminant animals as part of their rotation; that is stated in the 25-year plan. To address biodiversity and carbon storage, a necessary place to start is with soil, which is much degraded in some areas. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board has produced figures some of which sit uncomfortably with our popular preconceptions. It estimates that degraded arable soils contain only 23 tonnes of carbon per hectare, whereas in mixed woodland and improved grassland the soil contains around 63 tonnes of carbon per hectare. The surprise comes with permanent grassland, which contains 83 tonnes per hectare. Surprisingly, if that is then planted with trees, it might take a few years to balance out the loss of storage capacity with the amount of new carbon to be accumulated in the crop.
The latest news on grassland I have received is that our friends in Australia and New Zealand, with whom we are likely to be sharing our markets, are now working towards net zero in the production of sheep and cattle. This would be an immense challenge to our production, and the industry here will be looking to see if there are lessons that we can learn and how we could move in that direction. Agriculture is currently burdened with responsibility for 10% of UK emissions. If these lessons are meaningful, this could change markedly, and it could bring the association of grazing livestock with carbon emissions more into line with other foodstuffs.
I look forward to Committee stage of the Bill.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust and my involvement in a range of environmental charities, as listed in the register.
Ministers must quail when they hear noble Lords welcome a Bill as an okay Bill and then go on to say that it will need substantial amendment to become a better one. I welcome this Bill, at long last, but it needs amendment to do the job. I thank the Minister for meeting me to discuss some necessary amendments.
The species abundance target that the Government have indicated they will come forward with needs to provide clear, measurable statutory targets and interim targets for biodiversity, to match the statutory targets we already have for climate change and to enshrine in law a commitment to a 2030 target to halt and reverse biodiversity decline—a commitment that the Government have already made. We look forward to seeing the detail of this addition to the Bill, and I hope that the Government welcome and act on the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee that the publication and any subsequent amendment of the biodiversity metric should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The Bill also needs to provide long-overdue statutory protection for ancient woodland. Noble Lords have heard me go on about that before. We need similar protection to that accorded to sites of special scientific interest. We need a statutory basis for the England tree action plan to ensure that it is indeed action, gives proper priority to native woodland and does not end up overfocusing on commercial forestry as part of the dash for trees.
But perhaps the most important thing as we see the Bill through our House is to help the Government join up two pieces of important legislation. The planning reform Bill is not yet published, and I have big suspicions about it. Rumours abound that it will designate land, in a top-down way, as either suitable for development or to be protected, and leave local communities powerless. As other noble Lords have highlighted, if the planning reform Bill is not to counteract completely the protection provisions of the Environment Bill, we need in statute measures to link and harmonise these two pieces of legislation. The Environment Bill needs to give a legal status to local nature recovery strategies so that plans, planners and developers have to take account of them.
We also need to enshrine in statute a land-use framework for England. I tried to do this during the passage of the then Agriculture Bill and was told that the Environment Bill was a much more suitable place to put it—well, here we are, now at the Environment Bill. The planning Bill sounds like it will have an oversimple, binary approach to land use: worth protecting or worth developing. The reality is that we need a much more nuanced approach to land use, as it needs to deliver multiple benefits: biodiversity, conservation, climate change, food, flood risk management, water quality, health and mental health, to name but a few. Land needs to be multifunctional and to deliver a whole range of public and private benefits, and we need a land-use framework to do that.
A number of other changes to the Bill will be necessary. The Government’s commitment to a much-enhanced tree planting programme will be fruitless if imported tree and plant stocks do not have to be disease free and conform to a single clear plant and tree health standard, with UK and Ireland-sourced and grown planting stock being an absolute requirement for all planting supported by public funding. A much wider network of safe nurseries should be established now in preparation for the future, creating jobs as well as safeguarding tree and plant health and preventing future decimations of newly planted stock by the introduction of tree and plant diseases.
There are many other amendments which noble Lords will want to see, and we have heard about some of them already. This is a big Bill, which risks getting even bigger. The Minister will no doubt threaten that if we attach too much to it, it will be further delayed, or even collapse under its own weight. I am always rather mystified when Governments say that; there is one simple way of getting a Bill to go through quickly, and that is to accept some sensible amendments rather than resisting them at all costs. If the Government did that, the Bill would progress more quickly, the environment would be better protected, and we would all be happier. I hope the Minister will confirm that he will do just that.
We need not just an amended and stronger Bill but action. We are striding the global stage right now, with the G7, with COP 15, and especially when we host COP 26 in Glasgow. We need domestic action at a scale and pace which inspires global action and encourages leaders to tackle climate change and promote biodiversity across the world. The Government are going to find providing global leadership jolly hard to do if back home they have been resisting every sensible improvement to this Bill.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership.
Here we are, nearly two years after Theresa Villiers introduced the Environment Bill in the other place on 15 October 2019. It will be two full years until this Bill becomes an Act. I look forward to that, but as my noble friend Lord Oates and Professor Dasgupta said, we are in a crisis of biodiversity, yet we amble along, fiddling while forests burn and polluted rivers flow under bridges. We need urgency here, and this Bill, excellent though it is in many ways, does not show that urgency, nor the decisive need to start to put the biodiversity issue right. A year before 2019, we had the 25-year environment plan, which is now three years old—and what has happened? We had a National Audit Office report last year which was damning about what had been undertaken by the Government in the meantime. I regret that it said there was very patchy co-ordination between government departments on the environment, something which is a characteristic of this Bill as well. The report also said that there were no costed plans to meet the visions in the 25-year environment plan, and I will come back to that regarding the nature recovery networks.
There are a couple of areas for strengthening the Bill which I will talk about. We have a global gold standard—something similar to what we want—in the Climate Change Committee, set up by the Climate Change Act 2008. That committee is admired worldwide and by this House, and does excellent work. I do not understand why we cannot have a biodiversity body which is the same—or, even more radically, why do we not make biodiversity one of the Climate Change Committee’s responsibilities as well? It already deals with that area, and they are well connected. Then we can have the OEP, with its limited budget and staffing, looking just at enforcement. We are rubbish at enforcement in this country, whether by the agencies which cannot afford to implement it, or by the local authorities which also lack the resources. Noble Lords have already discussed the OEP, and I will not go on any further about that, although I was going to. Clearly its independence with regard to its budget is in doubt while it sits within Defra. I have much admiration for Defra, but I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, that the OEP should not be in Defra. Defra describes itself as the “Defra family”, and within it you are expected to look after your family members, as in the Mafia. That cannot be the case for an enforcement organisation.
The one area which this Bill ignores almost completely is marine, as I have discussed with the Minister before, and he has been very receptive, for which I thank him. Marine is very important for the environment; we are an island nation. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, we have 884,000 square kilometres of sea under our jurisdiction. Yet the UK’s land area is only 242,000 square kilometres—only a quarter of the size. The Bill ignores that part of our environment, despite its importance in carbon sequestration in seagrass and similar areas. We are weak at enforcement of marine conservation areas. I very much welcome what Defra has done with the blue belts for our overseas territories, although enforcement of those is not adequate either. With the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, to Defra, I very much look forward to him implementing his own report into higher-level marine conservation areas. But the Bill says nothing about marine, and surely it must.
Nature recovery networks are a great idea, and in Cornwall we have a pilot of the nature recovery network strategy which is being sent to Defra as I speak. They are a great concept, and yet, as far as I can see, they have no route to resources to actually deliver them, and they are not statutorily strong enough to ensure that local authorities actually have to comply with them. There may be some funding around ELMS and agricultural areas, but if we are serious about these strategies, then they must have a statutory basis and be resourced.
I too welcome this Environment Bill. We are in a biodiversity crisis. We need quick implementation, so I hope the Government will listen to some of these amendments so that we can speed this process through. I look for the Minister to be as co-operative with us as he has been in many of our conversations over the last year.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate this important Bill, and in doing so declare my relevant interests as a vice-president of the LGA, as a professional involved in construction and land management, and as the owner of land and buildings with environmental significance. I welcome the general thrust of the Bill, its proposals for net environmental gain, and also applaud the proposals to tackle air pollution in urban areas, and the new responsibilities for waste materials such as plastics. However, I am concerned that the Bill is not holistic in its own terms. Its definition of “natural environment” excludes the human dimension, especially in terms of the built environment, a matter which the Country Land and Business Association has raised. It is the environment which we create and use, and which involves the generation of huge quantities of waste, not only from construction materials to create it, but plastics from normal occupation and home delivery packaging in particular. It is our first priority that this Bill is not just for wildlife and habitats, but for the very well-being of the globe and, with it, the future of mankind.
At the local level, even buildings are habitats, and those of us with historic houses know how many critters share our homes. Following on from that, I find the exemption of taxation spending and the allocation of resources from within government from the primary effects of this Bill disturbing. It suggests that this area may not benefit from joined-up thinking. It is this very issue—silo thinking across much of government—that has fettered progress for so many years. To that extent I welcome the overarching office for environmental protection, and hope that, in future, reporting of environmental misdemeanours does not simply fall on the same deaf ears which I have encountered in questioning such things as asbestos in crushed concrete, used for construction, and malodorous effluent in drainage ditches. At the same time, I hope that proportionality will prevail. I mention here the polluter pays principle, which, when translated into reality, means that if the polluter or fly-tipper is undiscovered, it is the objectively innocent owner, or perhaps the community, who become responsible. Equity matters, and I have always thought it unjust that societal ills should be laid at the door of the innocent simply because HM Treasury wants to prevent a burden on the public purse, and spots what it thinks is a deep pocket.
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, raised a point with which I entirely agree: that environmental policy has often suffered from a lack of proper measurement and objective assessment. If net gain is to have any meaning beyond the facility of sectoral interests to make it mean whatever they choose, or for public administrations to use for some other purpose altogether, we need something less ethereal than carbon counting. Most people understand the efficiency code on our appliances, energy performance ratings of buildings and smart meter information. However, they do not have comparable information on the true environmental cost, which could include the embedded energy involved, the cost in use that includes maintenance, and end-of-life disposal of many daily life products and processes.
I refer to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about new housing being constructed near the Knepp Castle estate, to which I am a neighbour. That is an area where housing has been planned or, rather, dumped—where everybody will have to use a car; where there is certainly an issue of water shortage; where there is no character, design merit, locational culture, identity or sense of community purpose or cohesion, which is why the built environment matters, because unsustainable environments simply are a cost on the environment in themselves.
We have to ensure that the Bill takes the public with it; that the message is clear and uncomplicated and that the processes of decision-making are objectively sound, transparent and consistently applied. If not, people will simply lose confidence.
I particularly want to mention single-use plastics. The amount of plastic waste in construction is phenomenal. Certainly, my litter-pick along the lanes near my home tells me that something needs to be done to prevent wholesale despoliation. However, it does not mean that all plastic is bad, as one authority of my acquaintance has tried to suggest in having a policy against protective plastic coatings on metal roof sheets. As a valuer, I know that such coatings double or treble the lifespan of the material and that one of the ways in which environmental or any other accounting should be steering us is lengthening lifespans of products, as the Minister mentioned. It also means being able to get spare parts, so that a life of 20-plus years for a domestic appliance becomes the norm, just as 50 years should be for a metal roof sheet, or 10,000 hours for a light bulb.
Valuation is also the key to investment, as the noble Earl pointed out. A scheme to revitalise peat-land and water retention on the southern slopes of Exmoor is an example of how long term such programmes may be, as peat deposits grow at no more than 1 millimetre a year, I am told.
All these need to form part of the equation. I very much applaud the proposal for a deposit scheme for single-use containers. As a 10-year-old, I used to get a lot of my pocket money by picking up returnable bottles from the roadside. But essential to this is a unified national scheme which really works; something along the lines of the Scandinavian idea, which seems to have cracked it, where it is easy and environmental improvement is as convenient as possible. We have to bear in mind that producers’ and retailers’ responsibility takes us only so far, because of the huge amount of plastic and other waste in circulation in landfill and floating in our oceans.
There is an awful lot to do. I wish the Bill well but, like other noble Lords, I fear it will need some amendment.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, my Twitter bio starts:
“Hates waste of all kind”,
and so I do. Whether time and money or other forms of waste, such as energy, water and food waste—matters we are discussing today—“conserve” is my watchword. For those speaking from the Conservative Benches today, there should be a clue in our name.
Not only do I run around my home switching the thermostat down and the radiators and lights off, I do as much as I can in this crumbling old building, turning the lights off, but sadly the radiators are still controlled centrally, so I am unable to turn them off or down, despite the heat inside and outside and the fact that the windows are still all open. I am careful with water usage. I loathe fast fashion and the thought of textiles going to landfill. In fact, I hired my wedding dress 33 years ago, pioneering a very welcome trend which has become unexpectedly fashionable.
Clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to set at least one long-term environmental target for each of four priority areas. As may by now be obvious, I will focus on the fourth, resource efficiency and waste reduction. Michael Gove’s foreword to the December 2019 resources and waste strategy includes the following:
“Our goal is to move to a more circular economy, which keeps resources in use for longer”.
Three cheers for that, but is this not the time for the Government to develop an indicator of how circular the UK economy is and then to set a long-term target for how circular we want it to become?
The extended producer responsibility of Clause 49 and Schedule 4 will mainly focus on the current consultation on EPR for packaging. However, in the resource and waste strategy, the Government indicated other waste streams for consideration, including the possibility of an EPR scheme for textiles and clothing as an early priority. Given that I made a pledge about five years ago never to buy any new item of clothing, barring underclothes, for the rest of my life, this is welcome news.
As a former board member of WRAP, the Government’s delivery partner, I welcome its latest voluntary agreement, Textiles 2030, designed to provide the UK clothing and textile sector with the tools to enable it to halve its carbon footprint by 2040 on the way to achieving net zero by 2050.
Although plastic is a magical invention, we have to do more to reduce its use. I cannot imagine buying anything, especially bottled water, in a single-use plastic bottle and Clause 54 is welcome. WRAP has already done good work in this area, under the UK Plastics Pact, reporting in December last year that 400 million items classed as problematic or unnecessary were sold by pact members, a reduction of 40% from 2018. This is welcome progress, although there is clearly much more to do.
Finally, I come to my greatest bugbear: food waste, addressed in Clause 56, currently under consultation, which makes standardisation of waste collection requirements to local authorities to collect the same range of material for recycling from households and, belatedly, to provide a separate weekly food waste collection. The noble Lord may know that if food waste were a country, it would be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases after America and China. A mandatory weekly food waste collection will help to transform our engagement with food and food waste, making people more aware of the amount of food they chuck out.
I remember meeting Rory Stewart when he was Defra Minister over six years ago and him enthusiastically advocating for all this. Why does it take so long and when is the long-delayed consultation on mandatory reporting to be launched? While on the question of food waste, would my noble friend undertake to look again at the issue of feeding this waste, treated at the right temperature, to pigs? Reintroducing this practice, properly regulated, would also have the advantage of reducing the amount of soy, as feed, grown in parts of the world where ancient rainforests are being cut down, not to feed the indigenous people but for our food stock.
The Bill is the first piece of major environmental legislation in 20 years. Leaving the EU has provided us with the chance to radically improve environmental policy and to put the environment at the heart of policy-making. We will not have a second chance and we must grasp the opportunity to be radical with both hands to make this country and the planet a more sustainable place. Government and individuals must play their part. Our very survival as a species is at stake.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Trees.
Lord Trees (CB) [V]
My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill. I welcome the introduction of an office for environmental protection; the efforts to tackle waste and simplify recycling; to tackle littering, which is a national disgrace; the measures to improve and enhance nature, biodiversity and conservation; and many other aspects of the Bill. Others more qualified than I am will doubtless comment on these at great length—some already have.
I would like to discuss three issues. The first concerns antimicrobial resistance and the environment. The current pandemic has emphasised the catastrophic consequences of emerging infectious diseases, but globally we face another major health challenge, that of antimicrobial resistance, so ably championed by the former Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, and the subject of a major report led by my noble friend Lord O’Neill. As a result, this issue is now included in the UK national risk register.
This challenge is of course posed by existing known infections which can develop or have developed resistance to currently available drugs. In response to this major global threat, the Government have published a UK five-year national action plan on AMR for 2019-24. This plan includes a substantial section involving the environment: for example, to better understand how AMR spreads between and among humans, animals and the environment. The plan emphasises the need to minimise the spread of AMR through the environment, deepen our understanding about AMR in the environment and minimise antimicrobial contamination of the environment. Given such a fundamental threat to human and animal health which involves the environment, it is surprising that this extensive Bill, in all its 249 pages, does not mention AMR once.
One appreciates that the Bill has to cover a wide range of issues but perhaps this is a missed opportunity to highlight the importance this Government place on the threats posed by AMR. This has been highlighted by the APPG on Antibiotics in a letter to the Secretary of State for Defra from its chair, Julian Sturdy MP. I declare here an interest as an officer of that APPG. We are very grateful for a detailed response to that letter from Rebecca Pow MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. However, it appears that currently there is no mandatory routine surveillance required for antimicrobials in the aquatic environment, nor is there routine surveillance for antibiotic resistance among bacteria in that environment. These seem to be essential data-collection functions which would help enable the national action plan to deliver its objectives. Moreover, it is not clear who will be responsible for setting environmental quality standards for antimicrobial environmental contamination. I appreciate that the Bill leaves much detail to secondary legislation but, given the importance of AMR for environmental, human and animal health, will the Minister consider making specific reference in the Bill to actions to monitor and mitigate AMR?
There are two other issues I would like to raise. The first concerns Clause 133 and the amendment of REACH legislation, which concerns the safety of chemicals. In previous debates on Brexit and REACH, I and others were concerned that data derived from animal testing for the toxicity of chemicals should be shared between European and other competent authorities to minimise the use of animals in such toxicity experiments. Animal welfare is an important priority for this Government; avoiding the need to replicate animal experiments in different jurisdictions while protecting consumer safety would be an obvious way to demonstrate this commitment. Can the Minister assure the House that in any amendment to REACH legislation, this will be a significant consideration?
The last point I wish to raise is connected with Clause 109 on “forest risk commodities”, the principle of which I wholeheartedly welcome. I raise it in connection with food, especially the potential of livestock imports reared on areas recently deforested, or on soya bean or other feed crops grown on cut-down forest. The explanatory notes to Schedule 16 state that among forest risk commodities, beef is
“likely to be considered for inclusion”.
This I would welcome, but it is not explicit in the Bill. Moreover, the Bill currently refers only to illegal deforestation, but we know that in some jurisdictions deforestation is not illegal. Will Her Majesty’s Government consider extending this to encompass legal deforestation, as argued by many environmental NGOs and mentioned already by several noble Lords?
I would point out that according to the recently published Rangeland Atlas from the International Livestock Research Institute, 54% of the world’s land area is natural grassland. Consequently, there is no global excuse for destroying forest to create artificial grassland. The Bill requires suppliers of forest risk commodities to carry out due diligence on such commodities. My final questions to the Minister are: will he assure the House that beef will be included as a forest risk commodity, and who will ensure that due diligence is exercised by importers of beef? I welcome this Bill and look forward to the Minister responding to my questions, if need be by letter.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Green Party since 1988. Our manifestos since that time have included almost every single issue that we have heard about today. There have been some excellent speeches. It seems that is partly because we have waited so long for this Bill. The Minister himself said that it is an important Bill and there has been a lot of anticipation around it; that is absolutely true. There is also the fact that your Lordships’ House has a level of expertise on so many diverse issues that will be relevant for the Bill.
During the time that we have waited for the Bill to arrive, there has been a huge strength of feeling among your Lordships about our natural environment and how to preserve it. That strength of feeling has translated into action: we have made legislative changes, for example, to what are now the Agriculture Act, the Fisheries Act and the EU withdrawal Acts. However, that strength of feeling and action have been hampered by the Government because we have had repeated assertions and promises that whatever we brought up was not appropriate for a particular Bill but would be appropriate for the Environment Bill. Although the Minister was not one of the Ministers making those promises, we will of course hold the Government to account for them—and sadly, he is going to be in the firing line. All these issues, whether about water, air pollution, forestry, biodiversity or farming, have been saved up for this Bill. I can imagine that there are going to be a lot of amendments. Quite honestly, I am excited about that and looking forward to it.
I am not going to argue that we have an environmental or ecological crisis, or a nature or planetary crisis, because for me those things are absolutely self-evident. What we have is a political crisis. We have a Government who simply do not want to enable us to do our job. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, had it absolutely right: if the Government want a safe and fast passage for the Bill, the best thing would be to accept some of the superb amendments that are going to come from your Lordships. Many more amendments are required if we are to face up to the scale of the damage that is happening to our planet, and to the human race.
The Bill has some ambition but falls far short of what is needed, not least because its fundamental mechanics are hooked on a duty for Ministers to merely have due regard to the environmental policy statements. This creates a very weak foundation that can be overridden by Ministers far too easily. In talking about the office for environmental protection the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford cited a lack of independence. That would actually make the OEP dysfunctional, even pointless, so that office really has to be bolstered by some good amendments.
Then there are the concerns raised by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law. Many more noble and learned Lords able to articulate those issues will speak later in the debate, but the point is quite simple. The Government are creating a new system of environmental law that is almost undeserving of being called law because it is so full of loopholes and get-out clauses and allows unlawful acts to carry on unimpeded.
The Greens in your Lordships’ House will be incredibly helpful during the passage of the Bill; we will try to help the Government improve it as much as we can. However, none of this is from the Government themselves. They have promised to leave the environment in a better condition than we inherited it, and the Bill will not do that. The noble Lord, Lord Khan, described it as a step backwards, but in some places it is a full retreat. It is therefore incumbent on your Lordships in our House that we defeat the Government vigorously and repeatedly during the coming stages of the Bill. We have to do it for our own well-being but also for our children and grandchildren—and for the humans and species who will inherit the earth long after we have gone.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, talked about unpredictable nature. We have to be absolutely sure that what we are doing is the safest way forward. I believe that, although the Minister is very committed to the environmental agenda, the Government are not. They simply do not understand that the environment encompasses everything. It is not an issue on its own; it encompasses the economy, transport, education and social well-being. It is absolutely everything, and the Bill is our one opportunity to get it right.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my environmental and conservation interests as set out in the register. It is a delight to be taking part in this Second Reading today, so ably and passionately introduced by my noble friend the Minister. It is not just because I know that the knowledge, expertise and commitment to our precious environment in this House will make this a debate that will match the Government’s enthusiasm and commitment to legislate on this issue, but because I was privileged to be present at the birth of the Environment Bill before it was officially announced by Prime Minister Theresa May. Indeed, her foresight in initiating the Bill cannot be understated. Of course, it has been a long time coming as a result of both our leaving the EU and the political impasse that followed, which stagnated our legislative programme. But then, just as things started off again, the world was plunged into the Covid pandemic.
Interestingly, however, two things have come out directly from those delays. First, I have to say that the present Administration have improved the Bill significantly. Secondly, I believe that the pandemic has made us all more aware and more protective of our precious environment. There are of course elements of the Bill that I and many others will want to see strengthened and aspects added to—we have heard about many of them so far and will hear more. However, this should not deflect us from welcoming this much-anticipated and ground-breaking legislation.
The inclusion of the state of nature target has been most welcome although, as always, I shall want to see the details before I can give my 100% support to that aspect. Targets are one thing but only if they are ambitious enough to create meaningful action to achieve them. I welcome the targets in the other areas. I would like to see more ambition around air, water and soil quality, which I am sure we all acknowledge are at the heart of a healthy environment.
The measures with regard to water quality are, as I say, welcome but must go further. I am appalled by the current state of many of our rivers and streams, including those jewels in our riparian crown, the chalk streams. I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington about sewage being discharged into our waterways. It is a national disgrace and we cannot sit idly by. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to give real increased resources to our enforcement agencies to reverse this situation.
Speaking of enforcement, as others have said —I am sure that others will follow—the office for environmental protection must be given genuine independent status if it is to achieve what we all hope it will, although I have to say that I have a lot more faith in Dame Glenys Stacey than some other noble Lords apparently have. I think she will do an excellent, independent job.
It is probably useful that we have an advisory time limit on the length of contributions today as there is so much in the Bill that I would like to discuss. However, I will just mention a few more points. The ideal of net gain on planning is admirable but it must apply to major infrastructure projects if it is to have meaning. There will be ample opportunity for me to speak about the environmental damages caused by HS2 at further stages of the Bill. However, noble Lords might be interested to hear that only last week, despite rather complacent answers from both HS2 and, indeed, the Environment Agency, it has now been acknowledged that there is a real risk of contamination to the drinking water at various locations along the route, including in Uxbridge and elsewhere in the London Borough of Hillingdon. That has emerged thanks only to the dogged campaigning of Sarah Green, one of my former constituents.
That issue raises something we should all be aware of. Sometimes, projects or schemes are put forward as environmentally friendly and are in most cases genuinely thought to be so, but end up being harmful to the environment. Biomass is one such area that must be looked at closely, especially as it receives huge subsidies from the taxpayer. That industry’s potential for deforestation brings me neatly on to the provisions in the Bill for the use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity. As many have said, this is a welcome step in the right direction, but I fear that it also has serious weaknesses around the question of illegality and may even convince some Governments to make more deforestation legal. I will return to that at later stages.
Planting more trees of the correct sort and in the right places is admirable, but we should not ignore the immense carbon storage potential of wetlands and grasslands. We should not just be ambitious about protecting what we have but equally ambitious about creating new habitats. I commend the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust’s “A Blue Recovery” to my noble friend and all those hard-working officials working on the Bill.
The overuse of pesticides is not only a danger to the whole fabric of our natural world but directly a threat to human health. I think my noble friend can look forward to some amendments on that issue too.
Finally, we have waited far too long for the introduction of a meaningful deposit return scheme. We must have a scheme that is the same throughout the United Kingdom and it should cover as many items as possible.
Although I have teased with promises of amendments to come, I will be trying to practise a certain degree of self-restraint as, above all, I want this important Bill to become law in the best state possible but without too much further delay. I thank my noble friend and his officials for discussing with me and many others across the House to try to sort out issues beforehand. I sincerely believe that the Bill could not be in better hands in this House and I hope that other departments will be as understanding on forthcoming issues around planning, transport and energy, which could derail the Government’s sincere and good environmental credentials, demonstrated so admirably by my noble friend the Minister. Indeed, I sincerely believe that the Prime Minister shares those environmental desires. However, I would mention the proposals to develop—or rather destroy—Swanscombe, and, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the threat to the area adjacent to that standard bearer for rewilding, the Knepp estate, from housing developments.
Let us get on with this very important Bill. Our natural world cannot wait any longer, but there is much useful work for us to do first.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
[Inaudible]—it has been a long time getting here and we should all welcome it. That is not to say that I or this House will welcome the Bill in all its aspects; indeed, many have already been touched on. I shall probably be following some amendments on air quality, pesticides—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, just now—and various aspects of water quality and the whole regime governing water and our natural waterways. During the subsequent process of the Bill, I shall also touch on issues arising from the interface between it and the Agriculture Act. I make no apology for returning to the issue to which so many noble Lords have already spoken: the central problem of the structure and the authority of the office for environmental protection and the powers given—or not given—to it by the Bill.
The switch from a largely European-determined framework of environmental legislation was never going to be an easy one. The Bill makes a bit of a stab at it but gets some fundamental things wrong. The Bill requires serious modification before we get back to a pre-Brexit situation. This House can improve it in that respect—it is good at scrutiny and we are required to be at our best as we go through the Bill clause by clause—but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Young, I have heard some rather disturbing rumours. I am apprehensive about the siren voices that are coming, which say that the Government want to see this Bill through as rapidly as possible, that they do not want the Lords to hold it up, that they are looking for a minimum number of amendments and that they are not prepared to compromise. I do not associate the Minister or the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, with these comments, but they do come from sources pretty close to the Government. I hope that the Minister can dissuade his colleagues from taking a negative or defensive attitude during the course of our proceedings. This Bill can become a better Bill and it can deliver a better environment, but that requires us to be allowed to scrutinise it and amend it properly.
In essence, the problem with the office for environmental protection is this: in our recent European past, the European Commission could ultimately strike down decisions or failures of any public body across Europe to act in accordance with European law, and could also require pretty substantial reparations—I know for a fact that Permanent Secretaries would on occasion quake in their shoes when they were told that the Commission was on their case—but that is lacking in the tone of this Bill. Like others, I was often critical of the Commission, its cumbersome methods and its very indirect approach but, at the end of the day, it had the power to ensure that even the most powerful public authorities and the most powerful private sector interests obeyed the diktats of European legislation and the principles that were laid down in that legislation.
However, the OEP, in the form presented here, falls well short of that. That is no criticism of the new chair or anyone who is likely to serve on it but, for example, taxation and public spending are excluded from its purview, its relationship with the Climate Change Committee is obscure and its powers to hold individual public authorities to account are limited. In effect, the powers are limited to the new process of an environmental review—a process that is still pretty obscure but clearly is not directly enforceable since its conclusions do not have the force of law and the courts are not obliged to uphold them. The reality is that, as set out in this Bill, the OEP is not fit for purpose. It is the job of the House of Lords to change that.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He has raised some of the issues that are close to people’s hearts—especially whether the OEP will have the teeth that it needs. I also raise the issue that the Environment Agency has been cut to the bone so savagely that the idea that it will be able to enforce many of the measures is unlikely, which is a failing of many of the regulators at the moment.
This Bill is obviously a cornucopia. It has many good things coming out of it, but I raise one issue: the omission of heritage. This means that, under the Bill, monitoring and reporting and future environmental improvement plans would not be required to cover the historic features and structures in our landscape, which are inseparable from the natural world. Excluding them is to the detriment of both elements of our environment. It is also a particular concern in relation to the funding of heritage assets. We have lost half of our traditional farm buildings. Hundreds of thousands more are in decay, and almost half of all scheduled monuments are under threat, as are stone walls, parklands and historic field systems. As the 25-year environment plan says,
“our failure to understand the full value of …the environment and cultural heritage has seen us make poor choices. We can change that”.
Goal 6 of the current 25-year plan is
“enhanced beauty, heritage and engagement”
with the natural environment.
Similarly, the Agriculture Bill approaches the funding of all parts of the environment—natural and historic—on an equal footing but, in complete contrast, the Environment Bill does not follow this through. It ignores the 25-year environment plan’s lead. It excludes most heritage from its definition of “environment”, meaning that environmental planning would not need to take the holistic approach that is so effective in the current plan. This has implications for future heritage funding and the connections to the Agriculture Bill, as well as, in terms of data, annual reporting requirements for the Secretary of State and the office for environmental protection. It would not be difficult to reinsert “heritage” into the Bill. Obviously, the Defra officials will fight tooth and nail to stop any new elements being brought in, but it does not move very far from the present 25-year environment plan, which was of course brought in by the present Government.
I must declare an interest, having recently received a grant to restore an old stable block—a historic building that is over 200 years old. Since this was done with a grant, ensuring that the environmental aspects are adhered to, it now has house martins, swallows, greenfinches and even a red-squirrel feeder. I very much hope to talk to the Minister about his plans for the protection of red squirrels, mostly by the slaughter or contraception of grey squirrels. I ran a campaign a number of years ago in which we culled 27,000 grey squirrels in Northumberland to protect red squirrels. We sold them, and many were eaten in London restaurants.
The issue of water is covered in the Bill but there is a major omission in it as it is set out, in that it discusses water abstraction but not water use. In the water Bill, there is a specific duty for Ofwat to look at resilience, including water efficiency. I must declare an interest as CEO of the Water Retail Company, which works in the non-household sector. We set it up in the hope of selling water to people specifically on the water efficiency measures that we would produce. However, we have had no customers who actually look at water efficiency, and it has been a major failing that I cannot think of any examples, in any of the water contracts undertaken with all water retailers, of water efficiency being taken into account. As we are looking at running out of water in London in the next few years, the idea that we are not pushing water efficiency to the maximum extent seems short-sighted; also, of course, the more we use, the more we need to extract. I very much hope that the Government will look at including an element of water efficiency or making some provision for water efficiency. It is an area that should be covered by Ofwat, but Ofwat has failed to push this through as an element of its duties.
In such a short time there is little opportunity to raise other issues. However, one area that will need to be looked at carefully—and funded—is tree planting. I am looking to plant quite a substantial area. However, schemes that have gone before worry me. Farmers are paid for the first five years to plant trees and establish woodlands, but after that there is no ongoing support. We will end up with the situation we had with hedgerows, where people planted hedgerows, only for them to be grubbed up a few years later and not kept going. There is an opportunity to work with the private sector on carbon management to take this forward and I hope very much that this can be explored further in the Bill.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Bill is urgent and long delayed, so we must not waste time deliberating on it at length. It has been well scrutinised, but there are a number of points that the Commons have missed. My own interest is like that of most people: to prevent damage to the planet, especially to the least developed countries which have been hit hardest by climate change. However, I am also a member of the NFU and keen to introduce ELMS to west Dorset and to recommend any legislation that helps farmers adapt further to biodiversity and more sustainable land management.
It is not easy for farmers because there is understandable concern that ELMS will present considerable risks. While they are being offered a range of environmental choices to suit everyone, they fear they will lose their sense of security in the present landscape which provides the nation’s regular food supplies and the dependable regular income which goes with that. These fears are being amplified by the challenge of a whole raft of new trade deals. I realise that this issue came up in the Agriculture Bill but it is highly relevant to this one as well.
I suffer from a lung condition and am therefore acutely conscious of air pollution in London. Of course, there are cities around the world that are more extreme examples. But as the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said earlier, we in the UK still have to come up to WHO targets or guidelines if we are to prevent thousands of deaths. We need a better answer than the one given by the Minister, Rebecca Pow, in the Commons, which was basically to tighten local regulations and report and review the position annually.
The Government are trebling their tree-planting targets in England under the Trees Action Plan. That is fine, but this Bill talks about less deforestation, which means that forestry must surely be tackled much more urgently at the international and G20 level. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, made some vital points about pasture and grassland. Any sales here in the UK from illegal deforestation in the Amazon must be stopped, and forest clearance for food production must be slowed down, perhaps via shareholders of companies such as Cargill, JBS, McDonald’s, Burger King, Tesco and Unilever, as well as through pressure on Brazil from the G20 and the BRIC countries. JBS, aside from a massive cyberattack, is also the main target of Brazilian activists concerned about the overconsumption of meat and the destruction of the rainforest. Organisations such as Share Action in the UK which campaign on ethical investments are having a lot more impact these days on corporations and supermarket chains.
Most of us have watched David Attenborough and “Springwatch” or listened to farming programmes. We all know in principle that we need to halt and reverse the decline in habitats and species, but that is going to require a much more radical advance in public awareness and education for us to act on this as individuals. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, we need a new vocabulary. I hope that I have finally reversed my earlier indifference to nature and biodiversity. I now confess that until recently, I did not spend one moment bewailing the loss of bumblebees, but now under the scrutiny of wife and family, I have begun to recognise the southern marsh orchid and all the species that I had dismissed as dandelions. I am learning to respect all the benefits of rewilding and the vital role of the beaver in flood control, which are recognised in the Bill.
Our oceans should be in the Bill. They need much better protection. The Benyon review has shown that the proposed highly protected marine areas must be strengthened. The HPMAs need careful designation, management, monitoring and enforcement, along with the funding that all of this requires. The Government will just have to stand up to the fishing industry, which is bound to suffer in the short term. Like the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I would certainly support any amendment to further reduce plastic in the oceans and clean up our rivers and canals. I am very concerned about the depleted number of fish, which means that we will have to avoid overconsumption or there will not be any fish to consume.
The Bill deserves to pass. We can always have a second Bill, but we need to get on with this one because, as others have said, it is urgent. It has already been scrutinised at length by the Commons and in various Select Committees, including some in this House, such as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I sincerely hope that noble Lords will be more restrained than usual in seeking to amend it further.
Finally, I look forward to hearing the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury and thank him sincerely for all the work that he has done in Parliament, including his support for South Sudan and Sudan, which are of special concern to his diocese.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the GWCT and the NFU. I will highlight two issues that are of great concern to not only rural areas but urban conurbations. Both of them are a complete disgrace which must be dealt with by Her Majesty’s Government without further delay. This Bill may well provide the vehicle to tackle these problems.
The first is the discharge of both treated and untreated sewage into our rivers. The Environment Agency’s own figures reveal that untreated sewage, including human waste, wet wipes and other particles, was released into waterways for in excess of 3 million hours in 2020, on over 400,000 occasions. Data on 10 water companies in England and Wales assembled by the BBC’s “Panorama” programme through environmental information requests suggests that seven out of 10 of those water companies had treatment works that were breaching their EA permits by dumping sewage before they had treated the specified volumes. One of the worst offenders was Welsh Water. In December last year, its Aberbaiden plant illegally dumped untreated sewage into the River Usk on 12 consecutive days. For pity’s sake, the Usk is a SSSI and an area of special conservation. It is the home of a very special and rare fish: the greater shad. If you go online to the Rivers Trust site, you will see a map of where water companies have released treated sewage and where overflows of untreated sewage have been sent into rivers. The damage being done to our waterways and the flora and fauna they support, not to mention humans such as canoeists, swimmers and the like, is irreparable unless we act now.
Thames Water is another shocker in this regard. In a statement it said:
“Putting untreated sewage into rivers is unacceptable to us, our customers and the environment, even when legally permitted”—
well, stop doing it. The company goes on to say:
“We absolutely want to go further, invest more, and play our part in helping the environment to thrive.”
That is all well and good in theory, but my feeling is that it is going to take strong action from the Government to make it happen. I have seen reports which say that the Government will bring measures forward, but when and how strong will their actions be? Clause 83 allows the Secretary of State to amend or modify water quality legislation, so let us have some government amendments to give that some real muscle.
On water abstraction, the advice I have received from the GWCT is really sensible. We need to achieve water-efficiency improvements through the harvesting and storage of rainwater from new developments. Hard surfaces in the built environment contribute to flooding, while new developments put pressure on already over-abstracted water bodies. Gathering, storing and utilising would reduce both these problems and current planning attitudes to on-farm storage need to be reconsidered.
I turn to the ever-increasing scourge of fly-tipping and littering in our countryside and urban areas. Nowhere is safe from the criminals and vandals who carry out these acts. Previous actions by the Government to try to tackle these problems would appear to have achieved little. I understand from the NFU that fly-tipping in rural areas is becoming much worse. Only last week, I had an email from a gentleman who had just returned to the UK after many years of working in Africa and Australia. He told me that he was quite disgusted by the state of dumped filth in our towns and countryside, worse than anywhere he has been. What sort of advertisement is that for our tourist industry, which is vital to putting the economy back on its feet?
Under whose remit does enforcement fall? In the case of local government, is it environmental health at district council level? It will be under severe staffing pressure, as are most local government departments, and I doubt whether it has much experience of case-building or enforcing fixed-penalty notices. Does it have the experience or back-up to visit and make inquiries in an area where it is likely to feel uncomfortable and intimidated? It might not have any powers to investigate, in any case. It is not a police priority, but it could be made so by the Home Secretary or individual police and crime commissioners.
Without a doubt, strong deterrent powers would assist. The ability to seize and destroy a vehicle used in fly-tipping, whoever it was owned by, would help. Make the polluter pay for the clear-up. Why should landowners suffer the costs of cleaning fly-tips from their land when it is no fault of theirs? There needs to be a duty on a person whose personal rubbish is in the fly-tip to provide the local authority with the name and company of whoever disposed of their rubbish, failing which the authorities should claim the full cost of clearance and disposal against them. The mantra we are given every day without fail is of the need to improve and clean up our environment. This welcome Bill provides that opportunity and I give it my support.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
Many noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lady Boycott, have already spoken of the limited independence of the OEP, citing issues of funding and the process for future appointments. The Defra family, as it has been called, is certainly a close one. What stands out for me is Defra’s power in Clause 24 to issue guidance to the OEP on how the OEP should enforce environmental law against Defra and other public authorities. As with other government amendments introduced in the Commons—I will come back to those—it is hard to avoid the sense of second thoughts being had and wings being clipped.
I will focus on a more technical but equally important issue: the enforcement powers of the OEP in Clauses 30 to 40 of the Bill. I venture to do so based on some experience of appearing in English and European courts for environmental activists, for Defra and, I admit with trepidation to the Minister, most recently for Heathrow Airport. As currently written, the new remedies risk being less effective than what we had, imperfect though the EU’s procedures were, and will certainly be less effective than they could or ought to be.
The investigatory stage will be long. Once the internal processes of the public authority have been exhausted, the OEP may conduct an investigation, conclude that there has been a serious failure to comply with environmental law and issue a decision notice, which may include non-binding recommendations. There may be cases that, given good will on all sides, lead to useful results, but they will not be the hardest cases—those in which a public authority has taken a decision that is thought to contravene environmental law. A recommendation from the OEP can neither undo a decision once taken nor require it to be revisited because of the well-established principle that the decision of a public authority affecting the rights of others cannot be altered or withdrawn—even if the decision-maker wanted it to be—in the absence of an express statutory power or the order of a court. Of course, the OEP, resources permitting, can apply to a court for an environmental review, but that procedure is itself fatally limited for two interlocking reasons.
First, it cannot even be invoked until the lengthy prelude has been completed, by which time the action complained of is likely to be well in the past. An investigation stage that cannot deal with unlawful decisions must be endured before the court that can deal with them is brought in, rendering the investigation not only pointless but counterproductive. I hope that the Minister, to whom I am grateful for the conversations that he mentioned—I think we have another one tomorrow—will consider introducing a shortcut procedure for urgent cases.
Secondly, the remedies that the court can grant on environmental review are remarkably restrictive. I do not mean just the absence of an EU-style power to fine, which, in my not-very-glamorous experience of defending against the European Commission in wastewater cases, was a background factor that operated keenly on the mind of the Government. I mean Clause 37(8), already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, which allows a decision of a public authority to be quashed by the court only if it
“would not … be detrimental to good administration”
and
“would not … be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person”.
This looks a bit like a prototype for the alarming proposal currently being consulted on by the Ministry of Justice to introduce a statutory presumption that the quashing remedy in administrative law should operate only with prospective effect. As with that proposal, Clause 37(8) will tend to leave unlawful decisions undisturbed, remove or reduce the incentive to challenge unlawful decisions and elevate private and bureaucratic interests over public interests—that is, the interest in a clean environment and, as the Bingham Centre explained in its briefing for this debate, the rule of law.
Finally, given the severe limitations on environmental review, much weight will rest on judicial review. I know that the Minister shares my admiration for James Thornton and his organisation ClientEarth, which has enforced environmental standards through the courts in a number of countries—including here, where it successfully held the Government to account for their failure to require action from 45 local authorities with illegal levels of air pollution. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer two questions. First, why was this Bill amended in the Commons—I do not for a moment suggest the initiative was his—to limit the OEP’s power to bring judicial review proceedings to urgent cases only? Secondly, can he undertake that the prolonged and, as I have explained, largely toothless processes of OEP investigation and environmental review will not be advanced by Defra in the courts as alternative remedies that could justify the refusal to individuals of permission to apply for judicial review?
There is much that is sound, even admirable, in this Bill, but aspirations are little use without the ability to ensure that they are realised. I am reminded of the words of our last Advocate-General in the European court, Eleanor Sharpston, who once wrote that German environmental law, which looked good but was hard to enforce in the courts, was like
“a Ferrari with its doors locked shut”.
As the Prime Minister said to Tom McTague of The Atlantic in a piece published this morning:
“People live by narrative … Human beings are creatures of the imagination.”
Those are perceptive words, and the vision of a powerful green watchdog holding the Government fearlessly to account makes for a good narrative. However, to usher into law a Potemkin watchdog and judicial discretions that are unnecessarily constrained would be a dereliction of our duty. Imagination must be backed up by reality, and this House can—and, I hope, will—help to achieve that.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who raised important issues. I draw attention to my registered interests.
At Second Reading in another place, Labour’s shadow Minister described this Bill as “okay”, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Young, today—faint praise but rightly so since, although the Bill has worthy aims, it falls short on many counts, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned. Some of these may yet be addressed but, as it stands, the Bill reflects many missed opportunities.
Back in the 1960s, before we joined the European Union, Britain was regarded as the dirty man of Europe. Our polluted rivers, smog-filled air, filthy beaches and the appalling condition of many fast-food outlets reflected atrocious environmental standards. It was only following the application of European regulations on these matters that things improved significantly. Today, 80% of our environmental law comes from Europe. Now that we have left the EU, I shudder to think that we could face regression in such matters. The Bill is needed to replace the framework provided by the European Union with a UK framework. That obviously makes every good sense but, as always, the devil is in the detail.
The Bill fails to engage with the need to reduce Britain’s global footprint systematically, as a cornerstone of the UK’s environmental strategy. My fear is that the proposed OEP will not be truly independent and that the regulator will not be at arm’s length from government, as highlighted by the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. There are no meaningful targets in the Bill, no strategy to counter cataclysmic threats of climate change and no guarantee against regression.
As has just been mentioned, the Bingham Centre has drawn attention to a fundamental deficiency in the new principle being introduced in the Bill for a breach of its provisions; namely, the statement of non-compliance. That does nothing to reverse the validity of the unlawful conduct and we must certainly address this issue.
Important challenges are underplayed in the Bill, such as the marine environment and the urgent need to mitigate inland flood dangers. I look forward to the promised government amendment. The Bill as it stands fails to deal adequately with airborne pollution, which is currently running at 10 times the EU safety level, with particulates killing more than 36,000 people in Britain each year. There is no real attempt to tackle plastic waste in all its forms. The Local Government Association makes the important point that while it fully supports its role in maximising the recycling of waste, the cost should rightly revert to the creators of that waste, but the Bill fails on that account too. There is a massive disparity within these islands on the recycling of waste. The figures speak for themselves: the recycling rate for local authority municipal waste in Wales now stands at over 64%—the third highest in Europe. In England, the figure remains stubbornly low. However, we in Wales also have our problems, such as the release of effluent into rivers, as the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, mentioned a moment ago.
The subject matters covered by the Bill are largely devolved to Wales and Scotland, as is responsibility for associated portfolios which impact on environmental issues, such as agriculture, roads, planning, water resources and healthcare. In these circumstances, I can assume only that the workings of the Act in Wales and Scotland will be by the consent and sometimes through the agency of the Governments of Wales and Scotland and that in devolved matters covered by the Bill, the devolved legislatures will be able to amend legislation as they see fit. In Committee in the Commons, Deidre Brock MP proposed an amendment requiring that when the OEP acts in Scotland it can do so only with the consent of Scottish Ministers. The Minister, Rebecca Pow MP, responded that the OEP had been given a duty to consult devolved Governments on matters regarded as being of general UK applicability, including water. If the OEP is going to meddle with matters relating to water in Wales, it must do so only with the express consent of the Welsh Parliament. I noted the Minister’s commitment this afternoon to introduce amendments requested by Senedd Cymru and I hope they cover this most sensitive of matters.
There is one final point which I ask noble Lords to consider. The impact of global warming would devastate our grandchildren’s generation and destroy the world which we have been so profligate in failing to safeguard for future generations. How do we encourage young people to be unremittingly determined to address this issue without themselves becoming overwhelmed by the enormity of its consequences? I well remember that when I was a youngster one of the issues that worried us was nuclear conflagration. It terrified us to the point of neurosis. I am aware that many youngsters today are petrified that life on our planet could be snuffed out within two generations. In giving this subject overriding priority, we must harness their energy in a way that does not harm them. We must not sweep the issue under the carpet but empower members of the younger generation and give them agency in these matters so that they feel that their voices make a positive difference. The Bill gives an opportunity to do just that, if it is significantly strengthened, and this approach should surely be central to our thinking.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my environmental interests as set out in the register. I begin by extending a warm welcome to the latest Defra Minister, my noble friend Lord Benyon. My noble friend Lord Gardiner was an excellent Minister and has been replaced by an equally excellent Minister. Indeed, Defra is an unusual department in that it has been given Ministers who have a long track record of being environmental champions—from my honourable friend Rebecca Pow MP to my noble friends Lord Goldsmith and Lord Benyon. This trend of having Ministers who know their stuff before joining a department might just catch on—I am sure the Whitehall machine will do all it can to put a stop to it.
First, I will comment in my capacity as chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee published its report this morning. Despite the large number of delegations—110 of them—and 17 Henry VIII clauses, 48 of the delegations are affirmative and only two Henry VIII delegations are negative, a point which might reassure my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. This 44% of delegations being affirmatives is probably a record for democratic accountability in any Bill, and if Defra can do it in this landmark legislation, there is no excuse for other government departments cutting out proper parliamentary scrutiny. My committee also praised the delegated powers memorandum, which is a textbook example of its kind. When the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee slams into a department for producing a poor, flimsy memorandum, it should look at this Defra memorandum to see how it should be done. I also commend the department on gutting and rewriting the notorious Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill 2019, which we severely criticised and stopped when it arrived in this House. The committee has only five criticisms of the Bill. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will take them all on board and give the department a 100% record of compliance with our recommendations.
In a personal capacity, I can also praise Defra. I warmly welcome the Bill and support every aspect of it. It has taken some time to get here, but it keeps improving every month, with the splendid addition two weeks ago of a species recovery target for 2030. I am particularly enthused by Part 6, which creates nature recovery strategies and a duty to conserve nature. This is in line with all prime ministerial and ministerial speeches which use the word “nature”. The Bill also creates biodiversity registers and biodiversity net gain.
The word “biodiversity” is used more than 140 times in the Bill, but do ordinary people talk about getting closer to biodiversity? Of course not. All the latest studies show that people relate to nature and want to get closer to it. It is a common word that we understand, but biodiversity is perceived by ordinary people to be a more scientific, technical thing of interest only to boffins and specialists. Indeed, I have just looked at an online BBC News article which states that in a recent survey most people thought that “biodiversity” was something to do with washing powder. Experts in this House, government and wildlife NGOs may scoff at that, but getting this law right is about a lot more than using nice, correct legal language.
This Bill is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to engage with people who over the past 15 months have said they want to get out and about and relate more to nature. The Government and everyone talk about nature recovery strategies and nature-based solutions. Two weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Defra went to something called a “nature moment” and announced the nature for climate peatland grant scheme. Since “nature” is the word everyone understands, let us make sure that our legislation speaks in a language that ordinary people use. There is no excuse not to use “nature”. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel’s official guide to drafting legislation states in paragraph 1.3.1:
“Write in modern, standard English using vocabulary which reflects ordinary general usage.”
Je repose ma valise—as we say in the pubs in general usage—I rest my case.
I have looked at every usage of “biodiversity” in the Bill, and I conclude that we can safely replace it with “nature” and not lose a single legal or scientific concept. Of course, I exempt international treaties and there may be one or two other exceptions. I invite all noble Lords to look for themselves and then support some exemplar amendments I shall put down—not 141 of them. I shall also table an interpretation clause similar to Clause 43 which will ensure that the word “nature” will not leave any legal gaps or create new legal obligations.
Biodiversity net gain—or nature net gain, as I hope it may be called—is a very important provision. It will bring huge improvements to nature wherever it applies. However, the 10% net gain requirement does not apply everywhere, since the Government have exempted nationally significant infrastructure projects, which we debated in the HS2 phase 2a Bill recently. I shall also table an amendment to apply 10% nature net gain to all these NSIPs. I believe the Government should set an example to private developers, not excuse themselves. No Government in history have sought to do more for the environment or nature than this one. The pace of announcements on nature and the breadth of what the Government are seeking to achieve with this Bill are breath-taking. I suggest that making nationally significant infrastructure projects comply with the 10% net gain requirement would add even more credibility, both nationally and internationally, to the Government’s reputation.
Finally, I welcome the peroration of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I passionately support everything we can do in this Bill and elsewhere to increase our nature and to make sure that we do not just recover it, but enhance it significantly. However, while doing that, we must never forget that we need food produced in this country from our land. In fact, we need more food produced and less imported which may be from less environmentally sensitive systems.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister made the point about the magnitude and gravity of the Bill and, in my view, that applies nowhere more specifically than to Part 5, dealing with water. It has become critical that the Environment Agency be given the funds and the freedom to protect our rivers—it needs to be shorn of government directions to put the economy before the environment, and it needs the funding to enforce existing legislation without fear or favour.
In its petition to Parliament to
“Give the Environment Agency the funds and freedom to protect English rivers”,
Salmon & Trout Conservation says:
“The Government must reverse years of cuts to Agency budgets, increase charges for polluters, and give the Agency freedom from overly business-friendly Government codes and guidance, so it can pursue and achieve its principal statutory objective to protect and enhance English rivers.”
I urge all noble Lords to sign that petition.
The big beasts in this tangled forest of contradiction, indecision and confusion are the privatised water companies long ago sold off to corporate investors who loaded their assets with huge debt, used to distribute as dividends to the shareholders, with not much more than a backward glance at the reinvestment in infrastructure of the industry.
Time moves on, and last week’s financial pages were full of rumours of another series of takeovers by the Pennon Group, owners of South West Water among other utilities. The comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, are valid here in regard to the rivers of southern England and, in particular, the chalk streams in Hampshire. Just days before this debate, a glossy leaflet dropped through my letterbox, supported by Southern Water, urging residents on the edge waters of the Test and the Itchen to save water to prevent overabstraction and save our chalk stream wildlife—undoubtedly a very worthy ambition, but with no mention of increasing efforts to reduce leakage in the water supply system or of replacing worn-out pipes and preventing water-main bursts. Yet as the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, pointed out, national statistics show that water companies apparently lose something like 3,000 million litres of water through leakages every day, and suffer 47,000 pipe bursts every year. Southern Water alone apparently suffers a break in each and every mile of its pipe network each and every year.
The outcome of inadequate legislation, poor enforcement and minimal investment has been a relentless decline in the health of our chalk streams and rivers and their wildlife for decades. I have lived beside the headwaters of the River Itchen for over half a century and I can bear witness to this remorseless decline. Scientific evidence from the river bed in the form of kick samples of Gammarus, the shrimp-like invertebrate at the bottom of the food chain, shows their concentration to be between 200 and as low as 70 per sample by the Itchen Valley villages. A good but not unremarkable total would have been more than 4,000 per sample.
About 700 years ago, Bishop de Lucy had a weir constructed to carry the road to Basingstoke out of Alresford over the Alre and the Itchen headwaters. Behind the weir, the Alresford Pond grew to teem with fish and eels to the benefit of town and church. Today, the pond is an SSSI, but over the last 30 years the Environment Agency has allowed it to become polluted by uncontrolled industrial agricultural processing, oversilted and virtually dead.
The following actions should be taken. None of them is a new proposal and most have been urged on the Environment Agency, Ministers, Ofwat and others for decades. They are not comprehensive; they are just those needed urgently. To ensure the sustainable abstraction stressed by the Minister it should become unlawful to abstract water from the aquifer or the watercourse and return it in a poorer state than when it was abstracted—a clear and simply understood and publicly supported measure. Any business abstracting or discharging through septic tanks or otherwise should have to meet the cost of monitoring the water quality above their abstraction point and below the discharge point, strictly at no cost to the public purse.
The Environment Agency should be enabled to direct water companies to install mains drainage generally and particularly in headwater villages, where septic tank systems have been the norm. The ridiculous impasse between the Environment Agency and water companies caused by avoidance of responsibility to regulate new mains drainage must be removed. The current situation leads to villages such as Cheriton, of 1,000 inhabitants and a key headwater to the Itchen, relying solely on septic tanks yet being no more than a stone’s throw away from the Alresford sewage works, in operation since 1944. This situation applies to literally thousands of rural homes where there is as yet no mains drainage.
Manufacturers of domestic chemical cleaners, whether of chlorine or similar base, should be obliged to add conspicuous warning labels to their products against their use in houses with septic tanks because of the danger to the aquifer. All septic tank owners should be advised not to use and discharge harmful chemicals that would damage the aquifer. My final point, for the moment at least, is that water companies should be required to install phosphate strippers at sewage works handling discharges from far fewer than the current yardstick of 10,000 inhabitants. Many already do and, as a start, the figure for compulsory and immediate stripping could be reduced to 5,000 inhabitants.
Finally, I place on record my thanks to the many local residents, riparian owners, action groups and other NGOs that have briefed me with their concerns as the Bill comes through the House of Lords.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill’s quest to ensure that our companies use resources sustainably and limit packaging. Equally significantly it encourages us, the consumers, to become more responsible in recycling and reusing not just plastic but other resources as well. I intend to limit my comments to Part 3, dealing with waste and resources.
Unless we take action to reduce waste now the problem will subsume us all. It is estimated that the amount of plastic entering the oceans will triple by 2040 to become the equivalent of dumping 7 stone of plastic on every yard of coastline around the world. Surveys show that three-quarters of the British public think not enough is being done to stop plastic pollution. Most of us think we are doing our bit to become stewards of the environment. However, so many of us are still resistant to making personal sacrifices of time and money, even if they will benefit the environment.
All of us need a nudge and, in some cases, a big shove from government to make us become more environmentally responsible. The Bill goes a long way to creating that much-needed shove, but it could go even further. I want us to be the most environmentally responsible citizens in the world. I fear that, without rapidly setting targets on waste, making the schemes in Part 3 more urgent and extensive, this country will not achieve that aim. I welcome the initial clauses of the Bill to set targets on waste and resources efficiency, which will be central to the Government’s waste strategy. I hope that they will take the opportunity to surpass the EU’s proposed targets of halving waste and potential resource consumption by 2030.
I am hopeful that the resource efficiency requirements in the Bill will diminish the use of plastics and generate a more circular economy, but there is too much emphasis on the disposal of plastic rather than reducing its initial use—a move which has been strongly supported in a recent letter signed by businesses ranging from Nestlé to Aldi. It feels ungrateful to say that that will not be enough, but it will not. The World Wildlife Fund warns that our emphasis must be not just on the reduction of plastics but on ensuring that the materials used as substitutes do not go on to create another environmental problem. Environmentalists warn that the substitution of wood and paper for plastic can encourage further deforestation, reduction in biodiversity and chemical waste when it is manufactured. So I will be pushing the Government to extend the single charges scheme for plastics to other environmentally valuable resources. The target must be to drive down our culture of single use across a range of materials.
To support this, emphasis must be put on reuse and refill schemes; after all, most plastic can be recycled a maximum of only six times before it becomes unusable. Across the country, we are seeing exciting refill pilot schemes led by Waitrose, Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury’s. They are all developing stores where an increasing range of products can be bought without packaging. Huge consumer brands that have always used packaging as an important marketing tool are coming round to the idea of reusable packaging. Unilever has just created a deodorant holder that can be refilled with deodorant sticks. This is not only environmentally friendly but, from the company’s point of view, binds the consumer even more tightly to the brand.
Supermarkets are keeping audits on how much plastic packaging they are using, but they are doing so with different metrics. I urge the Government to consider standardising these measurements so that a true comparison of the plastic packaging being used can be created—useful information for consumers, companies and government alike. The deposit return scheme is central to this reuse programme; it will give a strong nudge to encourage us all to recycle and, we hope, reuse containers. However, I am concerned that the Government are being too limited by covering only small drinks containers. Michael Gove, when Environment Secretary, said that a scheme covering all drinks containers would give consumers the greatest possible incentive to recycle. However, I fear that the Government’s new, second consultation on the scope of the DRS has a more limited ambition. There are fears that the Government will introduce a limited scheme, and not until late 2024 at the earliest. Already, the Environmental Audit Committee in the other place has called the delay “unnecessary”. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said, this should be an area where the Government introduce uniformity across the country. Scotland is already planning an all-inclusive deposit scheme. The UK must move forward together on this. I urge the Government to be more ambitious and speedy in this area.
What brings into sharp focus our inability to use our resources efficiently is the disposal and recycling of our waste. This country exports half its plastic packaging waste, but recycles just a third of that waste. The BBC’s “Panorama” showed the horrific scenes of this waste being exported to Turkey where, far from being recycled, it was burned in backyards in the poorer parts of the country. The Turkish Government have now banned UK recycling exports and the Basel convention limits where the trade can go. I welcome the transfrontier shipping clauses in the Bill, which will further limit the export of our waste but, unless we reduce our use of plastics and other materials, and unless we reduce what we throw away, we will need to either continue exporting our waste or double this country’s infrastructure for dealing with it.
I applaud the Government for the Bill but, as it passes through its various stages in this House, I hope that the Minister will listen to concerns from millions across this country and be open to amending Part 3 and its schedules. Like most other noble Lords, I hope that, when the Bill leaves this House, it will be at the forefront of legislation to protect the environment and make our economies more sustainable. I want us to be a beacon for the world to emulate.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his introduction to this already improved Bill, which I welcome in principle. However, I am not as optimistic as he is that this is the silver bullet needed to save our natural environment; we have been here many times before with legislation that has been touted as the answer to our problems. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was enacted to reflect the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, and that on the protection of migratory species. I remember my noble friend, the late Lord Bellwin, introducing the Bill on 16 December 1980, nearly 41 years ago, and saying that the Government recognised the
“awakening awareness, both nationally and internationally, of the need for conservation of our wildlife resources”.—[Official Report, 16/12/1980; col. 983.]
Since then, as your Lordships will know, there have been numerous pieces of additional legislation, including the habitats directive in 1992 and the birds directive in 2009. However, on recent evidence, we have failed miserably to stop the decline in nature and our natural environment; we must ask ourselves why.
Two major contributions to that failure have been the lack of practical wildlife management, which has been overlooked, and the fact that the current rules are often impractical and ineffective. This Bill is just one part of jigsaw legislation and supporting policy statements. Thus, the way this Bill and the Agriculture Act, strategies on tree planting, peatland, food and biodiversity and the industrial strategy work together is key to ensuring that there are no unintended consequences or voids. Looking to the future, the rather feared planning reform Bill will probably undo quite a lot of the good that this Bill will do.
Compliance involves more than just regulation and sanction; it involves understanding motive, incentive, encouragement and soft governance. The latter is part of ELMS, found in the Agriculture Act, while this Bill provides the legal and statutory aspects of environmental governance. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, the two need to marry to deliver the ambition of a very high take-up of ELMS; but is that enough to achieve an improvement in our environment? I am concerned that the long-term environmental target priority areas in Clause 1 are not fully aligned with the policy ambition
“for significantly improving the natural environment”,
given, for example, the goals that the Government have identified in their 25-year environment plan. Just as the Agriculture Act was amended to reflect the value of healthy soil to society, so this Bill needs to address the environmental damage caused by soil loss, such as the impact on riverine and estuarial habitats through sedimentation and eutrophication, flooding due to sediment build-up in watercourses, and loss of organic carbon from the soil bank due to erosion. My noble friend said that he would introduce amendments on this; I will read them with care.
Furthermore, environmental hazard mitigation, such as for the increasingly common and damaging wildfires, is not sufficiently addressed by the priority areas. While I welcome the ambition of setting targets in law to provide a means of holding government to account, these need to be complemented by a robust review framework to provide suitable accountability and ensure that targets are not simply reset as, for example, in the case of the biodiversity 2020 targets. There is justifiable concern that many of the key environmental indicators do not have relevant or robust metrics, a point made by the National Audit Office report, which stated:
“There remains a patchwork of sets of metrics that do not align clearly with government’s overall objectives or with each other.”
It also said that there are “some important gaps”, such as soil health.
It is essential that advice in setting these targets, which will come from those who are independent and have relevant experience, must include practitioners and not just theorists. Like many others, I am concerned that the role and status of the office for environmental protection is much too weak and a significant step back from the situation that we were in as members of the EU. Picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has my noble friend seen the evidence from the analysis of the Bill by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and, if so, what is his response?
Another area of concern is waste. Although it is right to improve how we handle it, I will be tabling amendments on trying to reduce the amount we produce in the first place, as prevention is just as important as cure.
In the forthcoming stages, I will focus on trying to ensure that the Bill really will provide adequate—rather than just nominal—protection for plant species and our natural environment, which are at risk.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register, in particular my involvement with the BioRISC initiative at St Catharine’s College, Cambridge.
The UK has positioned itself as a world leader on environmental issues, and now it must deliver. I welcome the arrival of the Bill, however late, but, like other speakers, I recognise that significant work needs to be done if it is to deliver. Deferring to those with greater knowledge and experience of these matters, I shall restrict my comments to two devolution implications and two other issues that I have raised previously, most recently in the Queen’s Speech debate.
On the devolution matters, I have the benefit of an excellent briefing from the Law Society of Scotland, a point to which I shall return. Presently, the Bill’s provisions concerning environmental principles extend to England and Wales and apply to England only. Happily, the principles set out in Clause 16 are in line with the guiding principles on the environment set out in Section 13 of the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Act requires reference to the principles themselves, taking account of their interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union, whereas, under this Bill, the reference point is the policy statement to be made by the Secretary of State.
Differentiation is a natural consequence of devolution and the extent to which consistency is sought is a political matter. However, coherence in the way principles are understood and applied will be essential in ensuring that international environmental obligations are met. Avoiding disparities is particularly significant given the transboundary effects of environmental impacts, and at all costs we must avoid disparities that encourage “environmental regulatory tourism”. Given the duties imposed on UK Ministers under the Scottish Act, strong collaboration between the UK Government and devolved Administrations on environmental governance is essential. Some coherence will also be of assistance to UK-wide discussions and forums—for example, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the REACH regime.
The second issue is the importance of the office for environmental protection working closely alongside environmental governance bodies in the devolved Administrations. Clarification on the reserved functions of UK Ministers relating to Scotland that will be subject to oversight by the OEP is essential. Clause 42(1) provides for a restriction on the OEP in relation to disclosure of information. Clause 42(2)(f) provides an exception for a disclosure
“made to a devolved environmental governance body for purposes connected with the exercise of a devolved environmental governance function”.
This exclusion is welcome but insufficient. The Bill should provide for either a wider power to, or an obligation on, the OEP to share information and work with relevant bodies in devolved Administrations where necessary, including provisions for joint investigations to be undertaken by the OEP and one or more environmental governance bodies in the devolved Administrations where appropriate.
The Law Society briefing raises many additional issues—too many to cover in the limited time I have. I am sure it has passed a copy to the Bill team for their consideration. If not, I shall forward mine to the Minister’s office. I look forward to seeing the amendments referred to by the Minister in his opening remarks and the extent to which they reflect the issues raised concerning devolution.
Substantial public money has already been wasted through the failure of many agri-environmental schemes because the best available evidence was not appropriately used to inform their design. How do the Government plan to ensure that the proposals for the restoration of peatlands and planting of trees adopt evidence-based principles in planning, execution and monitoring? In the Queens Speech debate, I asked:
“what mechanism will the office for environmental protection deploy to ensure the transparent use of the best available evidence, enabling scrutiny by experts and members of the public, to ensure that taxpayers’ money for our environment is spent cost-effectively?”—[Official Report, 17/5/21; col. 350.]
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, which was:
“the Office for Environmental Protection will work closely alongside our world-leading Committee on Climate Change”.—[Official Report, 17/5/21; col. 426.]
He then thanked it for the guidance it had provided in this regard. I hold the CCC in the highest regard, but I am tempted to ask why the Minister believes that climate experts are the best experts to answer on ecology.
Finally, I turn to an issue that I know the Minister has supported in the past: banning lead ammunition. On 23 March, six years after receipt of the completed report of the Government’s own Lead Ammunition Group recommending that lead ammunition be phased out, the Environment Minister Rebecca Pow announced plans to do just that, saying in a Defra press release:
“A large volume of lead ammunition is discharged every year over the countryside, causing harm to the environment, wildlife and people.”
Her words accurately summarise the extensive harmful consequences of its use and make a compelling case for action now to protect human and animal health. But, inexplicably, she goes on to announce the commissioning of
“an official review of the evidence to begin”
that day,
“with a public consultation in due course.”
The impacts of lead ammunition on wildlife, the environment and human health have been known for years. So, I repeat:
“Given the Government’s view that extensive harm is being caused today”,
a view shared by many,
“why have they commissioned a further evidence review?”—[Official Report, 17/5/21; col. 350.]
I hope that, in winding up the debate, the Minister will have time to respond to the matters I have raised. If not, I hope he will agree to write.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, this Bill is both welcomed and long overdue. It could give us the basis for reversing decades of careless mistreatment of our natural environment and the opportunity to enjoy cleaner air and rivers and restore degraded habitats and biodiversity.
As my noble friend Lord Cameron mentioned earlier, in 1973, when we joined the European Union, we were labelled the dirty man of Europe. We have made significant process since then, largely as a result of EU rules and enforcement, but there is still a long way to go. It is said that this Bill will help us go further, but I remain to be convinced. To explain why, I want to focus on biodiversity—or nature, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, prefers to call it.
The UK is one of the most depleted countries in the world in terms of biodiversity. The Natural History Museum has calculated an index of biodiversity intactness. Using this measure of the health of our natural environment, we rank 189th in the world, and we are bottom of the G7 countries. In the past 10 years, 41% of our bird species have decreased and 15% of our wildlife is threatened with extinction. The dreadful state of our nature is at least in part a result of living in a densely populated country in which nearly three-quarters of our land is used for farming or the built environment. We have simply squeezed nature out of its home.
I am therefore very pleased to learn that the Government intend to introduce legally binding targets for restoring biodiversity through this Bill. However, the Government have set targets for halting nature’s decline before and failed to meet them. For instance, in 2010 the Government signed up to the so-called Aichi targets under the global convention on diversity. In 2019, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee found that we had made insufficient progress on 14 out of 19 targets. Furthermore, in 2020 the JNCC reported that only about half the sites of special scientific interest in this country are in favourable condition and that there has been no improvement in this score over the past 15 years. So, forgive me if I sound a bit sceptical, but I would like the Minister to explain why we should believe any new commitments to meet biodiversity targets, given the Government’s past record of failure.
At the same time, I hope the Minister can unpack a bit more of the detail. First, will the targets involve halting the decline of particular species, taxonomic groups or habitats, or all three? Secondly, do the Government know what actions they will have to take to restore nature? Many of the initiatives supported under Pillar 2 of the common agricultural policy failed to enhance nature because they were not based on good science—a point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. Will the Government be able to avoid making the same mistakes? Where is the science going to come from?
Thirdly, how will the Government calculate the trade-offs that will inevitably have to be made? Creating more space for nature means less space for human activity, be it space for producing food, building houses, roads or businesses—a point made by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington. Fourthly, and more particularly, proposed new Schedule 7A to the 1990 Act refers to a “biodiversity metric”. I hope the Minister can shed light on how this is to be calculated. For example, how many stone-curlews equal one purple emperor?
Last but not least, what the sanctions be if the Government fail to meet their biodiversity targets? We have been told that the new office for environmental protection will hold public authorities, including Ministers, to account. I share the Minister’s respect and admiration for the chair, Dame Glenys Stacey. However, as we have heard this afternoon, there is a tide of expert legal opinion that the Bill does not give the OEP sufficient powers or independence to fulfil its role. These points have been eloquently explained by my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich and others. I would also like to acknowledge a meeting I had with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and Tim Buley QC to discuss these points.
In sum, I like the declared intentions of the Bill. I know the Minister is committed to improving our environment, but there is still a great deal of work to be done to explain how this will be achieved. I look forward to working with him and other noble Lords as we debate and improve this important Bill.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and my husband’s forestry interests. A legacy of the Covid-19 pandemic must be that we grasp the opportunity to protect and enhance our natural environment and tackle the climate emergency. I welcome this important piece of legislation as it is vital that we continue to improve air quality, protect against flooding and ensure that our transport, waste and energy policies are environmentally sustainable.
Local government is already prioritising environmental goals, including leading the way towards achieving net-zero carbon emissions, increasingly with ambitious plans to achieve this before the Government’s 2050 target. The Bill points to a new environmental relationship between local and national government, with potentially greater responsibility sitting with councils. The impact of this is that councils will have a new environmental improvement role within their localities.
Local government is well placed to take the lead on this agenda, but, to deliver on these ambitious plans, authorities will need to have appropriately skilled staff, which many do not have at present, and be given adequate resources. I would like to see more detail about how certain provisions within the Bill will be implemented and the potential associated new burdens that will be imposed on councils as a result. Will producers be required to pay councils the full net cost of the waste generated by their products? Will councils have the freedom to decide locally on the best system of waste collection? At this stage, it is difficult to predict the impact of the legislation and the costs for local authorities in meeting their new statutory duties. It would be helpful if the Government could confirm that there will be an assessment of how the new duties are operating into the future.
The Bill includes provisions to strengthen and improve the duty on public bodies to conserve and enhance biodiversity, including mandating a biodiversity net gain through the planning system. I support the principle of increasing biodiversity net gain through the planning system, but the Bill currently does not require that biodiversity credits raised from developments be reinvested in the locality. Communities that accept developments in their area should be able to see improved biodiversity. I believe that credits should be retained by local authorities so that funding stays in the area where the development takes place and local people can have a say in how it can be used to improve the natural environment.
There would be a bigger set of opportunities to deliver change if the Environment Bill is properly aligned with the Agriculture Bill and the recently announced planning Bill. Getting land use right is a key factor in protecting nature and meeting net-zero targets. Forestry is a vital component in getting land use right in order to protect nature and meet net-zero targets. The Government recognise that increased tree planting is important. There was a manifesto commitment to increase planting to 30,000 hectares a year in 2025. However, little progress has been made over the past decade: only a few thousand hectares a year have been achieved.
The Environment Bill provides an ideal opportunity to put tree planting on a statutory footing and set a target for England that will drive delivery. The 25-year environment plan, published in 2018, identified the need to plant 7,500 hectares a year. I believe that this should be the target set in the Environment Bill. In order to achieve it, the Government must ensure that the necessary annual grant funding is made available for tree planting. It is vital that the process for approving grant applications, especially for larger areas of planting, is substantially improved. At present, the uncertainty and delay deter many applicants.
Aside from areas of ancient woodland, it is important that landowners are able to plant and manage their woodland to release the ongoing income that is required to pay for the management of woodland and support the continued benefits that these woodlands can provide. There needs to be scope to plant a variety of tree species, including conifers, which make up at least 90% of the market demand for wood.
I look forward to working with the Government and noble Lords as the Bill is debated in this House. We need to listen to councils, charities and other partners, which are calling for a holistic approach to tackling the climate emergency across a wide range of legislation and policy decisions.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as has become clear from the debates and amendments in the other place, and as is reflected here today, there is potentially a tension at the heart of the Bill and surrounding it. It begs the question: what should society prioritise?
The claim is that the Bill puts nature’s recovery at the heart of all policies by creating binding biodiversity targets, backed up by yet another legalistic bureaucratic body to enforce regulations. All this has the potential to mean that environmental rules will rule and act as barriers to other political priorities, such as levelling up and economic development. In my opinion, we, and the Government, need to put a rocket under industrial growth, especially for left-behind areas. This is even more urgent after the havoc wreaked by locking down society in response to Covid. I dislike the slogan, “Build Back Better”, and I am even less keen on “build back greener”, which is doing the rounds this week, but building is necessary in whatever context, and it is an example of the tensions.
To illustrate these contradictions, look at the way—and how often—it has been argued that the Bill clashes with forthcoming planning legislation. The promise in that legislation to accelerate and boost much-needed mass housebuilding and large infrastructure projects by removing barriers to growth is surely worth cheering. Yet here, and in lobbyists’ briefings that we have received, it has been described as an utter disaster for biodiversity that will destroy swathes of the countryside—that is misinformation, by the way. It has been labelled a “dark age of development”—it is a dark age only if you think that the environment should trump citizens.
In some ways, there is a philosophical clash over what economic growth means and what our priorities should be. The Green Alliance, a supergroup of eco-NGOs, which sent us detailed briefings on the Bill and was quoted uncritically here earlier today, complains that UK consumption is now such that UK citizens create a greater carbon footprint in 12 days than citizens in seven other countries have in a year. We are invited to infer that UK consumption is too high, but the issue is that theirs is too low. The tragedy is that those seven nations of non-consumers are not consuming because their countries are in dire poverty, so under- developed that living in hunger and destitution is the norm. Even if that means that you do not emit too much carbon, that is not something that I will celebrate.
I hope that some of the Bill’s philosophical tensions can be debated in this Chamber. The problem with having a cross-party consensus on environmental issues is that all the arguments feel like a competition to outgreen one another, with no real challenges. That is not helped by a broader crass demonisation of critics, outside of here, who are called deniers who want to concrete over the countryside. I hope that there will be more nuance, and none of that, in this Chamber.
For example, we need proper debates. We should be debating whether we really should institutionalise the precautionary principle. After all, let us remind ourselves that the EU’s rigid adherence to the precautionary principle on vaccines led to fatal delays and a political debacle. Surely we should also debate the dangers of over-rigid targets and bans. Only recently, that much-maligned material, plastic, with the disposability of its products, became not a waste but a lifesaver, in the form of PPE such as gowns and face masks.
One issue that definitely needs to be debated is the plan to force companies to root out illegal deforestation from supply chains. I wonder whether there is a danger that punitive and onerous regulation of UK companies will create hidden victims in the developing world. I am thinking of the many individuals working in commodity supply chains in the developing world, whose livelihoods may be threatened if the complexities of supply chains are ignored in the pursuit of a Westminster-designed topdown eco-agenda. And what about the sovereignty of producer countries? Many of the UK companies affected have tried to remind the Government that we need to remember to respect those countries as partners. They need to be engaged, not imposed on.
The commentary and amendments tabled in the Commons demanding that that part of the Bill be expanded to financial institutions, in an attempt to prevent British banks financing any companies involved in deforestation—that amounted to £900 million last year—seem so hypocritical. I have heard lots of passionate outrage about aid cuts in this House, but surely attempts to curtail productive investment in the name of the environment are far more egregious.
That brings to mind the persuasive arguments outlined in a new pamphlet entitled Greens: the New Neo-colonialists, in which I declare an interest, as it was published by the Academy of Ideas, of which I am director. I shall ensure that I send the Minister a copy. I am wary of the rich world continually curtailing the developing world’s economic growth under the guise of environmentalism. This is just another example of the dangers of a Bill focusing on preserving the natural environment at the expense of human flourishing and economic growth.
A lot of the material sent by green lobbyists takes a pessimistic, misanthropic and catastrophising tone, implicitly suggesting, with much hyperbole, that human activity on the planet is toxic and responsible for crises, environmental damage and so on. Can we have a bit of perspective and balance as the Bill progresses, and remind ourselves that human activity on the natural planet has not, in the main, been destructive, but has been hugely creative in overcoming natural limits? It has brought us from the caves to modernity, it has allowed agriculture to feed billions, it has allowed us, the human species, to build productive economies and technological wonders, and it has brought freedom and democracy. That is what allows us the leisure time that will enable us to join the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in bumblebee-watching in due course.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Environment Bill, which aims to address one of the greatest policy challenges of our time—that of climate change and the future of our planet. I wish briefly to address two issues today. The first is the role that local authorities should play in addressing this challenge. I declare my interest, as noted in the register, as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The second issue is longevity and demographic change, and the impact that they will have on our environment. Here I declare my interest as chief executive of the International Longevity Centre-UK.
The Bill takes the important step of establishing the office for environmental protection, which will hold the Government to account on environmental protection. One cannot ignore the fact that much of the work in protecting our environment must be delivered at local community level. We know that many poorer local authorities and parish councils struggle to play their part, because of financial and other resource constraints. As part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda, will they consider supporting local authorities to improve things such as local recycling or tree-planting initiatives? Will they consider establishing a community environment fund to support local authorities and parish councils in this way?
Many of us are living longer: according to the ILC-UK, one in three girls born this year will live to 100. Because of this longevity, people’s life courses are changing, which impacts on where they live, where and how they work, and how they interact with the natural environment. We also know that—because of immigration, which is essential to our economy and enriches our society, and various other factors—the population of the UK is set to increase by 9.7 million, and will reach 74.3 million by 2039.
In the Civitas report authored in 2020 by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, called Britain’s Demographic Challenge, the noble Lord makes the point that that population increase is equivalent to 3.5 times the population of Greater Manchester, or 1.7 times that of the West Midlands conurbation. If the current distribution of the population continues, the ONS figures suggest that, to house that projected population increase, Norwich and Guildford will have to build about 1.4 houses a day for the next 25 years, Stockton will have to build 1.2 a day, and Dundee will have to build just under one a day.
One of the key focuses in the Bill is water quality, and strengthening the powers of the regulator, Ofwat. As part of this, will the Government consider how the projected population increase will affect the demand for water and put far greater pressure on our environment?
The Bill is welcome, and is an important step in addressing climate change. Most of us accept the scientific advice that the current climate crisis is the result of human activity. Therefore, we as humans cannot ignore the fact that longevity and demographic changes to our population will have a significant impact. We must also ensure that local and central government have the strategies and the resources to address these very important and difficult challenges.
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing this long-awaited and largely welcome Bill. In general, I welcome it, as it provides a robust framework for environmental governance. I observed its progress through another place, and I particularly agree with the amendments tabled by my honourable friend Sir Charles Walker and my right honourable friend Mr Philip Dunne, especially on the subject of water extraction licences. The guidance for the Bill will now clearly state that licences may be revoked or varied without compensation where unsustainable abstraction has led to low flows causing damage. Provisions on the discharge of sewage into rivers tighten the obligations on sewerage undertakers to prepare coherent drainage and sewerage management plans.
It is right and necessary to tighten the rules on abstraction, but does the Minister agree with the CLA that as farming accounts for only 1% to 2% of total water use, farmers should be exempted from the risk of losing their licences where such removal would have only a limited impact on the environment but a comparatively large impact on their businesses and their food production?
The noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, writing in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday, perceptively pointed out that our attitudes to nature are being kidnapped by the dogma that nature is good and man is bad. The obligations on local authorities to support enhancement of biodiversity, as well as its conservation, are a case in point.
As the noble Lord pointed out, wild boar are already digging up large parts of the countryside, and the return of wolves is touted. Does the Minister consider that Clause 95 confers a general duty on local authorities to support rewilding schemes, and how are they to distinguish between those which should be supported and those which should not?
The desire to restore species which once roamed our countryside is perhaps not dissimilar to a desire to maintain traditional farm buildings, many of which are very attractive, such as ancient tithe barns. They are clearly part of the environment, but because they are manmade, they are not covered by this Bill. I agree with the CLA that heritage, as a key environmental public good listed as part of the 25-year environment plan, should be included in the Bill’s definition of the natural environment. Over half of all traditional farm buildings have already been lost, and stone walls and other features should also be included in the Secretary of State’s annual reports, and in the monitoring and reporting undertaken by the OEP. If the people’s enjoyment of the natural environment is as important as the natural environment itself, as implied by Clause 1(1) of the Bill, why do the Government not recognise that maintenance of many of our traditional farm buildings is crucial to people’s enjoyment of the natural environment? I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, regarding man’s positive contribution to the planet.
I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce a deposit return scheme for recycling metal, plastic and glass bottles and cans. However, the four large brewers, which hold 88% of the beer market, will absorb the cost within their profit margins, thereby driving smaller challengers and craft beer manufacturers out of the market. It is important that the deposit recovery scheme adopted be completely interoperable with the Scottish one. Can my noble friend confirm that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act provides the necessary powers to ensure this? Does he agree that there is at least a strong case for exempting small breweries producing less than, say, 900,000 pints per year from the new requirements?
As I mentioned in connection with the definition of the natural environment, the CLA argues that traditional farm buildings should be covered by the Bill. Clause 110 seems to suggest that the conservation objectives of conservation covenants can include buildings as well as natural features. Will my noble friend explain how conservation covenants relate to the environmental land management schemes through which it is intended that landowners may recover the significant part of their income under the direct payment scheme, which they start to lose from this year? I look forward to other noble Lords’ contributions, and to scrutinising the Bill as it progresses through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, with this Bill I feel that we are on round two: we have had the Agriculture Bill, and many themes are coming back to us. Indeed, we are reacting in similar ways. Some of my noble friends might be feeling slightly weak at the thought of that, because it did go on for a while. Certain things have been established: we all want serious solutions, and we do not want our lives messed around too much. I am afraid that it is time to accept that we are going to have to change the way we operate in order to get the best out of this.
We all thought that the new office for environmental protection would be a big beast that would scare everybody into line. Not only are we hearing that its teeth are a little blunter than we thought, but its jaws may not work unless you wind the damn thing up. We must make sure that we have an enforcement process for the new changes, and someone to provide the information we require, which must be both coherent and clear. That is one of the ways in which this will become effective for us all.
Turning to the more niche aspects of the Bill, access to the countryside is a great way to get people to buy in. The Bill says that you “may” be able to take certain steps to ensure that you can enjoy the environment. That is combined with “must” for other things. How do these two combine? For instance, what is the department’s attitude to the new office for health promotion, which talks of encouraging physical activity and so on? How is that going to work? Will the two offices work together? The noble Lord, Lord Benyon, is in his place, and it is hard to pick on him about this, but I asked him a question about this issue and his response was that he might have to write to me. Let us see what we can do, and what the connection is. To get people to engage with this and get the best out of it, they must know what they are getting. Are we going to make sure that the countryside is pleasant to be in, and that people will want to be in it? If we are, then public opinion may be rather more on the Government’s side when they do things which slightly inconvenience people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made the fairly valid point, I suppose, that the Government should not let the environment boss them around, because they want progress and growth. But there is only so much progress and growth we can take under the current model. We are going to have very bad water that we cannot drink and that will not sustain life, and soil which does not produce crops of the same volume. We must start addressing this and change the way we behave. Will the Government make sure, as we deal with these issues, that the use of the environment for health and recreational purposes is properly represented? How will that fit into the rest of the model? Regarding the drafting, the “may” and “must” is a variation on “may” and “shall”, so maybe that is progress. How will we bring these together and make sure that there is a coherent plan? Are the fishermen, canoeists and walkers going to come in behind the Minister because he is giving them something they want? As things develop, they can be his eyes and ears when it comes to enforcement. Use of land for sports clubs, for example, must come into this as well. How will this all work together?
We should at least get an idea of the Government’s thinking as we consider the Bill. Where do we look to find the duty for this department to talk to the Department of Health and Social Care and other departments such as Education? How will that duty be carried forward? If it is not, we will go back into silos that ignore each other until they are dragged, kicking and screaming, into the same room, doing the minimum required before going back to their old ways. That is how bits of government behave when they can. I hope that, as we consider the Bill, we will establish these rules, because, let’s face it, round three will be planning, and unless we establish the rules now, that will be much more difficult.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB) [V]
My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as a farmer in south-west Scotland with forestry interests, as chairman of Fleet District Salmon Fishery Board, and as a director of the Galloway Fisheries Trust.
It is of course welcome that this Bill is finally here. It has taken some time, but there is much to welcome in it. However, it suffers from what seems to be a common feature of most Bills these days: there is limited actual substance. Much of the detail is to be added later by ministerial regulation. What this means, of course, is that the details will not be subject to the same level of parliamentary scrutiny as they would have been if they had been part of the Bill itself, even if they are subject to the affirmative procedure. This applies to the most fundamental parts of the Bill, such as the environmental targets, environmental improvement plans, the policy statement on environment principles and the strategy of the office for environmental protection. It would have been preferable if at least more of the principles were included in the Bill.
Almost all environmental actions involve trade-offs. Those might be simply financial; for example, the additional costs of more environmentally friendly boilers. They might be economic; for example, an action that adds a cost or regulatory burden to a whole industry. It is possible that an action affects a particular industry in the country so badly that it becomes uncompetitive, and we end up importing from less environmentally conscious countries. In other words, we simply end up exporting the environmental damage. There are many examples of that already. Plastics disposal in Turkey has already been mentioned; ship dismantling in Bangladesh is another example, but there are many more where products are manufactured more cheaply in environmentally less well-regulated countries. As far as I can see, that could happen even between the devolved nations. What happens if the different parts of the UK apply different environmental standards, perhaps exactly for economic advantage? There is also a risk that the interrelationships between the Agriculture Act, the Trade Act and the Bill could create just such a situation for agriculture, as others have mentioned.
The trade-offs can also be purely environmental, where an action intended to improve the environment in one way damages it in another. Let me give a couple of real-life examples. One environmental target, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is to increase tree planting, which is generally seen to be desirable—and I agree. However, where I live, in south-west Scotland, large-scale conifer planting has led to serious damage to watercourses, to the extent that some are now effectively devoid of life as a result, and a reduction in biodiversity in terms of moorland flora, birds and animals. Another example of an unintended consequence is the Clean Air Act 1968, which mandated higher chimneys for industries burning coal and other fossil fuels to better disperse sulphur dioxide. That improved air quality in urban areas, but it also led to increased acid rain in rural areas and in Scandinavia. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, mentioned biomass as another potential such example. It is to be hoped that we have learned from those past mistakes, but it would be foolish to imagine that unintended consequences will not occur again.
I am not trying to say that we should not take the necessary environmental actions—quite the opposite: we must take them—but it is important that we look at our plans and targets holistically when creating them. What is the overall impact of our plans? Do targets potentially conflict? There could well be situations where the negative impacts are large enough to make us want at least to amend the targets to achieve our aims less expensively or to mitigate unexpected damage caused. If we do not look at targets and plans holistically, there is a real risk that they will lose the support of the public.
There is little in the Bill to achieve that. Part 1 describes the requirements for the plans and targets, but there is no requirement to consider the costs or the economic or environmental impact when setting them. While there is a power in Clause 3 to revoke or lower a target if the circumstances have changed such that
“environmental, social, economic or other costs … would be disproportionate to the benefits”,
what if the circumstances have not changed? What if we got it wrong at the outset? Additionally, there is no requirement in the reviewing and reporting duties in the Bill to review and report on those costs or unexpected consequences. It is important that in creating any plans or setting any targets the Bill should require a full cost-benefit analysis to be carried out, which should be published as part of the plan or target. The review and reporting process should then be required to report on both the benefits and the costs, including any unintended or unforeseen consequences, and not just on whether the target has been met, as the Bill is drafted. Just stating whether a target has been met—when, for example, all we have done is export the problem or where the costs have turned out to be much higher than expected or the action has caused unexpected environmental damage in another way—is to give an incomplete and possibly misleading picture. The Bill needs amending to ensure that the full costs and implications are measured and taken into account. Without that, there is a real risk we might in some situations do more damage than good.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Bill and congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his personal commitment to improving the environment and to producing a world-leading environmental policy framework for the UK. His knowledge, interest and passion for the environment are admirable, as are the credentials of my honourable friend in the other place the Minister Rebecca Pow and my noble friend Lord Benyon, a Minister here. We are fortunate to have them involved in this Bill. I support much of what the Bill seeks to achieve and welcome targets on net zero, biodiversity, air and water quality and waste management, which could be world-leading and put environmental concerns at the heart of all government policy-making.
The commitment from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to demonstrating the UK as a global leader in environmental and biodiversity protection is welcome, but it needs to extend well beyond this year in which we are chairing G7 and COP 26. Therefore, the concerns I have, like those of other noble Lords, relate more to implementation of the Bill’s measures, going beyond drawing up plans and reporting on problems and into delivering required investments and adaptations in far less than the 15 years proposed. This is one area of the Bill which I hope noble Lords might be able to strengthen in Committee. For example, I would support including legally binding interim targets, perhaps every five years. Clauses 1 and 3 would suggest a 15-year plan starting in 2022, whose targets might be missed along the way but no legal challenge would be possible before 2037.
I join other noble Lords in expressing concern about the lack of enforcement powers for the office for environmental protection, a rather toothless tiger unable to impose legally binding sanctions.
A third major concern relates to water pollution and the release of pollutants such as agricultural waste and partially treated and even raw sewage into our waters and rivers. I congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on the First Reading today of his Private Member’s Bill on this issue. I also support the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, and my noble friend Lord Randall in their concern about the release of harmful viruses, parasites and bacteria into our waterways from such pollutants, which regulators have been unable to control, and about the risks that this poses to humans, animals, fish and plant life.
Our water infrastructure has not kept pace with population growth and housing developments. It is vital to reduce the reliance of water companies on storm overflows and to do more to divert clean water from sewers. I welcome the storm overflows taskforce and the aim for all parties to collaborate: government departments, businesses and, importantly, the general public, who need clear explanations of the damage done by items flushed into our sewers and drains. I also welcome the Government’s promise to lay their own amendments on this matter in Committee. I shall look carefully at their wording and hope they will encompass the measures pressed in the other place by my right honourable friend Philip Dunne and my honourable friend Richard Graham, which were rejected at that time but may now be accepted. I thank my noble friend the Minister and his officials for their engagement so far and their promise of future meetings to discuss the matter. The Bill requires amendments that will strengthen Clause 78, for example, with clear provisions to address and control the pollution caused by severe sewer overflow events, with formal reporting and legal requirements for year-on-year improvements.
I also call on the Government to pursue their intention to ensure that pension funds are harnessed to help in the fight against environmental damage. They have a central role in helping us reach net zero and control biodiversity. Their long-term liabilities and investment profile make them hugely vulnerable to climate change, and pension funds can be influential in aligning others with net zero. I congratulate the Government on the fact that the Pension Schemes Act 2021 aims to ensure that new regulations require large pension funds, master trusts and others to focus on climate risks, and I believe that members increasingly would want their money to fit with their values and to help address climate change. I urge my noble friend to press on Ministers that this needs to encompass defined benefit as well as defined contribution schemes.
I support the Bill. I congratulate the Government and my noble friends on the laying of it. I hope that the Government will accept some of these amendments during Committee and Report.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I intend to confine myself to governance issues. If the Bill is left as it is, it will not take long for the public to lose confidence in the protection and enhancement of the environment. I make no apology for reminding the House of an issue that I have raised several times before, regarding the governance gap on leaving the EU. The first of the latest two times was on 7 March 2018, during a debate on the EU withdrawal Bill, when I raised the issue of the EU Commission taking the United Kingdom to the ECJ on environmental issues on 34 occasions and winning on 30 of them; the other four remained in dispute. Both Labour and Tory Governments opposed the Commission, causing it to take action. If it had been left to the Government, we would not have had the benefit of the Commission’s upgrades to the UK environment. I did the same again on 2 July 2018, during a debate on the NERC Act 2006 report. It was the threat of infraction—that is, the EU financial fine—which stimulated the UK Government to act in the interests of a better and safer environment. I pointed out, in col. 412, that Defra was in control and “loves control”; it is part of the culture. It was the same when Defra was MAFF. I was in both, several years apart, and the culture has not gone away. I could also warn that Defra, as old MAFF, wanted to have the Food Standards Agency as an executive agency of MAFF.
The threat of infraction—a fine on the UK Government—has gone; we are, therefore, left with a gap. Anyone who disputes that should look at the opinion piece by Michael Gove published on 13 November 2017 when he was the Defra Secretary of State. This is an authored article, on GOV.UK, on the new independent body for environmental standards. I will give two quotes from it. He said:
“Some of the mechanisms which have developed during our time in the EU which helpfully scrutinise the achievement of environmental targets and standards by Government will no longer exist in the same way, and principles which guide policy will have less scope and coverage than they do now. Without further action, there will be a governance gap. The environment won’t be protected as it should be from the unscrupulous, unprincipled or careless.”
He went on to forecast
“a new, world-leading body to … hold the powerful to account. It will be independent of government, able to speak its mind freely.”
This Bill, with the office for environmental protection, does not do that.
I am not a lawyer, but before I read the note from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law on this Bill and the OEP I had worked it out. Now that I have read the detailed Bingham briefing, I can see how shoddy the proposal is. Bingham takes apart Clause 37, regarding the power of the OEP and the environmental review. On the principle of legality and remedies in breach of environmental law, the question is:
“In plain English, if a public authority breaks the law, can it be brought to a court, and can the court correct the wrong?”
The conclusion is that Clause 37(7)
“does not satisfy the Rule of Law.”
An act of a public authority can be unlawful but the act “remains valid”, so the unlawful environmental acts are “valid by default”. This is the
“‘new normal’ under clause 37(7)”.
As the Government’s Explanatory Notes to the Bill say,
“the statement of non-compliance confirms that the court has found that the public authority in question has failed to comply with environmental law, it does not in itself invalidate the decision of the public authority in question.”
According to Bingham, this means that the ruling from a court
“will have zero legal effect. What then is the point in an environmental review?”
The remedy on damages in Clause 37(8) presents a problem. The Bingham conclusion is:
“The lack of a remedy in damages combined with the inability of the OEP to impose fines weakens the ability of the OEP to provide effective sanctions for breach of environmental law.”
This introduces the novel “polluter doesn’t pay” principle.
Returning to Michael Gove’s promise of a world-leading body being independent of government, the Bingham conclusion is:
“The OEP does not have an express statutory duty to be independent of the Government or of public authorities, nor does it have institutional guarantees of independence. The language of the Bill indicates the … OEP to be impartial, but not fully independent.”
In effect:
“The ability of the Secretary of State to issue guidance on enforcement policy and enforcement functions opens up the real possibility of the Secretary of State issuing guidance on how the Secretary of State is to be investigated.”
This is preposterous. As Bingham says, this is
“at odds with sound administrative practice and undermines the Rule of Law.”
The Defra Secretary of State owns the OEP lock, stock and barrel:
“This lack of independence compromises the ability of the OEP to pursue effective remedies for breaches of environmental law.”
If there is any doubt that stronger powers are needed, the fact was published last week that, of 640 bathing sites in the UK, only 110 are judged to be excellent by the Environment Agency. UK bathing water was the worst in Europe in 2020. The only reason that it has improved in past decades is due to the Commission taking the UK to the European Court of Justice, which is where I started. This Bill needs big changes.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my farming and land-owning interests as set out in the register. I welcome this ambitious Bill and congratulate all those who have done their best to encompass so much in this vast work. Like many noble Lords, I have thoughts on how this Bill could be improved but, in the time available, I will highlight two subjects that are omitted and express my concern regarding another that is covered. The problem that this Government have in producing a raft of necessary legislation on food, environment, farming, welfare and health is producing policies that are joined up and this Bill is a prime example of the importance of balancing real concerns.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, I would be most grateful if the Minister could explain why heritage is excluded from this Bill, although it features in the 25-year environment plan. Perhaps heritage might not have featured in the Garden of Eden as natural environment, as described by John Milton in Paradise Lost, but times have moved on and historic features and structures, including field systems such as ridge and furrow, stone walls and old farm buildings are often inseparable from the natural world and certainly provide habitat for many species, endangered or otherwise. Heritage is surely now a crucial part of the natural environment. Its omission means that there are no long-term targets, and with no targets funding cannot be directed towards meeting them. There is no monitoring or reporting. Surely the OEP’s objective of environmental protection and improvement of the natural environment should consider heritage and, in particular, when there is a conflict between natural environment enforcement and surrounding heritage.
I would also be grateful if the Minister could explain why the Government’s tree-planting targets are not enshrined in this Bill. The planting of trees has rightly become a huge government priority, whether it be urban planting, commercial forestry, preservation of ancient woodland, or planting in field corners or hedgerows. The carbon sequestration benefits, the health and amenity advantages, together with the greater use of domestically grown timber in our construction industry, have all been highlighted. The plan is to grow 30,000 hectares annually across the UK and we are currently woefully behind this target. Trees form a major part of the environment plan and the English tree strategy has now become the England tree action plan. New funding arrangements have been announced and I hope the long-awaited ELM schemes will include something on trees.
Surely, the importance of tree planting, a crucial part of the natural environment, should be covered on the face of the Bill rather than just in the supporting structure. Legally binding tree planting targets should be enshrined in legislation. Targets would need to encompass sustainable practices for all types of planting, as there are considerable differences between forestry and arboriculture. The industry is behind such a move, which would have the added benefit of encouraging the necessary investment.
Clause 107 cries out for more substance. Coming under the heading “Tree felling and planting”, it covers only felling. Surely, this would be an excellent location for measures to regulate tree planting, so that if the trees cannot be sourced from UK growers, every possible measure is taken to ensure that no disease can be imported.
My other major concern, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, relates to the importance of balancing environmental protection with food production. Measures in the Agriculture Act are aimed at promoting sustainable farming. No doubt, gene editing and technology will lead to some increases in productivity, but it is also clear to the farming industry that, in the short and medium term, food production in this country is likely to diminish. We therefore need to ensure there are no unintended supply consequences from measures taken to enhance the environment.
An example is in the House of Lords report Hungry for Change and the national food strategy. They correctly underline the importance of increasing demand for the consumption of fruit and vegetables but do not consider the supply side of the issue. In England, a high percentage of fruit and vegetables is grown in areas where irrigation is necessary practice. The Bill proposes increased power to revoke and vary licences for abstraction with no compensation. Who in their right mind is going to invest in this type of high-risk agriculture and horticulture without the guaranteed ability to abstract? This will lead to more imports from places without those concerns and more carbon due to transportation. There is also the devastating effect on the livelihoods and finances of those involved.
This all goes back to my initial comment about the need for joined-up policies where inevitable compromises need to be made, not just in the interest of the environment but in the interest of feeding people. This should have been brought home to us all by the announcement last week of the 40% surge in global food prices in May. No doubt, some of that increase might be temporary, and richer people who currently spend a smaller proportion of their income on food can afford a rise. But what about the poorer people in this country and around the world, whose income cannot absorb such rises? Let us make sure we get the balance right.
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as the owner of a smallholding with a few sheep and poultry, albeit in France and outside the purview of this Bill.
This Bill is profoundly conservative in two senses of the word. First, it is Conservative with a large “C”, because the Conservative Party is, and always has been, about conserving all that is best in our country that we have inherited from our forefathers and wish to hand on to our successors. But secondly, it is conservative with a small “c” in its desire to resist any change, which is very widespread in this country, going way beyond the Conservative Party. The Bill, to some extent, enshrines that desire to keep the environment unchanged, as it is. But the environment in this country is largely manmade. Before man set to work, it was covered with dense and impenetrable forest. No one proposes we go back to that, apart from a few extreme rewilders.
The environment has changed considerably over our lifetimes. I was brought up in the outer suburbs of London, a few hundred yards from the first farm. I used to enjoy watching the horse-drawn ploughs ploughing the small fields. The landscape at that time was a patchwork of small fields surrounded by hedges, which changed over time, partly as a result of mechanisation and partly as a result of EU subsidies encouraging farmers to dig up their hedges and have larger fields. We need to be conscious that we cannot freeze time. Had we tried to do so, food production would be lower and the cost of living higher, and we would have to import a far higher proportion of our food than we do.
There is a paradox at the heart of the Bill: the environment is largely the result of human action, not human design. It is the spontaneous creation of the actions of thousands of farmers, foresters and landowners serving millions of consumers. Yet, we assume in the Bill that it needs a centralised, guiding bureaucracy, a 25-year plan, vast apparatus of law and regulation and subsidies diverted from promoting food production to providing environmental goods. Is all this necessary? We certainly need to prevent the environment being despoiled by plastic, waste, litter, industrial waste and unregulated pollution. But, quite possibly, those problems would be better dealt with by individual measures relating to each, rather than by setting up some central, guiding, Soviet-style planning apparatus to preserve what was never the creation of human planning.
But we are where we are, and where we are is outside the European Union, so we have to decide what our own environmental rules, policies and principles should be. Fears were expressed during the referendum campaign, and subsequently, that we would set lower standards than those enshrined in the laws we have inherited from the EU. We certainly do not want to see lower standards, less clean air or less pure water. But there are many dimensions of regulations apart from higher and lower. We should aim to make our regulations simpler to comply with and outcome-based rather than process-based, creating as few barriers as possible to entry into agriculture and elsewhere and as few barriers as possible for small operators, rather than privileging the large landowners and industrial farmers.
We can now relate our regulations to our national circumstances. In doing so, we should be able to apply the precautionary principle in a more rational and pragmatic way than has been the case in the European Union. Someone described the way the European Union approaches the precautionary principle as “You should never do anything for the first time”. Of course, if there are real reasons to fear harm from some new process or innovation, we should take precautions. We should, perhaps, allow pilot projects before licensing more widely. Certainly, we should take into account experience elsewhere. But we should not rule out anything and everything from which anyone can imagine a threat, particularly when those threats are invented by those who are fundamentally anti-science, anti-industry and anti-prosperity.
I hope we will be open to using GM crops. I declare an interest here as Rothamsted was in my constituency when I was an MP. Wonderful research is done there into GM, CRISPR and conventional development of new species, always with due concern for risks. As a result, new varieties are created that require fewer pesticides and herbicides and produce more output with less fertiliser. I hope we can take advantage of the research and adopt an approach based on measuring costs against benefits in our regulations. I recall that some EU directives did not do so. We must all take a more balanced and proportionate approach. I support the Bill but with grave reservations.
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House first of my interests as declared in the register.
The Bill is broadly welcome. It says it has ambition, it aims to set its sights high, and it betokens a wish on the part of the Government to have strong environmental standards in what is, alas, a post-Brexit world—so far, so good. But it does not get everything right, and there are three things I would like to focus on.
First, it is fundamentally important that the new office for environmental protection—the OEP—is robustly independent. Many noble Lords have touched on this point. The Bill rightly makes no provision for the Government to be able to give instructions to the OEP, but they can give guidance. The problem, of course, is that guidance is pretty much the same as an instruction when it comes from the Secretary of State. When I first took on the role of chair of the Environment Agency, when Hilary Benn was Secretary of State, I remember that the agency felt not only that it had permission to speak out publicly on the state of the environment and issues affecting it but that it had a duty to do so—and we did speak out, sometimes in ways that the Government did not like. But when a new Government and Secretary of State came in in 2010, we were told that we should not speak out publicly—that we were welcome to give private advice to government but that it should remain private. The public voice was gone. The same thing must not happen to the OEP. There should be a duty on the OEP, spelled out in the Bill, to speak out publicly on issues of concern for the environment. The role of the Government should not be one of guiding or instructing but one simply of proposing. The OEP should, in other words, have its independence and voice guaranteed in the same way, for example, as the Committee on Climate Change.
The second issue I want to highlight relates to water use. In some parts of the country—Cambridgeshire is a prominent example—there is a serious danger to the levels of flow in and the survival of the wonderful chalk streams that are a unique part of the English landscape. Quite simply, we have to draw down less water. There are many answers to this hugely important problem, and in Cambridge Water, which I chair, we are exploring all of them. But one of them must lie in helping all of us to conserve more water. We waste too much. Of course, the Bill contains measures on water abstraction, but it also presents an ideal opportunity to make two important legislative changes to help water conservation: first, a mandatory water-efficiency label on water-using products in exactly the same way as energy-efficiency labelling; and secondly, a change to building regulations to promote the recycling of rainwater and improvements to water efficiency in any new home or building constructed. Both measures provide very simple ways of ensuring that we use water more wisely.
The third issue to highlight is access for the public to nature and the natural environment. Surely the past year and a half have taught us something we already knew but had too often forgotten: access to nature is essential for our well-being, our health, our ability to exercise and the welfare of our souls. One of my proudest moments as a Minister was helping to bring in the legislation that made a right to roam a reality for open country, mountain and moorland, but this need goes much further—to the fields at the edge of town, the banks of canals and rivers, the local woodlands and the green spaces that we all love. Making sure that public access to these is available should surely be part of any ambitious environmental policy, yet in the Bill at the moment the long-term environmental targets and the environmental improvement plans provide only for a permission to consider access to nature, not a requirement. This must surely change.
The Bill offers a golden opportunity to commit ourselves as a nation to the very highest values for our environment and our biodiversity. It is far too important to be a matter of party politics and I am grateful to the Minister for reaching out to many of us around the Chamber. But let us aim to be more courageous, more ambitious and more environmentally confident, for the sake of all our futures.
Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]
My Lords, I should first declare an interest in that I am the ex-president of the Arboricultural Association and currently an honorary fellow of it. I would like to talk about a blueprint for trees—or a greenprint, as I like to call it—as a contribution to the consultations on the national tree strategy, which is all part of our environmental future.
There are so many well-intentioned people and organisations currently involved with trees, and so many different and confusing proposals, that we are in danger of missing a golden opportunity simply through lack of organisation. There is no need to dwell on the beauty, environmental benefits and usefulness of trees. Thankfully, these qualities are at last generally accepted, as is the need to plant more and care for the ones we have.
My suggestions are: first, forests and forestry practice should be looked after by the Forestry Commission, with its wealth of experience, to produce timber, which is silviculture, while employing qualified and experienced foresters. This will not only produce timber but provide a continuing source of tree cover, with public access where appropriate.
Secondly, urban amenity tree planting and care—arboriculture—should be in a completely different category of its own, under the auspices of the Arboricultural Association. This would allow the trees in our towns and cities, their desperately needed green lungs, to be planted, cared for and defended properly by trained, professional arboriculturalists who really understand the subject. Local authority tree officers, who should be given more responsibility, are in the best position to identify the needs and costs in this area.
Thirdly, woodland old and new is neither silviculture nor arboriculture. It should be dealt with separately and could be supervised by an organisation such as the Woodland Trust, which would ensure that it is carefully managed, protected and regenerated while employing ecologists and foresters who understand woodland.
Last of all, tree nurseries are obviously in a category of their own and very specialised. Their trade body, the Horticultural Trades Association, is best placed to forecast the country’s tree needs, the problems involved with the importation of trees, the role of home-grown stock and the need for long-term planning and commitment by their customers and by government.
In summary, each of these four organisations should be used by government to inform the debate on the national tree strategy. This will help us to decide what to plant, where to plant it, what it will cost to plant and maintain, and who will be responsible for it. In turn, this will make a huge and vital contribution to ministerial decisions soon to be taken which are destined to have a long-lasting effect on our nation’s trees.
I am conscious that I have not mentioned a myriad of organisations that play an important role in looking after our trees and whose contribution to this great debate will be invaluable—my apologies. I have sought to suggest a simple, open, consultative framework that is clearly understood and gives the Government access to the experience and understanding needed to plan, budget for and oversee the planting and care of our trees nationally.
Finally, on an entirely separate but related matter, I would like to say a word about “urban forestry”. It is time that the use of this term in United Kingdom arboriculture be reconsidered. It is a contradiction in terms—what is called an oxymoron, I believe. Perhaps it is appropriate in America, where it originated, but it is hard for the layman to understand and unhelpful in practice. It is a large part of the reason why the public assume that our urban trees are looked after by the Forestry Commission, which clearly they are not, and why the term arboriculture has found it difficult to establish itself in the minds of tree owners and the country at large. I suggest that thought should be given to this matter by everyone involved in the tree industry and that each discipline, including arboriculture, should be clearly and correctly defined.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, first, I declare my interest in the register as a Suffolk farmer.
This Bill has had a pretty troubled history over the past two years. It reveals some confusion, not just semantic, between what can be legislated for and what, however desirable, can only remain a policy aim to be striven for. Thus the phrase “to set long-term, legally-binding environmental targets”, which was used very much in the Explanatory Notes and in the comments during the Commons period, is really an aspiration rather than a practical measure.
There are of course targets for which we can legislate. An example would be to say that all diesel vehicles will be forbidden to use Britain’s roads after 2030. However, there are other targets that we might well welcome but which the Government have only a direct influence over. For example, we might like Britain’s hedgehog population to be restored to the numbers that we would wish. Any farmer knows that virtually no production target can be legally binding; nor can a great majority of business targets. This does not mean that there is not much more scope for statutory regulation, as we have heard today. While regulations must be targeted, the targets themselves can seldom be legally binding.
I want to focus on one important and particularly fallacious part of the Bill: Clause 109 in Part 6. It deals with making commercial corporations responsible for not importing agricultural commodities that have been derived from the loss of forests from the world. It is a futile way of dealing with a most important and urgent problem, for one simple reason: it is seldom, if ever, practical to monitor and identify the international movement of commodities, especially if there is money to be made by muddying the trail.
In my few moments, I want to suggest a much more practical alternative, taking the protection of the Amazon rainforest as an example. The best way of achieving that is by financial incentives for the Governments concerned. My scheme would have to be organised and administered by the IMF and the World Bank. It would involve setting a commercial value on the areas of rainforest to be protected. That sum would then be multiplied by a factor to make its protection an offer that no Government could afford to resist. It might be a multiple of 10, 20 or even, in the crucial cases, as much as 100. Payment of these sums would not in any way involve taking over the ownership of the rainforest. Nothing would be taken from the nations or their Governments. Payments would involve taking over the debt liabilities of the countries concerned. The deal would be a simple one: provided the rainforest is not interfered with, the debt would become interest-free and not required to be repaid at term. The original lenders would be repaid by the World Bank, which would take the debt on to its own balance sheet.
The attraction for the country is that, if it could increase its own borrowing, it could then, without fear of any default, develop more rapidly itself. Also, of course, the monitoring of such an agreement would be straightforward using satellite technology. Not a single tree could be felled without it being spotted by a satellite or drone of some sort. The penalty for breaking the deal would be obvious: the debt would come back again, being obliged to be repaid with the accumulated interest. Very few Governments would feel that they could afford to risk that.
I originally put this idea forward at a Ditchley conference some 20 years ago. Its time has now come. I offer it and hope that my noble friend considers it.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, an independent review of the economics of biodiversity, produced by Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta of the University of Cambridge—I declare my interests—describes nature as “our most precious asset” and finds that humanity has collectively mismanaged its global portfolio. Our demands far exceed nature’s capacity to supply the goods and services that we all rely on, and the last few decades have taken a devastating ecological toll. The review highlights that recent estimates suggest that we would need 1.6 earths to maintain humanity’s current way of life. As Professor Dasgupta said:
“Truly sustainable economic growth and development means recognising that our long-term prosperity relies on rebalancing our demand of nature's goods and services with its capacity to supply them.”
Since 1970, there has been an almost 70% drop, on average, in the populations of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians. Some 1 million animal and plant species—almost a quarter of the global total—are believed to be threatened with extinction.
The CBI, of which I am president, has been addressing resources and waste reforms. In the wake of Covid-19, the new UK-EU relationship, rapid technological advancement and climate change, the country has a defining opportunity to set an ambitious target and course for the next decade and beyond. Protecting the environment for future generations should be at the heart of any economic vision for the UK. We have just launched our economic strategy—Seize the Moment: An Economic Strategy for the UK—for the next decade until 2030; climate change, biodiversity and the environment are key pillars of this.
Just as the CBI and our members stand with the Government on meeting the UK’s target for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, we are supportive of the ambition behind the resources and waste strategy to move towards a circular economy. The drive towards a circular economy, where resources are used efficiently and waste kept to a minimum, presents a genuine opportunity for the UK to be a world leader in sustainability. This could bring huge economic benefits, increasing our lagging productivity and improving prosperity for all. Responsible businesses know that they have a crucial part to play in protecting our environment and are acutely aware of the high consumer demand for firms to be proactive. We look forward to business continuing to work with the Government to ensure that we establish a pathway to a circular economy that enhances business competitiveness and empowers consumers to make positive choices. Does the Minister agree with this?
Some of the key points are that businesses need more visibility over how the reforms will work in practice. Taken together, the Government’s reforms are the most comprehensive overhaul of England’s waste and recycling system in a generation. Reforms on this scale are inherently disruptive, so it is crucial to ensure that their implementation, both logically and practically, take the pressures facing business into account. Many CBI members feel that the pace of reforms and lack of clarity of their design, so close to implementation, mean that many could struggle to make the necessary changes in time. Do the Government agree with that?
There are additional costs and burdens on business that need to be kept to a minimum. Consumers must be encouraged and empowered to make positive choices. The BBPA, which is a member of the CBI and of which my business is a member, says that it is crucial that the implementation of a deposit return scheme does not further hinder pubs, brewers and producers, but provides them with a platform to play an important role in supporting our environment, while continuing to operate efficiently and profitably.
The B7, which I was privileged to chair last month, feeds into the G7. There are important milestones to deliver successful outcomes and build momentum ahead of the B20, the G20 and COP 26. As we address the challenge of reducing carbon emissions, business also needs to consider wider impacts on the environment, particularly biodiversity, where more work needs to be done to understand how business and government can work together to create a sustainable future for all. G7 nations should prioritise national policies to support the development of markets that value diversity, biodiversity, natural environments, natural carbon sinks and nature-positive business activity. Biodiversity loss is occurring worldwide, and the decline is set to continue under business-as-usual patterns of activity. The World Economic Forum estimates that over half of global GDP is threatened by nature loss. Therefore, preserving nature is central to a sustainable future.
The G7 Energy and Climate Ministers issued a joint communique on G7 climate and biodiversity, and it is encouraging that they have taken the B7 recommendations on board. The OECD speaks about natural capital underpinning all economic activity. Greener UK says that the stakes could not be higher for this first dedicated environmental Bill in over 20 years. The World Wildlife Fund welcomes the Environment Bill and calls for a statutory deforestation target. Are the Government considering this? The UK NGO Forest Coalition says that halting the global loss of forests and other natural ecosystems is essential.
I conclude with Sir David Attenborough, the famed Cambridge alumnus, who welcomed the Dasgupta review, saying that it is
“the compass that we urgently need.”
He said:
“Economics is a discipline that shapes decisions of the utmost consequence, and so matters to us all. The Dasgupta Review at last puts biodiversity at its core … This comprehensive and immensely important report shows us how by bringing economics and ecology face to face, we can help to save the natural world and in doing so save ourselves.”
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Lord Sheikh, you need to unmute.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
I regret that we are having connection problems with the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, so we move to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, the stated purpose of the Environment Bill is to improve the natural environment and the 2019 Glover review of the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty that called for radical change in the way we protect our landscape. The review stressed the need for us to take urgent steps to recover and enhance nature. One thing that is causing damage to the natural environment and to our fragile and precious landscapes is that 4x4 vehicles, motorbikes and quad bikes are allowed to be driven for purely recreational purposes on unsealed tracks all over the countryside, including in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The only reason this is allowed to happen is because the law as it stands states that a countryside track, whatever it may be, which has been used in the past by horsedrawn carts, carries a right of way for any kind of modern motor vehicle.
Parliament attempted to deal with this problem in 2006 in the passage of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act. It put a stop to the historic use of horsedrawn carts, giving rise to the use of cars and motorbikes on footpaths and bridleways, but it left unprotected over 3,000 miles of other tracks in the countryside that have no right of way classification. These are the country’s green lanes. They are all open to use and abuse by recreational motor vehicles, and as a result, great damage is being done, even on the high fells. The amendment I will seek to table does not ask for an immediate change in the law, and if passed, it would require the Secretary of State to return to the business that was left unfinished by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act and to carry out a public consultation on whether the loophole left behind by that Act should be closed.
The other issue that has recently come into prominence after the recent county council elections is the connection between many large housing estates and the wastewater and sewerage facilities until they are able to process the new load. This leads to an abuse of the exemption in place for exceptional storm water, resulting in the pollution of rivers and streams in the area. Reference has been made by other noble Lords to the thoroughly inadequate enforcement facility. This needs immediate action to stop the present abuse.
The contamination of sewage with wet wipes and other materials should be tackled at once by making a prominent announcement on the packaging of such products showing that they are not for flushing. Yesterday, I examined a number of these products. Many make statements such as “May be recycled as dictated in the locality.” One product, in very tiny letters, did say “Not for flushing.” There is no reason why immediate action should not be taken to deal with this by making a “Not for flushing” sign on all such packaging so that people could at least be advised about what they should do.
I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury: all new housing estates should be fitted so that they catch and preserve water rather than feeding it into the sewage system. Also, they should all use efficient machines, which will do a great deal more to conserve the water we use than the present system of letting rainwater go to waste and continuing to install inefficient machines.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has already set out the temporal position of the Bill: it is at the end of a long line of debates on the Agriculture Act, the Fisheries Act, the Trade Act and Brexit. It is the place where the Government told us that many of the issues raised in those debates would finally be dealt with. It would seem that it is also the place where the Dasgupta review’s call for new economic indicators should be acknowledged, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, referred to. It is the place to start the transformation from an economy based on the exploitation of people and the environment to a system based on resilience and regeneration.
Some 25 years after the Act that set up the Environment Agency, the Bill is certainly urgently needed, for that Act and 25 years of Governments of various hues have clearly failed. Our nation ranks 187th globally for the state of our nature. Much of it is a beautiful but sterile green desert, from the burned, shorn land of our first national park in the Peak District to the rapeseed flowers now blanketing chemical-drenched fields.
Yet food security remains an acute and pressing issue. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I will not posit a third world war, but rather point to our responsibility, as a wealthy nation, not to take food, water, labour and resources from the fields and mouths of others in a world where production is threatened by the climate emergency, the water crisis, the destruction of soils and the massive practice of food waste that is the factory farming of animals.
Many noble Lords have already addressed issues that the Green group—all two of us—will seek to offer our support on. I endorse many things that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said so eloquently, including on the need for environmental principles to be applied universally, the need for local governments to have the resources they need to protect and enhance nature, and the principle of net biodiversity gain not excluding major infrastructure developments. In fact, I will go further: we need to abolish the principle of biodiversity offsetting. We have so little left that we cannot afford to destroy any national treasure that we have left—certainly not for the uncertain outcome of a few saplings stuck in a field and called a replacement for an ancient forest.
Relatedly, the Secretary of State should not be allowed to amend the habitat regulations at will. The noble Lord, Lord Montrose, spoke of a forest of Henry VIII regulation. This is one forest that should be felled. The noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Rooker, focused particularly on the legal weakness—indeed, the legal attack on basic principles contained in the Bill—as so powerfully outlined by the Bingham Centre. We will work on that.
I agree with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who is not currently in her place, and thank her for drawing attention to the Knepp planning issue. Drawing a broader point from that, in their planning and agriculture principles, the Government seem to be locked into a sparing rather than a sharing mindset—one of sparing a little land and making it pristine and rich but trashing the rest for industrial agriculture or housing luxury development of a kind that fails to meet urgent community needs. We need to care for all of our land.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, pointed out an obvious gaping hole in the Bill: the lack of measures on antimicrobial resistance. I do not often quote David Cameron, but I will today:
“With some 25,000 people a year already dying from infections resistant to antibiotic drugs in Europe alone, this is not some distant threat but something happening right now”.
That was in 2014. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rightly stressed the importance of our marine environment and the non-existence of its protection. The Green group intends to offer support on all these issues and more.
I am afraid that the nature of the rest of my speech is also that of a list—that is, a list of the issues that I have not heard other noble Lords clearly set out. This reflects concerns that my noble friend and I have heard from the millions of voters we do our best to represent and the many industry and campaign groups whose issues are not covered or are badly dealt with by the Bill.
The ordering is roughly in the order of the easiest issues, from those that any sensible Government would surely embrace through to those that require a fundamental philosophical shift and an understanding that there are enough resources on this planet for everyone to have a decent life and for the natural environment to be cared for if we just share them out fairly. This requires a sudden outbreak of understanding of planetary limits—I live in hope.
First, on plastic and packaging materials, an amendment is needed to ensure that the bottle deposit scheme is variable, reflecting the size and impact of bottles, not just their number. An amendment is also needed to tackle the horrendously costly waste of disposable nappies, both to household budgets and the cost we all bear in council waste. However, what is really lacking in the Bill is an understanding of the waste pyramid. Recycling is third best; we have to reduce and reuse, and recycling comes a poor third.
Secondly, on pesticides, we have soaked the planet with poison. We need to protect rural dwellers, and the whole of our land, from pesticide applications.
Briefly, because I am running out of time, human rights have to be linked to environmental rights—due diligence along the lines of the Bribery Act. Then there is the issue of what land is for, which was partially raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. It has to be for the people and for the natural world. Driven grouse shooting, growing food to waste in feeding animals kept in misery, and sugar beet production, which strips soils and produces obesity, are some examples of land uses we do not need.
Finally, we often hear in your Lordships’ House that these are crowded islands. The crowding has one very large cause: 50% of the land is owned by 1% of the people, so 99% of people are excluded from half of our land. An Environment Bill surely has to offer access to more of it—a great deal more—for food growing, nature and recreation. They are not making any more land, so we have to share it out fairly.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made reference to Lord Montrose. He is in fact the Duke of Montrose. I call the next speaker.
Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a landowner, a passionate conservationist and the president of the Moorland Association.
I wish to talk about the new policy of biodiversity net gain—although I agree with my noble friend Lord Blencathra that it would be better to call it “nature net gain”. It is good to see this policy being enacted into law. I remember the fury with which a lot of green pressure groups reacted to Owen Paterson’s suggestion of offsetting when he was Secretary of State. Now, seeing that it might be a source of revenue, they have changed their tune. However, a lot can go wrong if the policy is badly implemented, so I want to set out how the Bill can be improved to ensure that the policy benefits biodiversity rather than bureaucracy. To do that, I will tell two stories from recent personal experience.
First, I own a converted barn as a holiday home in the Durham Dales. Last year, we drew up plans to extend it with an extra bedroom. We were told that we could not even apply for planning permission until we had had a bat survey, and this being October, we could not have a bat survey until spring, and then not until the temperature was consistently above 15 degrees. It never got that warm in April and May this year, so the bat survey is happening this week, done by three ecologists at dusk. There are bats about, but they are common pipistrelles and there is plenty of roosting space that will not be disturbed by the work, so we will probably get the go-ahead. However, the episode will have delayed the work for nearly two years and it will not have done anything for the bats. The better approach for the bats is offsetting: building lots of bat roosts right at the start and then going ahead with the development. That is biodiversity net gain in action. The trouble is that it is bad news for bat surveyors, who will lobby against it. My first question for the Minister is this: can he assure me that biodiversity net gain will be introduced instead of rather than as well as the wasteful policy of endlessly paying out vast sums of taxpayers’ money to do futile ecological surveys before development?
Secondly, a few weeks ago I went to see a farm on the Isle of Sheppey on the outskirts of London, where a man named Philip Merricks has done something remarkable. He was a normal arable farmer until the land was designated as a site of special scientific interest and a national natural reserve, which meant farming in a more wildlife-friendly way. But he took one look at the recommendations from the Government and said, “I can do better than that. If you want redshanks and peewits”—sorry, they are called lapwings down there—“I will farm for them as if they were sheep.” He now has 350 pairs of both lapwings and redshanks on a spectacular landscape, rich in birdlife, of wet meadows and grass grazed by cattle. He achieves this by ruthless predator control, killing hundreds of crows a year and excluding badgers with special fences, as well as imaginative habitat management.
Next door, the RSPB had similar habitat, just as good, but was rearing only 0.1 chicks per pair of lapwings. That means, as Merricks realised, that it was, in effect, draining his population by making good habitat tempting to birds but where the eggs and chicks were all taken by crows, gulls, foxes and badgers. It was actually doing harm to the species and would be in breach of the new species abundance target my noble friend the Minister mentioned in his speech. Yet this is how most conservation is done in this country: we count the birds but not the chicks. We pay by intentions, we do not measure the results and we reward failure.
The RSPB owns a huge moorland in north Wales, at Lake Vyrnwy, where it has presided over steadily declining numbers of curlew, lapwing, merlin, black grouse and red grouse. It has been rewarded with millions of pounds of grants and subsidies precisely because these species are doing so badly there, whereas the land my family business shares with farmers in the North Pennines has a huge and healthy population of curlew, lapwing, redshanks, snipe, woodcock, golden plover, dunlin and black grouse, all achieved at our own expense through the relentless control of foxes, crows and stoats—but, of course, we are pilloried by environmentalists because we also shoot grouse.
I have two more questions for my noble friend the Minister: can we have nature-based policies that reward success and not failure, and can we allow experimentation and local initiative and not try to determine everything from the centre? We need conservation entrepreneurs like Philip Merricks who are incentivised to find cost-effective solutions, not risk-averse monopolies of bureaucrats playing safe by never trying anything new and insisting on a one-size-fits-all policy that does not tap local knowledge.
The Bill’s ambitions for nature recovery will not be met unless private sector investment into private landholdings is facilitated. Nature recovery cannot be left solely within the domain of the big environmental NGOs. They do not have access to sufficient land, and landowners rarely want them involved in the management of that land. Natural England is progressing with the establishment of a credit sales platform through which government credits in biodiversity net gain will be sold to developers. This is a huge mistake, because it will inevitably crowd out a developing market in these credits. It is statist and anti-competitive, and hence open to legal challenge.
Nature should not be left to risk-averse public sector monopolies. We should all be allowed to play our part in its enhancement.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been an extraordinary, wide-ranging and fascinating debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount. I found his speech absolutely riveting.
I am happy to support what the Government are doing in this Bill, and I do not dissent at all from their wish to improve the natural environment and air and water quality. It is entirely appropriate that there should be legislation to bring about the necessary changes. Clean and safe drinking water and effective sewerage in Victorian times, the smoking ban earlier this century, and the Clean Air Act of the 1950s were all the results of laws passed by Parliament. These all contributed massively to public health, and this Bill is intended to do the same. I certainly do not intend to oppose it.
However, such a policy brings with it a danger of unintended consequences. Had a ban on coal burning extended beyond domestic consumption, it would have wiped out almost overnight the entire heritage steam sector: coal-burning railway locomotives on conserved lines and main lines, traction engines, steamrollers, industrial museums, steamboats, pumping stations and traditional fires in historic houses.
Two years ago, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail—I declare an interest as one of its vice-chairs and also as president of the Heritage Railway Association—was sufficiently alarmed to conduct an inquiry into the requirement of heritage railways for coal and the future of steam locomotives in the United Kingdom. The group’s report concluded that steam trains are an essential part of the railway heritage offer and are the principal attraction for visitors. There is no practical alternative to the use of coal for steam locomotives on Britain’s heritage railways. The economics of heritage railways are fragile, and they would lose most of their unique appeal if they were unable to run steam trains. Such a loss would result in redundancy among paid staff, a restriction in operations, and a smaller sector.
It is worth recalling that, in normal times, these railways attract 13 million visitors, provide 4,000 jobs, with 22,000 active volunteers, and have a £400 million positive impact on the national economy. The impact on local tourism economies where heritage railways are located, particularly in rural areas, is immense. They also provide training and apprenticeships in a wide range of skills and disciplines. In remote areas, such as north Wales, they are already contributing to the levelling-up agenda. The value of the wider sector, which embraces steam road vehicles, ships and boats, is also considerable. It, too, contributes to local economies and offers training, education and apprenticeships. The same goes for engineering museums and historic houses.
I understand why the Government are ending coal-fired power generation by 2025, and I support the restrictions on domestic coal burning proposed in the Government’s consultation on the clean air strategy. I also welcome Ministers’ repeated assertions that the heritage sector is excluded from the proposals in the Bill. They are right to do so, bearing in mind that the quantity of coal used by the entire sector is no more than about 35,000 tonnes a year—the amount burned each day by the Drax power station before it was converted to biomass. Clearly the risk to public health is tiny.
However, having accepted that the sector may continue to burn coal to make steam, it will be essential that there is an affordable supply. I expect that in future all the coal needed will be imported from countries such as Russia, Colombia and the United States. Bearing in mind the scale of the carbon footprint involved in moving coal from one side of the world to another, that makes no sense to me while we here in Great Britain are sitting on vast unmined resources of our own. I accept that we have lost that battle, and it is worth remembering that heritage railways in particular are working hard to reduce emissions and are researching the potential for artificial biocoal.
However, we must not lose the next battle in which another, less well-disposed, Government may decide to attack the activities of the heritage steam sector, perhaps under the climate change rather than clean air agenda, and we need some certainty for the future. My colleagues in the Heritage Fuels Alliance and the HRA and I greatly appreciated the opportunity to meet the Minister on 25 May to discuss these matters and we are happy to accept his assurances for the purposes of this Bill. He will recall that he said that banning heritage coal use would be a disproportionate response to the clean air and climate change agendas and would damage the great cultural and economic value of the steam sector to our tourism economy. I therefore hope that the Minister will agree to accept an amendment I plan to table in Committee that will put that welcome support into the Bill.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, as industrialisation in the 19th century increasingly damaged the environment, a few people, including Alexander von Humboldt, Emerson, Thoreau and John Ruskin, spoke out. The cry of the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins speaks for all those prophetic past voices and for the billions today who suffer the effects of pollution, poor air quality, dirty water and soil deprivation:
“What would the world be, once bereft
Of wet and wildness? Let them be left,
O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet.”
Sixty years ago, those cries became more urgent, with Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring on the effect of pesticides and EF Schumacher’s warning on the dangers of continuous growth. Within the Church of England, Hugh Montefiore, the Bishop of Birmingham, uttered similar warnings. Many in my generation were slow—too slow—in really hearing what those and others were saying. I exempt the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury and wish him well for his future work in this area, but I include myself among them. If there can be an excuse, it was that I was worried that focusing on the environment might be too much of a distraction from pressing human rights issues. What is quite clear now, however, is that the two are indivisible: a concern for the environment is also a concern for the rights of those who suffer now, especially the poor, and the right of future generations to be born into a habitable world. As Pope Francis put it in his wonderful 2015 encyclical, Laudato Si’:
“Today … we have to realise that a true ecological approach always becomes a social approach; it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor.”
A particularly striking and egregious example of failure is, of course, the deforestation that is taking place in the Amazon, resulting in the indigenous people losing their homes and their way of life. A statement by the national institutions of the Church of England puts it in a very balanced way:
“The whole creation belongs to God. As human beings we are part of the whole and have a responsibility to love and care for what God has entrusted to us as temporary tenants of the planet. We are called to conserve its complex and fragile ecology, whilst recognising the need for responsible and sustainable development and the pursuit of social justice.”
If the issue was seen to be urgent by a few 60 years ago, how much more urgent is it now? I am glad to say that this sense of urgency has run through the debate. The Bill is a landmark opportunity to get things right and show how serious we are about it, not just in the business of making the right noises. This means being clear about the targets to be set in each area, the agency responsible for monitoring them and that they are enforceable. Only through clarity, accountability and enforceability in all the relevant areas can we show that we are serious. The question, of course, is whether the Bill as it now stands provides that. It is clear from the speeches this afternoon that there are many ways in which it needs to be tightened up. One example is the need for interim as well as long-term targets; and crucial points were made by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Krebs.
It is quite clear that we have plenty of monitoring and a range of agencies dealing with environmental issues, but they are failing badly. You could take any one of a dozen areas: the quality of bathing water in this country has always been poor by European standards and last year it was the worst of all; whereas other countries including east European ones have improved in recent years, ours have failed to keep step. This is linked to another problem, the quality of river water, as mentioned by so many of your Lordships. Since 2019, raw sewage has been dumped into our rivers on more than 20,000 occasions, with millions of tonnes going back on to our beaches. Or take the state of our trees. Ash dieback is absolutely devastating our ash trees from one coast to the other with significant blight on our oaks, chestnuts and other trees. Or there is the failure of our tree-planting programme. The Committee on Climate Change has said that we need to raise our current 3% forest cover to 17% by 2050 if we are to have any chance of meeting our climate goals. That may need to be increased further if the Government continue to miss other targets along the way. At the moment the Government are missing their tree-planting targets by 40 years; if we continue at this paltry rate of tree planting, the Government’s own 2050 targets will not be met until 2091. Finally, take air pollution. In 2020 the UK was ranked 92nd for air quality out of 104 countries—as a result of poor air quality, people suffer ill health and die.
The good news is that, in all these areas, there is now monitoring by a range of independent and official bodies. We have the indicators; what we lack are really effective systems of accountability and enforceability. I believe that the Bill gives us an invaluable opportunity to ensure that, in the future, we will have these systems, and I will be supporting a range of amendments to that effect.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I warmly welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate in support of restoring our natural habitats and increasing biodiversity through this wide-ranging and ambitious Bill, which I also welcome.
First, I endorse the proposal to establish a new independent office for environmental protection to enforce environmental law, making sure targets set are actioned. The goal is to leave the environment in a better place for future generations—not just greener, but having built indestructible steps for the protection of our environment. In setting targets within this framework, the Government will be able to clearly demonstrate the annual improvement progress, as well as to establish a review mechanism every five years. In the Bill, great emphasis is placed on tackling waste and demonstrating how the Government will work and consult more closely with manufacturers, who are ultimately responsible for the cost of disposing of their used packaging, and how the Government will support local authorities in helping them to create a more consistent approach to recycling from one authority to another. It has been demonstrated over many months that more collaboration is needed to stop confused messages being given to the public so that they can play their part, and to empower our citizens to continue to support the recycling chain, helping the country to reach the target of eliminating all avoidable waste by 2050. Locked in too is the Government’s responsibility to prevent the export of plastic waste around the world, which we all very much welcome.
Secondly, we know that new trees, woodlands and forests are needed in helping to reduce flood risk as well as enhancing the countryside so that we can all enjoy and experience it as we walk and admire nature, which benefits our well-being. Our horticultural sector must also be supported in its challenge to increase tree production and maintain high levels of biosecurity, ensuring that the UK trees we plant will be healthy and resilient to the impacts of changing climate and increasing threats from pests and diseases. This includes the creation of three new community forests, creating 6,000 hectares of new woodland by 2025, adding to the 500 hectares already planted in the last year. With all these new measures, the expansion of tree planting will form a central pillar to enable reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, and so that more green jobs can be created in the UK forestry and nursery sectors.
Thirdly, the Bill highlights the importance attached to improved management of water resources, halting discharges of sewage into our rivers to protect our waterways. As we know, we are experiencing much greater rainfall, and urgent action is required from water companies—which need to upgrade their facilities in the short term to accelerate progress on storm overflows—to address and improve our environment in the light of the climate change agenda. We need evidence of monitoring from the storm overflows task force to show how it is working now in reducing the frequency and volumes of sewage discharged into our watercourses and how that evidence will feed into the Government’s proposal to publish a plan by September 2022. Water companies are to publish data on an annual basis, which is to be welcomed. The general public also have to play their part in making sure they keep their drains clear of unwanted items entering the system, as water quality data shows that urgent action is needed. We must go further and faster.
Finally, I will touch on the recognition and the importance of both upland and lowland peat-lands. I look forward to hearing more about the Government’s new peat action plan. As we know, peat-lands play a large and vital role in trapping carbon and any damage occurring can result in emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, so the sale of peat products must end soon. We must remember that they are our largest terrestrial carbon store and a haven for rare wildlife. We need more restrictions on the burning of heather on blanket bog, which, backed up by good regulation, will reduce the risk of wildfire outbreaks. The proposals set out in the Bill will address restoration and protection measures and help repair habitats and support wildlife in their fightback in this green agenda, which I warmly welcome.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, I have not been in the House in person since the first week of February. Sitting on the Front Bench earlier with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, I found myself wondering whether both of us had misjudged the timing of our retirements. I have led on the environment for the Church of England for seven years and have been a Member of the House for six. It has been a privilege as well as a responsibility and I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken kindly of what has been achieved; of course, it could never be enough.
With an eye towards retirement, I had thought that last year, 2020, would have provided a good conclusion, with the Lambeth Conference of Bishops from the Anglican Communion, COP 26 and this Environment Bill. All were postponed, so I find myself standing for the last time in this House without the prospect of being able to engage in the detailed scrutiny and revision that will make what is, in many ways, a good Bill better. Of course, my colleagues will contribute, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has already. I thank the Minister for meeting the Bishops in preparation for this debate.
The care of creation is an important theme for Christians and all faith communities, but young people repeatedly say that we are not doing enough. At the last General Synod in person before the pandemic, a motion I proposed was amended for the Church of England to aim for net zero by 2030. I resisted it unsuccessfully. Those making the amendment said that we have to respond to the climate emergency and pick up the pace of our own change. This is complicated and there is a big difference in temperament between realists and prophets. The impact of that vote, however, has been to energise the Church of England in a new way and we are working towards the 2030 target with more urgent realism.
I say all this because, while I welcome the Bill, in a Parliament that has recognised the climate emergency, the Government are nothing like ambitious enough. We need to make the most of this opportunity to replace EU legislation and exceed its ambition and effectiveness in addressing fundamental issues of the environment and about the way we live. It matters a great deal that we address the role of the OEP and bottom out its relationship with the Government and the excellent Climate Change Committee, and that we establish how targets will be set.
The Bill ought to shape the work of every government department. Individuals make choices within the framework of legislation which makes the market. The Bill will and ought to shape the way we live now, not just in the middle distance and long-term future. This is a time of enormous change. We can be encouraged by the scale of changes in our behaviour in response to the pandemic and daunted that a similar scale of change is needed every year to 2030 if we are to meet the 2050 target for carbon neutrality of the Paris Agreement.
There is an obvious spiritual dimension to the Bill. Gus Speth, a scientist who used to be the director of the Natural Resources Defense Council in the United States, said:
“I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”
Politicians, or any of us alone, cannot do that either.
Last September, Christiana Figueres showed the bishops a cartoon, which has since become well known, of a series of increasingly large waves crashing in on a small, urban shore: the pandemic, the economy, the climate and the environment. Although each needs to be addressed in its own terms, Pope Francis is right to see them as a single piece and as a challenge to the way we understand ourselves in relation to God, one another and the whole creation. The world’s faiths are all a resource for the way in which we live together in this one room of God’s creation. In our ecumenism, we have to pay attention to the economy—helpfully understood in the way of the Dasgupta review—and to the laws, ecology and wisdom of the house.
We cannot depend on techno-optimism to dig us out of a hole and we will need to answer questions about restraint. What is enough? We cannot continue to consume as we do. A new creativity is needed. There are opportunities for the UK to exercise leadership in our hosting of the G7, this week, and COP 26 in November. The big lesson of the pandemic is that we are local and global, and that in the existential issues we face no one is safe until everyone is safe. The golden rule of every religion and philosophical tradition is to do to others as we would have them do to us; it is enlightened self-interest. That has implications for the global vaccination programme and for overseas aid.
The Bill addresses the legislative framework for our care of the environment but what underlies it is the way we human beings see ourselves. In the diocese of Salisbury, which is one of the most ancient settled landscapes in Europe and has a wonderful geology hundreds of millions of years old, this bishop knows something about the humility needed in our care of the earth, as well as the creative wisdom and ambition that has given such progress to human well-being. Most people want to do the right thing. We need a legislative framework that will help us to do so, and courageous politicians capable of seeing the need for new-world thinking in the light of what we are learning from our present experience.
It has been a privilege to make a small contribution to the workings of this House and to pray for this one small room in God’s big house. I thank your Lordships for your purposeful and expert collaboration and companionship. I thank the staff of the House for their unfailing helpfulness and courteousness, and the former and present Lord Speakers and their deputies. I wish your Lordships well in your consideration of this crucial Bill and will continue to pray for you in all your deliberations.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I am sure the House would wish me to express thanks and best wishes to the right reverend Prelate. I call the next speaker, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in this debate but, more especially, to follow the right reverend Prelate. As we joined the House more or less at the same time, I have watched with admiration his excellent contributions and the leadership he has shown. I speak as a member of the Rural Affairs Group of the Church of England.
Once again, today the right reverend Prelate has set out the key aspects of concern in the Bill, not just to those of faith but to all noble Lords and to the general public, while identifying its spiritual elements too. I would add in passing that I think all owe a debt of gratitude to his leadership and pastoral care in the dreadful incidents of poisoning in his diocese. Before that, he served with great distinction as vicar of St Martin-in-the-Fields from 1995 to 2011. I am sure that those there will be forever grateful. I pay tribute to his work at that time in the restoration project, where he initiated and led a £36 million buildings renewal project, which will be a lasting legacy of his tireless work. The House of Lords has benefited from his wise counsel and his championing of nature and the environment. We all wish him every possible future happiness and hope that he will continue the good fight for nature and the environment.
I refer to my other interests as listed in the register. Also, I am vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, co-chair of the APPG on water, and had the privilege of chairing the Environment Committee in the other place.
The Bill before us this afternoon is ambitious in some respects but has some surprising omissions. I would like to focus on farming, flooding and the marine environment. The link to the Agriculture Bill and especially the environmental land management scheme is obviously crucial to the Bill before us today. Farmers will no longer be encouraged to produce food but will have to compete for limited funds with other green activities. I ask my noble friend to consider, in summing up today, what the implications of the Bill will be for tenant farmers and smallholdings, being mindful of the fact that tenant farmers account for over 40% of the total in areas such as North Yorkshire and many other rural parts of the country. I invite him also to consider the implications for hill farming, which is heavily dependent on livestock production—farmers are guardians of the countryside—and improving food security and self-sufficiency in food production as well as sustainable farming.
There are inevitably implications for food affordability and potentially food poverty. The Bill represents a fundamental change to farming since the CAP was originally created. It begs the question: to what extent will the concept of natural capital be developed so that the Government reward people for owning and working the assets of the countryside, as well as for taking the economic risk, which should also be recognised? What regard will be had to the criteria used in the Health and Harmony White Paper, including landscape, rural development and tourism, as well as the implications of the planning Bill, which so many other noble Lords have identified during the debate? Will it be possible to use the public good concept to encourage natural flood defences such as Pickering’s Slowing the Flow project, and sustainable drainage? I urge my noble friend and the Government to be realistic, however, about growing trees, doing so only where it is appropriate. In short, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for the natural environment and biodiversity game.
Is my noble friend aware that there are certain implications of the Reservoirs Acts 1968 and 1975, especially the de minimis rule, that may prevent the temporary storage of floodwater on farmland, and which may be considered under the Bill? There are many issues arising in respect of surface water flooding, addressed in the lead-up to the Pitt review of 2007, but in many instances these are still not resolved. I highlight one: the ending of the automatic right to connect to major new housing developments, which could and should so easily be addressed through this Bill. It is important that we understand what the role and status of environmental improvement plans will be, to which I would also add the greater use of catchment management schemes.
I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, said about the need for the OEP to be independent in order to uphold environmental standards and to have proper rights of enforcement. I had the privilege to practise alongside Eleanor Sharpston, who served with great distinction both in the Belmont European Community Law Office, where we practised, and as the last Advocate-General serving for this country.
The Government need to explain what the relationship will be between the OEP in England and that in Scotland and the other devolved nations. Surely, the guidance in Clause 24 smacks potentially of micromanaging what the work of the OEP should be. Why has the marine environment not been included? I also ask my noble friend to consider the impact on the environment of wind farms, including the cumulative effect of both their operation and their construction. How will these multifarious new wind farms operate alongside other users of these seas, such as fisheries and shipping? There is a lack of research on these impacts, which needs to be addressed.
I refer in passing to due diligence, producer responsibility and managing disposal of waste, which we can explore during the passage of the Bill. As regards amendments, I ask my noble friend to consider whether marine life and the marine environment should be included specifically within the remit of the Bill. Given the future development and stepping-up of wind farms offshore, I ask whether the research I have referred to will be undertaken. I ask him also to consider the implications for water companies of their responsibilities arising under the Bill. How will this sit with the targets set out in the Bill and the constraints of the five-year investment price review period?
Finally, given that the public funds for public goods approach will lead to a sea change in how activities are to be rewarded, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of ELMS in rewarding green activities rather than food production? Will it mean that we become less self-sufficient in food production and end up importing more food? If so, is this a goal that the Government are actively pursuing?
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. I also add my appreciation of the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury.
I wish to speak about Part 5 of the Bill, in particular water quality in our rivers. This has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, which I welcome. Although much has been done in recent years to clean up beaches around the coastlines of the United Kingdom, mainly under pressure from the EU, the state of our rivers remains very poor. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has already said, only 14% of the rivers in England and Wales achieve good ecological status under the European standard. In other words, 86% do not. Not one of the rivers in England and Wales has achieved an acceptable standard for the level of chemical pollutants.
These statistics are shameful and embarrassing, and I am certain that the people of this country would wish our rivers to be cleaned up. Now that we are no longer in the European Union, we are often told that we are free to set our own higher standards, so it is surprising that Ministers have not set as a higher priority the absolute determination to achieve good ecological status for all our rivers.
I have today introduced a Private Member’s Bill seeking to prevent discharge of raw, untreated sewage into our river systems. The Bill derived from one in the other place introduced by the right honourable Philip Dunne, Member of Parliament for Ludlow, to whom I of course pay tribute. The Minister stated at the beginning of the debate that the Government would table amendments to this Bill to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament by September next year a plan to reduce such discharges, but I suggest that a plan to reduce discharges over time is simply not enough. We must seek, surely, to eliminate them. I recognise that, of course, in an extreme flood it is possible for raw sewage to enter a river system, but it should definitely not happen during normal periods of rainfall.
In March, the Environment Agency reported, with surprising complacency, that raw, untreated sewage was discharged into English rivers 403,000 times during 2020. In Wales, Welsh Water reported 104,000 discharges. So between the two nations, there were more than half a million discharges, or over 1,350 every day. These are truly shocking figures. They do not receive the publicity they deserve—although there was an excellent BBC “Panorama” programme a few weeks ago—and I am sure that much of the population is simply unaware of the seriousness of the situation.
The Environment Minister in the other place, Rebecca Pow—whom I much admire—said in a debate on the Bill on 26 May:
“It is essential that we seize this opportunity to set our ambitions high and take action to deliver them.”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/5/21; col. 382.]
Given the undoubted determination of the Government to leave the country in a better state for future generations, cleaning up our rivers must be a high priority, along, of course, with the target of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. I, and other noble Lords, will be tabling amendments to the Bill to require the Secretary of State to be more ambitious in cleaning the rivers by ending discharges of sewage and requiring the water companies and local authorities to upgrade the infrastructure for the handling of domestic and industrial waste. Many of the systems were built with insufficient capacity for the extra houses and commercial and industrial buildings added in recent decades. I accept that, for the water companies which are responsible for processing the waste, this is a large, hidden liability. Investment will be considerable and will probably have to be paid for by a combination of government grants, long-term borrowing by the water companies, a reduction in dividend payments and higher charges for all the properties connected to the sewerage systems.
All this is in somewhat stark contrast to the way that farmers are treated. They have been required to eliminate any leakage of silage effluent or other farm waste into water courses. Farmers cannot break the rules, yet water companies are allowed to make discharges continuously and seem to escape without penalty. The polluter pays principle does not seem to apply to water companies. I support the Bill, but I hope that Ministers will be prepared to make the cleansing of our rivers a much higher priority.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend the Duke of Wellington in giving support to his Bill. How appropriate it is that he should introduce it today. Perhaps it is a pity that it was not on 18 June, but one cannot have everything. I also echo the eloquent words of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and wish the right reverend Prelate every possible happiness and success in what I trust will be a long, active and healthy retirement. I am slightly surprised that such a young man should retire.
The most chilling words in this debate were uttered by Lord Krebs: “We have squeezed nature out of its home.” When he spoke those words, my mind flashed back to the mid-1940s, in particular 1947. I had been given a bicycle for Christmas and we had that long, terrible winter. In the summer, my father took me into the Lincolnshire Wolds. It is glorious countryside; if your Lordships do not know it, I warmly commend it to them. One particular day, we counted two things: cars and skylarks. There were more of the latter than the former. What a fall there has been.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, made the entirely correct point that ours is largely a man-made landscape—and it is a wonderful one. When I wrote a book called Heritage in Danger in 1976, I included our landscape as part of the heritage that was in danger. I talked about the thousands of miles of hedgerows that had been torn out. So I warm very much to the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, my noble friend Lord Trenchard and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who was the first to introduce this subject today. I beg my noble friend on the Front Bench to ensure that heritage is indeed included in the Bill before it reaches the statute book.
Great buildings are part of our heritage, and I am particularly concerned in this year, following the pandemic, about the added dangers facing our country churches. The right reverend Prelate will have many in his diocese, and unless he is exceptionally fortunate, some of them may close and not open again. Certainly, in Lincolnshire a number are in real danger. Very often the focal point of the landscape, the centre of the village, is the village church, or its tower or spire. The opportunity offered by a fairly all-embracing environment Bill must include heritage. I declare an interest as founder and president of the All-Party Arts and Heritage Group, which has been on the go since 1974. I am also vice-president of the Lincolnshire Churches Trust and was president of Staffordshire Historic Churches Trust and vice-president of the National Churches Trust, so this is something very close indeed to my heart, but to the hearts of many others as well. Whether they are Christian or not, the village church is very important in their lives. I hope very much that my noble friend ensures that heritage is included.
There is a danger that many of this Bill’s good intentions will be wrecked and sabotaged by the Government’s planning policy. I am deeply unhappy that local people will have little or no say in major developments. We heard of one earlier today: a wilding project in great danger because 3,500 houses are to be built on the border. It is crucial that when we look at planning, we look at distribution—where the new homes are built—and the quality of the homes. I talked about our churches and intrinsically their quality, but there is a very good example from a very high place—the Prince of Wales and Poundbury—where a new development has been planned and executed on a human scale, and the individual dwellings are of some beauty and will be treasured and lived in and loved, one hopes, for centuries. Do not let the good intentions of the Environment Bill be sabotaged by an unthinking planning Bill.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury, as he bids farewell to your Lordships’ House. I wish him a long and happy retirement.
This Environment Bill is welcome, but it has certain limitations. It will establish the new environmental governance system for England and Northern Ireland, including the new oversight body, the office for environmental protection, which I would like to see as independent. Later, I will concentrate on the Northern Ireland aspects, which must be toughened up.
This Environment Bill presents a high-powered agenda when matched against what has been happening to the environment. The dismal decline of our nature, which many noble Lords have already spoken about, has been well documented, with the UK at the bottom of the G7 league table for how much biodiversity it has left. Air quality and water, mammal and flora quality in our rivers have been impacted on. Litter is wreaking havoc on our countryside and wildlife, killing mammals and choking our seas with plastics. That is the stark nature of our environment, which needs to be preserved. The inhumanity of businesses and people, including many of us, has to be curtailed in some way if we want to protect our planet earth. The Bill needs to be improved to reflect the need to drive environmental improvement through binding interim targets and stronger delivery plans, as well as to provide that effective oversight of environmental law and progress by strengthening the independence and enforcement function of the office for environmental protection.
I am grateful to the RSPB and Greener UK for their briefing on the Northern Ireland aspects of the Bill. Specifically, Schedule 2 includes provision for environmental improvement plans and a policy statement on environmental protection in Northern Ireland. These provisions are broadly parallel to those in Part 1 that relate to England, albeit with some technical differences to reflect the different legal and policy contexts.
However, there are two key omissions that need to be corrected. First, there is no requirement to set plans for a specified time. Secondly, there is no duty or power on DAERA, the Northern Ireland department, to set and meet legally binding targets. In his wind-up, can the Minister specify why this is the case and whether work is continuing with the Northern Ireland Executive and DAERA? What are his prospects in terms of seeing that corrected?
My other questions in relation to the Environment Bill and Northern Ireland are as follows. What is the timescale for appointing the first Northern Ireland member of the board of the OEP? What resource is to be allocated to the OEP to carry out its statutory functions in Northern Ireland, including to ensure sufficient staff expertise on Northern Ireland law, policy and science? How will the OEP co-operate with the European Commission on matters of environmental law included in the Northern Ireland protocol?
Those legally binding targets are needed to help us to halt the significant loss of biodiversity in Northern Ireland. That exclusion from Schedule 2 of provisions akin to those in Clauses 1 to 6 is a fundamental omission that will hinder the protection and improvement of Northern Ireland’s environment. Therefore, I would welcome clarity from the Minister today on when the consultation on Northern Ireland’s environmental principles policy statement will be published. It must provide guidance on how the principles relate to the Northern Ireland protocol.
I look forward to answers to these pertinent questions from the Minister. I would like him to specify in his wind-up whether discussions are still ongoing with the Minister for DAERA and the Northern Ireland Executive. If so, what has been the response? Does the Minister have undertakings from the DAERA Minister and the Northern Ireland Executive that those commitments have already been made in relation to the resources to be allocated to the OEP and the OEP member for Northern Ireland?
There is no doubt that this is an important piece of environmental legislation that grants Ministers many powers, some of which are widely cast and would allow future Governments to change important laws on habitat protection, water quality and chemicals safety through regulation. Some of these do not yet have appropriate controls to ensure that they are always pursued transparently, are subject to consultation and further, rather than undermine, current levels of environmental protection.
Lord De Mauley (Con) [V]
My Lords, only a few days ago, I was delighted to hear a speech given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on restoring nature. In it, he lamented the failures of the past 50 years and promised a new approach, announcing plans for
“creative public policy thinking that can deliver results”
and moving
“the emphasis away from processes that simply moderated the pace of nature’s decline”.
Of particular note is this comment from my right honourable friend:
“In Natural England, we have exceptional technical expertise on habitats and our protected sites but this precious expertise is often distracted by highly prescriptive legal processes. I would like to get to a position where our talented staff in Natural England have fewer distractions and are able to prioritise the interventions that will make a big difference. I want them to have more freedom to exercise judgment rather than being stewards for a process.”
I was also fascinated to listen to the words of my noble friend Lord Ridley earlier. I propose to continue his theme. Biodiversity net gain is a particularly interesting concept to enable achievement of the Secretary of State’s ambition, as set out in a Written Ministerial Statement of 18 May,
“to deliver a regulatory framework that is fit for purpose in driving forward our domestic ambitions … We need a revised approach to deliver this new species abundance target and better support iconic and much-loved native species”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/21; col. 45WS.]
I propose to focus my remarks on Clauses 92 to 94 and Schedule 14—the part dealing with biodiversity net gain, which I warmly welcome.
Noble Lords may be interested in a case study. As set out in the register of interests, I have an interest in a commercially operated lake in the Cotswold Water Park, as well as other land nearby. Land managers were notified on 7 January that an old 1994 SSSI of 135 hectares was being enlarged to 15 times its size to include all the Cotswold Water Park’s 177 lakes—a total of 2,074 hectares.
I have no doubt that all those managing land there agree that it is a special place for nature and are willing to work with Natural England to preserve and enhance nature and biodiversity. Indeed, for many years, many of us have welcomed the BTO’s volunteers, who have counted the birds there and contributed in many other ways. However, what is relevant to the provisions of the Bill on biodiversity net gain is that there is no doubt that active management will be needed to preserve and enhance the habitat.
Indeed, that is acknowledged by Natural England in its “views on management”, which accompanied the notification. For example, it says:
“For the more sensitive pioneer species suitable habitat conditions require regular management of the early successional stage … These habitats may require some active management … Exposed areas of bare ground on islands should be maintained to provide nesting sites”.
Those are just examples. Much more can and should be done if we are to improve matters for nature. These things will not happen on their own; they will cost money.
Habitat banks for the purposes of biodiversity net gain credits under the Bill offer much promise in that regard. However—I would be grateful if the Minister could check this and write to me—we are advised that Natural England, as a matter of policy, specifically denies land managers the ability to take advantage of the opportunities presented by biodiversity net gain and, I think, ELMS, in respect of land subject to an SSSI notification.
One can understand that, perhaps for pristine wilderness, that may be appropriate, but for a habitat created by human intervention and under active management to preserve its otherwise transient state, it does not sound very sensible. It rather sounds as if, on the one hand, Natural England is telling us that active management is necessary while, on the other hand, it is removing the very tool that the Government are even now fashioning to enable us to fund that necessary active management.
Rather shockingly, it transpires that of the lakes designated in 1994, every one is, in Natural England’s own assessment, at “unfavourable declining” status. However, the large areas of the Cotswold Water Park that had not until now been so designated are, again at Natural England’s own assessment, in favourable conservation condition. This is in spite of—or, it might be argued, because of—activities that have gone on for years, for which Natural England now insists its consent is obtained.
Unless there is a clear and coherent plan to overcome the historic failures, it is unreasonable to repeat the mistakes of the past on a much larger scale, especially when there are now better options available that provide for conservation and enhancement. I do not have time to talk about a number of other controversial matters about the process that has been followed by Natural England here. Suffice it to say, there are several, and they include serious legal errors.
The Bill contemplates innovative mechanisms for true, sustainable development, such as the opportunities emerging from biodiversity net gain as part of development and habitat banks for offsetting. In his speech, the Secretary of State said that if we are to
“reverse the downward trend we have seen in recent decades, we need to change our approach,”
and we need to change it right now.
I particularly welcome the biodiversity net gain provisions of the Environment Bill. I hope that sense will prevail and my right honourable friend’s ambition that Natural England has fewer distractions, is able to prioritise the interventions that will make a big difference and has more freedom to exercise judgment—rather than be a steward for a process—will come to pass.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has withdrawn, and I call the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank.
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for withdrawing and allowing me to speak a little earlier. I draw attention to my entries in the register concerning forestry, energy and wider environmental concerns. I want to touch upon three issues—the independence of the office for environmental protection, territorial co-operation, and the wider question of environmental review versus judicial review.
Let me begin at the beginning. The real question is: does the OEP have teeth or just flashy dentures? That is yet to be clearly resolved. As a former Northern Ireland Minister, I am responsible for certain public bodies there. The public service ombudsman was set out in law, not subject to the direction or control of a Minister. It was a genuinely independent body set out in statute. An obligation to be impartial is useful, but it is not the same as statutory independence. We must recognise the difference and ask the question: why are we in a situation in which impartiality is our expected and accepted situation, rather than independence?
As a former Member of the European Parliament, I recognise how important the infraction proceedings undertaken by the European Commission were to bring about change, not just by their intervention but by the fear and threat the intervention can represent. The absence of that independence may yet be a detriment to our ability to deliver the noble causes this Bill sets out. A number of noble Lords have touched upon them—as part of the Defra family, there is a question of how the Secretary of State may offer guidance and how that guidance must be taken into account by that independent office. Those elements strike at the heart of independence. We need to resolve them; I think clarification is probably all that is required, but it is required.
The notion of territorial co-operation is also important in this regard. As a former Minister in the three territorial offices of the United Kingdom, it became clear to me that the green groups in each would have preferred a common UK position to address the issues post Brexit. We do not have that. What we have instead—the Bill is not wholly clear in this area—is how we create legislative consent mechanisms with each of the legislative assemblies and nations in order to bring about co-operation. But as we all know, on many of these issues, borders are meaningless, whether in terms of the archipelago we inhabit, its biogeography, the seas that surround us and the air above us—each requires a common solution and approach. It will be very challenging to secure that if, on each occasion, we need to secure legislative consent Motions to bring them about. We need to find a way of exploring this and finding a mechanism that works to the benefit of all. I think we all share the same common ambition and common cause, but we need to be conscious that the individual Parliaments may have very different approaches. We should recognise that at the outset.
My final point concerns the notion of an environmental review versus a judicial review. Several noble and noble and learned Lords have spoken on this issue and I will not seek to echo their points, but they are valid. I shall touch on the views of the Bingham Centre on this. A judicial review is important because as it begins to explore the issues, the outcome of that exploration voids the law that it casts down, whereas an environmental review simply offers an exploration and the iniquity of the law which is identified is not voided—it can continue. Justifications are given for that in the Bill, but to me those justifications look a little creepy, if I can be frank, because they basically allow a situation in which the individuals affected can find themselves able to assert that they are negatively affected and therefore can continue with an unlawful act in a situation in which that unlawful act will have an environmental consequence. The environmental consequence must be paramount in these situations because that is why we are creating the office for environmental protection. If the environment is not paramount, what is the office for?
That begs the question, if we are looking at creating an environmental review rather than a judicial review, whether the resultant environmental review is not as powerful as a judicial review. We need to consider what that means in terms of the “would be” concerns that an operator in this area should be alert to, conscious of the risk that they face in that they could be found in breach and unable to continue but could have their situation recognised in law and be fined for their behaviour, as would happen in the European Commission through the infraction proceedings. We need to look at this again because we are not quite there yet.
Let me conclude with two points. First, this is a good Bill that does good things. I recognise the passion and the commitment of the Minister and indeed of my noble friend Lady Bloomfield. Both are passionate advocates of environmental protection and environmental reform, and I stand shoulder to shoulder with them. The points I have raised today I will take up in the future because I think that they need to be considered, and I would very much welcome an opportunity to discuss these matters further. I hope that Ministers will take them in the spirit in which they are given because I believe that this House is ready to be assured that our environmental credentials are second to none as we approach the glidepath to the COP 26 gathering and the other international gatherings that will take place on our soil. We have an opportunity to be leaders—let us embrace that.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, has just made. It is a privilege to follow him. I agree with many of his points, some of which will be echoed in my speech, but maybe not quite so eloquently.
The Bill has much that is positive in its intent, but I join other noble Lords in expressing some disquiet. The list is not exhaustive, but these are some of my concerns. First, there are important gaps in the Bill that are to be filled by secondary legislation, thus diminishing the role of Parliament and limiting scrutiny. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has just published its report on the Bill. It contains 110 delegated powers, 48 of which allow for the affirmative procedure. This, according to the report, is a comparatively large number. It highlights a particular example, that of the process by which a biodiversity metric will be produced and published by the Secretary of State with input from ecology experts but subject to no parliamentary procedure at all. The biodiversity metric will shape our landscape for probably several generations, so Parliament must be allowed a say.
My second concern is about the process by which the office for environmental protection will define its strategy and the influence the Secretary of State will wield, which will undermine its independence, as will the power of appointment to its executive body. I am also concerned about the rather unusual enforcement mechanisms it will be asked to operate under, which risk emasculating its ability to hold offenders to account.
The rule of law principle of legality requires there to be an effective mechanism for courts to provide a remedy where there has been a breach of the law. However, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has spoken persuasively and with great authority and concern about the issues around the remedies and sanctions available through the environmental review process—which undermines the polluter pays principle to boot. I hope his discussions with the Government will be fruitful. As currently drafted, the OEP will be inferior as an enforcement body to the regime that existed when we were members of the EU. The European Commission, with ample resources to monitor, evaluate and instigate rigorous investigations, was backed up by the steel of the European Court of Justice and its ability to impose meaningful fines on transgressors.
We saw some progress, but it is going to be an ongoing process. There are real fears that we will regress, particularly when it comes to the air we breathe. EU standards on air pollution have historically not been met, particularly on the concentration of PM2.5, which causes so many premature deaths. It is not clear that the Bill is signalling the urgent action needed because we do not yet know what the Government will offer. Can the Minister assure us that, as well as an ambitious target, there will be a clear strategy to meet that target, including a clear indication of the role that local and regional authorities will play and how they will be funded?
I am going to move on to an issue raised by a number of civil society organisations on due diligence, deforestation and human rights. I thank the Corporate Justice Coalition for its briefing. Deforestation is a leading cause of carbon dioxide emissions globally, second only to burning fossil fuels. Some 80% of this deforestation, particularly in tropical regions, is due to land and tree clearance, sometimes forcibly or by deceit, to make way for grazing animals and growing crops such as soya, palm oil and cocoa—so-called forest risk commodities. I commend the Minister for his championing of these issues, echoing the Liberal Democrats’ ambitions.
The Global Resource Initiative Taskforce was commissioned by BEIS, Defra and the FCDO to consider actions that the UK can take to make its international supply chains more environmentally sustainable. In its report of March 2020, it specifically recommended that the UK Government urgently introduce a combined, mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence approach to forest risk commodities. By happy coincidence, the landmark United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights, which first outlined the concept of human rights due diligence, celebrates its 10th anniversary this month. The UK’s first due diligence process should have been a cause for celebration, but for the fact that there is no mention whatever of human rights. This is both a practical and moral oversight.
Only this year, a report from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization outlined that if the customary rights to land, territories and resources of indigenous peoples and forest communities are respected, and they consent to activity happening on their lands, the likelihood of deforestation, ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss is much reduced. Do the Government recognise that human rights, environmental destruction and climate change are inextricably linked? If so, why have the human rights of indigenous people, the custodians of these precious resources, received no mention whatever in the due diligence system on the use of forest risk commodities, as outlined in Schedule 16?
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Bill, as many other noble Lords have done, but it clearly needs quite a lot of improvement, which I am sure we will be able to do in the subsequent stages. I shall start by commenting on the difference, raised by many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, between the EU structure that we used to have and the present Bill. To sum it up, I found from working on transport and the environment from the industry point of view that the difference was that the EU was seen to be totally independent of the Government and had teeth. Those are the two things that we need to look at in discussing the Bill.
The Bill is full of targets, which is a good thing. As many noble Lords have said, they are very wide-ranging and welcome. I believe that many of them need to be legally binding, but we also need to talk about monitoring and enforcement, and all that needs resources. It is not just the targets in this Bill; many other parts across government need to have some kind of connection if we are going to achieve the overall targets that everybody wants, one of which is net-zero carbon.
I shall cite one or two examples from the transport field. The first is biomass. Ministers occasionally say that if we have 100% biomass-fuelled airliners, we can fly as much as we do at the moment, but then somebody else has said that if you want that amount of biomass, every piece of cultivatable land in the world will have to grow biomass and therefore we will all starve. That is not a very good idea. Ditto the latest idea of having hydrogen powering everything. I am told that to create so many kilowatts of hydrogen, you need double the amount of electricity that you need if you use it to power whatever you are trying to do. We have to find solutions for all this. In his wonderful valedictory speech, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury mentioned a phrase that many people are frightened to mention: there will have to be some change of lifestyle.
The other example I shall give is from a debate we had a couple of weeks ago in your Lordships’ House on electric scooters. I pointed out that by the end of this year there will be 1 million scooters operating illegally in this country and asked how the Minister would suggest that ensuring that these scooters do not go on the roads, cycleways or footpaths could be achieved without a massive increase in the number of people and the budget. I am afraid that Ministers tend to ignore the whole question of enforcement. They say that the allocation of funding is difficult, but it needs to be done if the law is to be respected, and that applies to many things in this Bill.
My other point relates to water contamination in the Chilterns caused by HS2, which the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, also raised. I am concerned about the non-disclosure agreements that people have to sign, which mean that all environmental data seems to be confidential. I am sure that many noble Lords would agree that environmental data does not need to be confidential. These poor people in the Chilterns could not even get the information they needed by making a freedom of information request, and they had to go to court. Of course, the documents have now come out saying that six public water suppliers may need additional treatments and asking who will pay for it. I have had similar problems trying to help the people of Wendover, a bit further up the line, get information out of the Government about why they will not talk about putting the railway in a tunnel rather than a viaduct. I have a little bit of experience with tunnelling, but it is still very difficult.
For me, the office for environmental protection needs many more teeth, as the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, told us. I want it to be able to force government authorities to produce information, to take people to court, and to support judicial reviews and everything else which would make the concepts and principles in the Bill really work. If we do not do that, we are wasting our time, and it will just be a series of good words. I look forward to many more debates in the future stages of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, have withdrawn. I call the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, as we have heard throughout this thoughtful debate, this is an unprecedentedly significant piece of legislation with very lofty ambitions. Not only does it repatriate environmental policy, but it creates whole cloth the processes through which that policy is to be delivered. As a Devon farmer with interests in heritage landscape and a passion for the environment, I am desperate for this to be a success, but I am sensitive to its impact on existing land management practices and to the danger that complex new policies will be stillborn and ignored by land managers who do not understand them. As a partner at a law firm with a dedicated natural capital practice, I see first hand the practical challenges in implementing and enforcing these ambitions and the hurdles to be overcome when translating these worthy environmental goals into practice.
The Bill contains lots of policy and the long-term holistic approach is to be welcomed, but dangerous confusion remains. The interface between biodiversity net gain, local nature protection strategies, nitrate and phosphate prescriptions, environmental land management schemes, the sustainable farming initiative and the national tree strategy, to name just a few, is incredibly complex and very unclear. The hard-working folk at Defra need to ensure that the schemes are complementary and work smoothly alongside each other, or—[Inaudible] —and land managers will simply ignore them. Local land managers in particular should be consulted in the development of local nature strategies.
I echo the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that there is a gaping and inexplicable hole where heritage should sit within the definition of the environment. Our country’s landscape is entirely manmade, from the lakes to the Norfolk Broads. It is unthinkable to set policy for the natural environment without equally considering the manmade structures—the stone walls, levees, canals, embankments and farm buildings—that have brought this landscape into being and are crucial for its maintenance and cultural value. If manmade cultural assets are not recognised in environmental targets, annual reports and funding, this critical infrastructure will inevitably fail in the face of escalating climate crisis and extreme weather, and we will lose for ever the basic building blocks underpinning our natural environment.
The adoption of environmental principles is to be applauded, but they need to be understood and properly implemented. I note major concerns over the aggressive use by campaign groups of the precautionary principle. We have seen in recent months that well-funded campaign groups have taken to judicial review to frustrate the long-standing licensing and management of our natural environment, causing untold disruption to our biodiversity in a bid for high-profile scalps. Policy in this area must be developed by Defra in proper consultation with appropriate stakeholders, not by the courts.
Many farmers are concerned about the potential loss of the right to abstract water without compensation on the basis of environmental objectives rather than environmental damage—a right that already exists. While I agree that large water companies that have never needed their excessive abstraction rights could deservedly have them removed, farmers with more modest rights could be severely impacted. I speak as a farmer who pays for but currently does not use long-standing abstraction licences used decades ago for growing potatoes. We know that we need to diversify our agriculture, to move away from monoculture cereal farming and to grow more fruit and vegetables. This will need water abstraction, and the removal of such licences without compensation will threaten that ability to diversify.
I am a champion of access to and education about our natural environment, which is key to the success of this environmental revolution. Understanding the countryside and its use for well-being and social prescribing will the deliver real benefits that are so essential after this pandemic. We have heard much of Professor Dasgupta’s excellent report, The Economics of Biodiversity. He extols the virtues of education as key to this success. When will the Government respond to Professor Dasgupta? I have asked this of the Minister three times now but have not yet had the courtesy of a response.
The professor also emphasises the need to price biodiversity as the key to creating a working market in ecosystem services. He recommends that the Office for National Statistics should set the basic pricing, as it is the only body capable of doing so. If no price is set, there is a danger that the desired market for biodiversity will be swamped by the well-developed and easily measured market for carbon. As we all know, this will not be good for our environment, to which thousands of hectares of acidic soft woods are testament.
The other key to the market for biodiversity is the conservation covenant—the ability to bind land to conservation commitments for years into the future. I learned as a young property barrister that these covenants simply do not work under English property law, as it is not possible to bind a successor in title with such commitments. The provisions of Part 7 therefore represent a major change in English property law and, if they do not work, the whole edifice will fail. Conservation covenant agreements need to be significant to those entering them, and I will be pursuing amendments to ensure that they are executed by deed rather than by simple contract. A complex 30-year commitment should not be able to be made on the back of a napkin.
We need stronger rules to avoid our centuries-old export of environmental degradation. Producer company legality is far too low a bar for importers and we need to ensure that all naturally derived materials imported into this country meet our own environmental standards, not those of a country with much lower standards. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, that the office for environmental protection needs teeth, not flashy dentures. It has a crucial role to play and deserves both a budget and personnel that are independent if it is properly to hold the Government to account.
I look forward to working with the Minister and Peers across the House to improve the Bill and make a success of it. Finally, I congratulate in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bennett, whose Green Party has done so much to make this issue front and centre of our global political discourse this important year.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, my interests are in the register; my family’s interests as farmers, landowners and growers of bulbs and other horticultural crops are, I think, known to most noble Lords. In my early days, I was much involved in various agricultural organisations—I am a liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Farmers and the Worshipful Company of Gardeners. But, more to the point, nearly 10 years ago now I was a Minister at Defra, handling environmental matters in this House, alongside my noble friend Lord Benyon, who was at that time a Member in another place. I think that he and I would agree that Defra and the Government have made much progress in moving the environment up the priority list over these 10 years. Indeed, the passion of the Minister, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, in presenting the Bill, bears witness to that fact.
The Bill is about our lives on and our relationship with the planet that sustains us. Whether we are talking about climate change, the marine environment or other material issues such as food security, food quality or animal welfare, if we are to be successful, the Bill requires us to use a combination of science, engineering, skill and technology. It is part of a suite of Bills produced by Defra covering agriculture and fisheries.
I know there has been considerable impatience with the deferment of this Bill for consideration in the House of Commons. However, the Bill has benefited from the long period of scrutiny that it has received there. It has had the opportunity of discussion away from the Chamber and the presentation of amendments that have been accepted by the Government. This big, landmark Bill arrives here with full Explanatory Notes and, indeed, the impact assessment referred to earlier by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. All this means that its course through this House will be very well informed, but I have little doubt that it will receive considerable discussion here; the speeches have given evidence of that.
I belong to a group, including many who have spoken today, who are privileged to have lived the majority of their lives working in the countryside. The countryside is an important resource for the whole nation. I want to speak on behalf of all those who share that privilege and responsibility. Our discussions are bound to centre around the effective function of the office for environmental protection, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords. The operation of environmental improvement plans—on air pollution, water quality, water management—will be integral to the progress of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, talked about trees in towns, woodlands and forests. We have talked about biodiversity, or nature, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra would prefer, and we know what this means. We have lost a great deal of biodiversity and nature in this country, and we need to engineer its return.
One thing I am rather disappointed has not been discussed is the sense of local space for all matters concerning local government, which is a delivery agency for much of what we require in environmental conservation. This applies to all government bodies, and government centrally too: finding local places for action is the most important and effective way of delivering, because the environment is about place if nothing else. I mentioned the privilege and responsibility of being entrusted with the small corner of the environment that is our farm. The ELM scheme set up by the Agriculture Act relies on trusting the farmer and the landowner. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, made clear that he believed we must provide for local governance of many of the environmental changes.
I spoke earlier about following the science. It tells us not just what to do, but how to do it while measuring, monitoring and recording the consequences of these actions; and so it is with the Bill. We need to rely on the science; that dynamic is reflected in its framework structure, and I make no apology for that. Through the Bill, we are embarking on a journey that affects the future of the planet and, as I said, we need the ability to re-evaluate in the light of experience. We as legislators should maintain this flexibility in the structure of the Bill.
Noble Lords have rightly pointed out that a huge degree of secondary legislation will hang on the Bill, but that provides us with the flexibility that the Bill needs to be effective. I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, on this matter and think that the Bill will work better with effective secondary legislation. My noble friend Lord Blencathra, chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, made clear how welcome it is to see that so many of the statutory instruments in the Bill are of the affirmative procedure.
My contribution to Second Reading is not based on issues—not that issues do not matter or that they will not come up during the progress of the Bill in this House—but is as a generalist in welcoming the Bill for the opportunity that it gives us, the world and the time that we live in.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am the tail-ender and I hope to bat effectively. It is imperative that we redefine our relationship with the natural environment. As I said in my maiden speech, the environment is a passion of mine. I was brought up in Uganda and, as a young boy, would fish on the shores of Lake Victoria and swim in the clean waters of the River Nile. I saw green vegetation around me and wildlife in its natural habitat. I was lucky enough to enjoy nature in my youth, and those experiences led me to a lifelong love of the environment.
It saddens and worries me when I see the problems created by climate change and human actions. Now we have left the European Union, we have the opportunity to set out our own legally binding targets that go above and beyond what has been set before. As we prepare to host COP 26, the Bill demonstrates our determination and commitment to deliver key objectives and set an example for other nations to follow.
Tackling the climate crisis must be a national and international priority, especially as we recover from the pandemic and build better and greener situations. The Bill sets out a clear road map by which we can meet these ambitious targets. It is a modern Bill for a modern age, and we must support it.
As a Muslim, we are taught by the Prophet Muhammad—peace be upon him—to look after the environment. The most popular Hadith on the environment states:
“The earth is green and beautiful and Allah has appointed you his stewards over it.”
This principle reiterates the Holy Koran’s teaching that human beings have been given the responsibility of guardianship over the natural environment. We must all live by these principles and do what we can. The Bill is an important step in doing that.
I welcome the Bill and have been impressed by how it sets out a new environmental system of governance. As a nation committed to healing our planet, we must enforce environmental protection, while holding the Government and businesses to account. I support the targets, plans and policies in the Bill, which are proactive and allow us to set out own path to protecting the natural environment. I welcome the environmental improvement plans and the ability of the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to air quality, water, biodiversity, resource efficiency and waste reduction. Having a policy statement on environmental principles is essential, as protecting the environment and climate should not be an afterthought but should be proactively considered in all legislation.
Furthermore, the office for environmental protection will provide necessary oversight, scrutiny, and enforcement through the courts where needed to restore the natural environment. It will also provide continuity and consistency to hold the Government and successor Administrations to account. I welcome this, but I hope that we can make sure that it is a robust and independent body which can work constructively. It is important that it should deliver the provisions of the Bill, and their adequate enforcement. Can my noble friend the Minister comment on these points, and give us this assurance?
The other issue which concerns me is air quality. In 2021 the Central Office of Public Interest has found that a quarter of homes are in areas with dangerous levels of air pollution. We must act on this, and I am pleased that the Bill has provisions on air quality targets. I look forward to discussing these points further.
I totally welcome Part 5, related to water quality, resources, drainage, and regulation of water and sewerage companies. These provisions are important, as use of water is an important part of our daily lives. I also welcome the provisions in the Bill related to tree felling and planting. According to the Hadiths, Prophet Muhammad—peace be upon him—told us that if one plants a tree it is deemed sadaqa jariya: an act of continuous charity. Consequently, we are discouraged from cutting down trees. I co-chair the APPG on Islamic Finance, and I suggest that Islamic finance be used to provide support to the provisions of the Bill, such as the issue of Islamic bonds. Islamic finance provides support to projects which help communities, such as protection of the environment. Can my noble friend the Minister comment on utilising Islamic finance in our activities?
The Bill is comprehensive, and I hope that it can help us to take action in pursuit of our environmental goals. I will certainly follow it through its various stages.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be taking part in this Second Reading at last. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The Bill is an important and complex piece of legislation and should, if it delivers on its promise and the Government’s aim, make the United Kingdom one of the world leaders on biodiversity, climate change and environmental protection. As always, the devil will be in the detail of its 250 pages, much of which will be examined in Committee.
Clause 16 sets out the five environmental principles which are key to success. Environmental protection must, not should, be integrated into policies. Preventive action must be taken to avoid damage. The precautionary principle must be strong enough to protect the environment. Environmental damage must, not should, be rectified at source. The polluter does indeed need to pay for all damage caused. If these five principles are adhered to strictly, the country will move forward and reach its goals well within target. If they are not enforced, then targets are unlikely to be met. My noble friend Lady Parminter has referred to the departments which are included in the environmental principles. All government departments must be aligned to the environmental agenda, otherwise nothing will be achieved.
The Secretary of State may well draft these policies but, if the OEP is unable to take real action to ensure adherence, principles and targets are meaningless, especially because the Secretary of State drafts the guidance that governs it. The office for environmental protection has been mentioned by many noble Lords: the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, like my noble friend Lord Oates, is concerned about its independence. Peers are concerned that, unless the OEP has real powers, it will not be able to fulfil its promise of enabling the natural environment to recover, thrive and prosper in the way that I believe the Bill and the Ministers intend.
It is vital that the OEP’s remit covers all the devolved Administrations, including Northern Ireland. It is a nonsense if the OEP does not take account of the power-sharing nature of the Northern Ireland Executive. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, raised concerns about this.
There is concern that the environmental review will be weakened by a third party claiming “substantial hardship”. This completely undermines the polluter pays principle before we have even started, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. Of course there will be hardship for the polluter in having to pay for its misdemeanours. Either the Government are serious about protecting the environment or they wish to protect the polluter; they cannot have it both ways. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, gave us examples of the lack of accountability, and my noble friend Lord Teverson reminded us of the importance of marine conservation, so vital for us as an island nation.
The disposal of waste is a problem that the world has been wrestling with for a long time. A UK citizen now has a greater carbon footprint in 12 days than citizens in seven other countries will have in a year—the noble Lord, Lord Khan, referred to that in his opening speech. We are producing a huge amount of waste and should, as a country, deal with it rather than exporting it to other countries. This will mean producing significantly less waste. We are subsumed by plastic. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury reminded us of the need for constraint and selflessness in order to ensure that progress is made. We wish him well in his retirement and will miss his contributions in this Chamber.
Clause 61 deals with “Transfrontier shipments of waste”. I am concerned that we should be transporting any waste at all. As a country, we need to produce less waste and find better recycling methods for that which we do produce. Deposit return schemes are part of the solution and need implementing sooner than 2023. Secondary legislation is likely to deal with this, and I welcome the affirmative procedure.
I also welcome the separation of waste, which is the responsibility of the householder and ensures that each one of us thinks about the waste that we produce and how we dispose of it. It signals the end of throwing away everything that might be recyclable into a single bin: this often ends up in an incinerator instead of being properly recycled. Many local authorities have successfully collected separated recyclables for years. Of course there are challenges for those in blocks of flats, but these are not insurmountable. I will examine fly-tipping in Committee—it currently affects 67% of farmers and costs over £47 million a year to clear up. This is where a tightening of the law around the polluter paying is desperately needed.
My noble friend Lady Parminter spoke about water conservation, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who is also concerned about the pollution in our rivers, including the River Wye. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, spoke eloquently about how raw sewage is discharged into rivers, and other noble Lords supported his comments. This practice has to stop—and soon.
Every day, 2.9 billion litres of water are lost due to water leakages. This is scandalous, given that in some countries women are walking miles to fetch clean, drinkable water. We must all play our part in rectifying this and conserving water. My noble friend Lord Redesdale referred to water efficiency and its importance, as did my noble friend Lord Chidgey. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw and the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, spoke eloquently about rainwater re-use. We fully support this on the Lib Dem Benches.
Part 6 deals extensively with nature and biodiversity and has strong links to the Agriculture Act. Local nature recovery strategies will be dependent on willing landowners collaborating to ensure success. Local authorities also have a very significant part to play in ensuring biodiversity gain in planning permissions. My noble friends Lady Parminter and Lord Oates raised this, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, raised the threat of 3,500 houses on the borders of Knepp. On the one hand, the Government are seeking to strengthen the role of planning authorities but, on the other, they are undercutting the democratic input. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to this issue, which we will debate tomorrow.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised the harm which pesticides do to the environment.
Lastly, I turn to deforestation. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is a great advocate for our trees, woodlands and forests, and she and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to the tree action plan. While it is relatively easy to ensure that no illegal deforestation takes place in the UK and that produce grown on such land is not sold on, this is trickier when trying to hold other countries to account. It is estimated that 1.3 billion people depend directly on forests for their livelihoods; there is therefore a clear human rights issue that sits alongside the climate and nature emergencies. My colleague and noble friend Lady Sheehan raised this issue. It is not about protecting the wealthy, who are creaming off the profit from the desecration of the land. Most deforestation is driven by poverty, but exploited by greed.
It will be important for the UK’s laws to be enforced so that all produce from deforestation and conversion is removed from our supply chains. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred to illegal deforestation. Loopholes in goods from Brazil will need careful monitoring to ensure this happens. Countries change their laws, as does the UK; the 0.7% on aid is a prime example. The nation should be vigilant to ensure that we monitor the side-effects of such changes in policy, both at home and abroad.
Many noble Lords have referred to access to and enjoyment of the environment, including my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Smith. Access is important but it needs to be signposted and stock needs protecting. Animals and the public can both enjoy the countryside if the public are aware of the need to respect the environment they walk through.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on the role of pension funds. These are very influential and have the ability to put pressure on companies to act to protect the environment.
I welcome the Bill and look forward to the debates in Committee, and the government amendments trailed by the Minister in his opening speech. I look forward to his response to the many points which noble Lords have made during this long debate.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests at Rothamsted and in the South Downs National Park, as set out in the register. I am grateful to everyone who has spoken with such passion and urgency about the Bill today. I pay particular tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury for his service and for his wise words today, particularly his plea for action at a local and global level in the care of our planet as we go forward.
This Bill represents a huge opportunity but also a huge responsibility in this momentous year for change. As has been said in debate, the impact of the twin emergencies of habitat loss and climate change on our planet are all too apparent, so we share the Minister’s ambition for the UK to go to the Convention on Biological Diversity in China and COP 26 in Glasgow with ground-breaking legislation of which we can all be proud. The election of President Biden in the US and the action he has already taken to provide global leadership on the environment give us all hope. We need to match that ambition.
Sadly, this Bill does not quite yet hit that mark. As it has meandered slowly through the Commons, it feels less and less like the ambitious and relevant legislation that Ministers once claimed and wanted it to be. Of course, there is still much to be commended, but the gaps and the fudges remain all too evident.
Many noble Lords have referred to the challenges that we face in the UK, and we still have a huge mountain to climb. While carbon emissions are falling, the UK is not on track to meet the fourth or the fifth carbon budget. A leaked memo has revealed that Defra still has no plan to meet its carbon emissions targets. Meanwhile, wildlife in Britain is on a downward spiral, with 44% of species in decline over the past 10 years. One in seven of our native British species is now at risk of extinction, and tree planting is 50% below target. Every year, 40,000 deaths are linked to air pollution. The UK has missed its 50% recycling target. Meanwhile, an estimated 12 million tonnes of plastic enter the oceans each year. The latest report shows that the UK ranked last in Europe for the quality of our bathing water. In 2019, water companies poured raw sewage into rivers on more than 20,000 occasions and dumped thousands of tonnes of raw sewage on to beaches. I could go on, but these examples serve to illustrate the challenge that this Bill faces in cleaning up our air, land and water.
We of course look forward to sight of the Government’s amendments on legally binding species targets and tackling sewage discharge into rivers as a helpful step forward, but, in the meantime, we intend to work through the Bill clause by clause to give it the scrutiny it deserves. While we recognise the timetable for the international conventions taking place later this year, we will take as long as it needs to get this Bill right. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity.
On the environment targets set out in the Bill, we agree with the critique of many noble Lords that their scope is too narrow, that the Bill gives the Secretary of State too much autonomy in setting them, that there are no interim targets and that the targets are not properly legally binding. Many noble Lords quite rightly raised the challenge of setting meaningful targets and knowing that they can be measured and achieved. We will table amendments to address these concerns. We will also want to follow up on the advice of the Natural Capital Committee that robust baseline data should underpin the future measurement of success.
On the office for environmental protection, we welcome the appointment of Dame Glenys Stacey to lead the body, but, as many noble Lords have said, she needs the authority to deliver its remit without government interference. I hope the Minister heard the almost universal clamour for the role to be strengthened and properly resourced. We have all valued the independent role of the Committee on Climate Change, on occasions being outspoken and sometimes a thorn in the side of government, and we would like the OEP to have a similar legal footing. In particular, we want to remove the provision for the Secretary of State to give guidance to the OEP on how to carry out its role. We will also want the OEP to have greater powers of enforcement, following the advice of the Bingham Centre and ClientEarth. We will wish to explore further whether fines would provide an additional deterrent and, if not, what a comparative sanction might be. I hope that the Minister has heard the views expressed on this issue and will continue his discussions with the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Krebs, to produce a solution to the Bill failing in this regard. I think that would be welcome on all sides of this House.
On air quality, the Government have ducked their responsibilities for far too long. There is a public health crisis on this issue, which needs to be addressed urgently. As it stands, the Bill does not set a target for air quality but leaves that to the discretion of the Secretary of State. We will be tabling an amendment to deliver the coroner’s recommendation to the Ella Kissi-Debrah case, that legally binding targets based on WHO guidelines should be set nationally. As the coroner said in his ruling:
“The evidence at the inquest was that there is no safe level for Particulate Matter and that the WHO guidelines should be seen as minimum requirements.”
We agree with that analysis. At the same time, we will be addressing the fact that many local authorities lack the power or the resources to deliver the local air quality action plans expected of them, but we pay tribute to Birmingham City Council, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Khan, and the Mayor of London for taking action on air quality already.
The need to address the decline in UK biodiversity is, rightly, a major part of the Bill, and many noble Lords referred to it in a range of different ways. The Natural Capital Committee’s 2020 report and the Dasgupta report both illustrated the dangers of our demands on nature exceeding supply. As has been said, this will have implications for our humanity and our economy. The Government have now indicated their plan to amend the Bill to deliver a new, legally binding target to halt the decline in nature by 2030, but we want to go further than that, by reversing the decline and creating a positive state of nature as a legal requirement. We will be tabling amendments to deliver this.
We will also want to spend time addressing the proposals for biodiversity net gain and local nature recovery strategies. The Government’s recently announced planning proposals, to which a number of noble Lords referred and which many are calling a developers’ charter, emphasise housebuilding at the expense of local decision-making. We want to ensure that biodiversity net gain has a legal underpinning that cannot be overridden by developers, and that any conservation credits are applied in the locality with full public involvement and consultation. We share the anger of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, at the proposed housing development next to the Knepp estate, which absolutely illustrates the problems ahead if we do not get this right.
Many noble Lords talked about the need to plant more trees. This is an issue in which the Government’s delivery has rather trailed behind their ambition, and the latest tree action plan sets targets for tree planting, which are welcome, but does little to protect and restore existing woodlands. This is why we want to see a comprehensive tree strategy in the Bill, with a focus on planting native and broadleaf trees, the protection of ancient woodlands and incentives for creating smaller, local woodlands, to enhance biodiversity and public enjoyment. We hope to work with noble Lords to deliver these ambitions.
Finally, I want briefly to say something about waste and recycling. Again, this is an area of huge public concern, reflected in the contributions today. We will be tabling an amendment to put the circular economy and waste hierarchy into the Bill, with requirements to reduce and reuse materials before they can be considered for disposal as waste as a last resort. We will look to strengthen the extended producer responsibility provisions so that manufacturers pay the full cost of disposal, we will propose a deadline ban on the international export of all waste, and we will require a consistently high-quality domestic recycling scheme to be implemented.
It has been impossible to touch on all our issues of concern in the time available, but we share a common cause with so many noble Lords who have spoken today. I hope and I know that the Minister will be in a mood to listen and to compromise, and I hope that in the weeks to come, together, we can create a historic piece of legislation to which other countries truly will aspire.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this wide-ranging debate. I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury for his wise words, for his service, and for having engaged with me as a Minister in the run-up to this debate. Like my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, I am sure that we will continue to have lively, robust and insightful conversations as we take this Bill through its remaining stages. I will take this opportunity to address the points raised so far. I will try to get through as many as possible, but I am afraid that time will not allow me to answer them all, so I will write on any specific points that I am not able to address today.
The noble Lords, Lord Oates, Lord Teverson and Lord Bilimoria, all mentioned the seminal Dasgupta review. It is a powerful piece of work—a call to arms that makes plain our total dependence on the natural world and the massive damage that we are doing to it. It makes it equally clear that the fundamental challenge we face is finding ways to reconcile our economy and lifestyles with the natural world. He makes the point that the market is one of the most powerful forces for change of all, other than, perhaps, nature itself. However, as long as the market is blind to valuable things such as ecosystems and is unable to properly put a cost on pollution, waste and plunder, it will not be harnessed in a manner that will take us forward towards a solution.
I reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury, my noble friends Lord Randall and Lord Caithness, that we do not pretend that this is a silver bullet, nor is it the end of the story in relation to tackling this appalling crisis, as far as the Government are concerned. Nevertheless, it represents a big step forward. Extended producer responsibility is a profound thing, placing the burden on producers for the lifetime waste costs of a product. Targets, including the new ones that we have committed to, have been much debated today. It is not a complete solution, and I will come on to it later, but we are the first country in the world to attempt to use due diligence to deal with our international footprint. The Bill builds on a number of other major initiatives: our tree programme; the £640 million Nature for Climate Fund; our commitment to restore tens of thousands of hectares of valuable peatlands, and the shift from the common agricultural policy, which was totally destructive and incentivised destruction of nature, towards a system where every payment is conditional on the delivery of public goods.
Internationally, I do not think any country in the world is doing more heavy lifting in the run-up to the Convention on Biological Diversity than the UK. Our international nature strategy is calling for the highest possible ambition, with targets: more finance for nature and global efforts to tackle the main drivers of destruction. These are things that the UK, and no other country, is leading on. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. We can invest hope in the recent election in the United States—at least, I can. The US now has an opportunity to catch up on environmental concerns, but it is not a matter of the UK catching up with the US—we are miles ahead. I hope and believe that the US will be able to catch up with the leadership that we are providing.
The noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Wigley, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, all mentioned the importance of the marine environment. I forget which noble Lord mentioned the magnificent blue belt around our overseas territories, an area the size of India to which we are currently giving full, total protection. I am thrilled that we are about to launch our blue planet fund. It is another world first—a £500 million fund to help small nations in particular protect themselves against threats such as illegal fishing, pollution et cetera. This is among a whole raft of measures that we are taking to protect as much of the international ocean as we possibly can.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the hugely important issue of water quality. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, my noble friends Lord Randall, Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Trenchard, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others all talked about the quality of our rivers, waterways and seas. They focused in particular on the unacceptable levels of waste poured in to our waters through storm overflows. The quality of our rivers and other waterways is a high priority for this Government. We are taking action, through the Bill, to enable better join-up between water companies when they are preparing their statutory long-term plans, and to acquire statutory long-term drainage and wastewater management plans.
In addition to the amendments I mentioned earlier, based on the work of my honourable friend Philip Dunne in the other place, these measures give the Government extra levers to act on the most egregious sources of pollution and harm in our aquatic environment, including storm overflows. Water companies clearly must do more to prevent raw sewage flowing into our rivers. All the action I have described will be underpinned by those long-term targets, including reducing pollution from agriculture and wastewater, in particular phosphorus and nitrate, reducing water demand from the public water supply, and reducing the impact of toxic pollution to rivers from abandoned metal mines.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, emphasised the importance of water efficiency. I was surprised it was not mentioned by more noble Lords. Defra has consulted on measures and we will be publishing the government response to that consultation very soon, in the summer. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, talked about ending abstraction in fragile water systems; he mentioned chalk streams in particular. Restoring England’s internationally important chalk streams is a government priority. The Environment Agency is developing long-term plans to reduce our reliance on chalk streams, and I look forward to the publication of an action plan on restoring chalk streams later this year.
A number of noble Lords mentioned air quality. I covered it in some detail in my opening remarks, but the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Jones, all talked about air quality as one of the major priorities we must deal with. I understand the push for specified targets in the Bill. I understand that impulse, but we should not underestimate the challenge—indeed, the upheaval—that would be needed to meet, for example, the current World Health Organization guideline level of 10 micrograms per cubic metre in large cities. It would be enormous.
We need to base whatever targets we set on the evidence and in the full knowledge of the impacts of the choices we will need to make to achieve them. My officials in Defra and experts and partners right across government, industry and academia are continuing to work out the full mix of policies and measures required to meet that target of 10 micrograms. At a minimum, we expect that doing so in London and other cities would likely require policies such as, for example, a total ban on solid fuel burning in cities, a reduction of traffic kilometres across our cities of up to 50% and many other measures. I am not saying that that is impossible, and the Government have been clear that they are not ruling out adoption of the WHO guidelines as a target, but there is a lot of work to do to fully understand the implications were we to undertake that target.
On targets, my noble friend Lord Randall, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and a number of other noble Lords talked about our new biodiversity target and asked for reassurance. It will be designed to be a net-zero equivalent for nature. We are pushing for the highest possible ambition and it will be subject to the usual scrutiny and consultation. We are not there yet; it is a complicated piece of work and, even within the NGO community, there is much debate about what form such a target would take.
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, raised the importance of interim targets for meeting the longer-term targets. He is right and the Government have created a triple- lock statutory cycle to drive short-term progress. The Government must have an EIP—an environment improvement plan—which sets out the steps they intend to take to improve the environment and review it at least every five years. The Government also have to report on progress towards achieving targets every year—publicly, of course. The OEP will hold us to account on progress towards achieving targets and every year can recommend how we can make better progress. The Government would have to respond to those recommendations. This ensures that meeting interim targets is taken seriously and will drive short-term progress. The Government may need to develop new policies when reviewing their EIP, where progress against this triple lock has been too slow.
My noble friend Lady Altmann recommended that the interim targets be legally binding. The difficulty there is that the natural environment, as everyone knows, is complex, interconnected and a system subject to numerous natural factors as well as human activity. For example, aspects of the natural environment such as water quality or soil health could respond very slowly even to ambitious short-term interventions. Legally binding interim targets could therefore result in the setting of less ambitious long-term targets or could force consideration of the wrong policies just to achieve those targets in the short term. What is important ultimately is that, if an interim target is missed, the Government consider what is needed to get back on track and our target framework will ensure that this is the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked why it would be different this time, given that so many targets have been missed. Yes, we missed the Aichi targets; I think every country in the world did. Targets create pressure, which is why many Members of this House are asking us to apply them, but in combination with the numerous measures that will help us to meet them—the new subsidy system, the nature for climate fund, net gain and so on, plus the OEP holding us to account—we can see a pathway to achieving these targets. There is a clear intent on the part of the Government.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about ELM. Although it is not part of the Bill, it is a simple principle. It means that the money that the Government pay is conditional on the delivery of public goods. It means that public money is not provided without the return of some kind of public good. It means compensating or paying landowners for doing good things that are in the public interest but which the market cannot yet fully recognise. Flood prevention is the example she gave; it is a very good example.
My noble friend Lord Lilley cautioned against a Soviet-style central planning system, and he is right: nature, by its nature, is diverse. Good things happen from the ground up, so his advice will very much be taken on board. That point was echoed by the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
Many noble Lords talked about the independence of the OEP and questioned whether it was independent enough. They included the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Addington, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Anderson, my noble friend Lord Duncan of Springbank, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, very much for the time he has put into this and the advice he has provided; I look forward to continuing discussions with him.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the OEP is established as an independent body, which is why numerous safeguards are already in place to protect its independence. Schedule 1 includes the requirement that, in exercising any functions relating to the OEP, the Secretary of State has to have regard to the need to protect its independence. The EFRA Committee and Environmental Audit Committee jointly carried out a pre-appointment scrutiny of the preferred chair of the OEP and confirmed her suitability for the role. The OEP is under a legal requirement to provide an assessment to Parliament of whether it receives enough funding. Ministers will have to respond to that if the money is deemed insufficient. The Government intend for the OEP to be given a multi-annual indicative budget, which will be ring-fenced within each spending review period, giving the OEP even greater flexibility and certainty.
A number of noble Lords talked about the enforcement powers of the OEP. The noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Oates, Lord Anderson and Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised this issue. The OEP’s enforcement powers are different from and will operate more effectively than those of the EU Commission, as it will be able to liaise directly with the public body in question to investigate and resolve alleged serious breaches of environmental law in a more targeted and timely manner.
On environmental review, the OEP can apply for judicial review remedies, such as mandatory and quashing orders, subject to all the usual safeguards, which will work to ensure compliance with environmental law. The Court of Justice of the EU cannot issue these kinds of remedies to member states. In addition, in exceptional circumstances where the OEP needs to act quickly to prevent something happening, it may apply directly for a judicial review. I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and other noble Lords to provide more detail on that, as I will not have time to do so in these remarks.
My noble friends Lady Jenkin and Lord Caithness and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, raised the importance of tackling our wastefulness as a society. The Environment Bill will allow us to deliver consistent and frequent recycling collections across England, ending the current postcode lottery; this is one of the biggest and most visible changes it will make on waste. It will ensure that councils operate weekly separate food waste collections, preventing food waste going to landfill and being incinerated. It will allow the Government to introduce clearer labelling on certain products and expand the use of charges on single-use plastics, not just those that have been listed.
As I said earlier, the Bill introduces extended producer responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said that the burden of waste should fall on the producer of that waste; that is exactly what the Bill does. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made the point that recycling is the option of last resort. I agree and so do the Government, and that is reflected in our approach to tackling waste.
The noble Earls, Lord Lytton and Lord Shrewsbury, talked about the scourge of fly-tipping. The Bill gives enforcing authorities more powers to tackle the so-called Facebook fly-tippers operating from their homes. The resource and waste strategy includes further commitments, including to launch a fly-tipping toolkit to help local authorities and others to tackle fly-tippers.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, raised the issue of antimicrobial resistance. That is not directly in the scope of the Bill, but I would like to carry on that conversation with him, because antimicrobial resistance is one of the greatest health threats we face. Although the new subsidy system—ELM—will have a bearing on the amount of antibiotics used in factory farms, that is not a matter that falls directly under the Bill. With his permission, I will return to that subject another time.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, mentioned lead pellets. That is not part of the Bill either, but I strongly agree with him and would like to see that shift happen sooner rather than later.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned heritage rail. I enjoyed a passionate conversation with him recently, and he really made the case for the exemption. The Government are very confident, as am I, that heritage railways will continue to operate, because although our electricity systems will no longer rely on coal, it can still be used by a range of industries that need it. The decision on where to source coal is, obviously, a matter not for the Government but for the companies involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, emphasised the importance of people having access to nature. That, too, is very much recognised at the heart not only of this Bill but of other government initiatives. We strongly agree with her, of course, and are working out the best and most appropriate mechanisms for delivering that kind of change. We are also working through the Department for Education and through the tree programme, which a number of noble Lords mentioned.
I have a lot to cover here. On biodiversity net gain, I can tell my noble friends Lord Randall and Lord Blencathra and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—and, I hope, reassure them—that although nationally significant infrastructure projects remain out of the scope of the mandatory requirement for the Bill for the time being, the Government are exploring how a biodiversity net gain approach for big infrastructure projects could best be delivered, including what legislative levers could be used to support it. This is something that we are actively working on.
A number of noble Lords pointed to the potential tension between planning legislation and the Bill. The Bill lays the foundations for environmental protection, and that will form the basis of the forthcoming planning Bill. The Planning for the Future White Paper reiterates our strong commitment to biodiversity net gain, and I can provide reassurance that, in line with our manifesto commitment, existing policy for green-belt protection will remain.
The noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Redesdale, my noble friends Lord Trenchard and Lord Cormack and a number of others talked about the importance of heritage being part of our vision for conservation and the countryside. They are absolutely right. The 25-year plan explicitly recognises the link between the natural environment and heritage. It is, do not forget, our first environmental improvement plan, so it is at the heart of our approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, talked about several things, one of which was the value of English native trees as opposed to conifer monocultures. We absolutely recognise the biodiversity value of the former, which is reflected in our approach to the use of public money for funding and subsidising the tree programme. She also talked about biosecurity concerns, and why we should source more of our saplings domestically. She is right about that as well—and that too is reflected in our policy.
I am running out of time, so I hope that noble Lords who mentioned due diligence will allow me to come back to them another time. I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his kind words about the Bill, and I hope that they provided some reassurance for others who raised the issue of delegated powers. I thank my noble friend Lord Taylor for his comments as well. As for my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s proposal to change “biodiversity” to “nature”, he makes an important point, but the trouble is that those two terms are not exactly the same. Planting a Sitka spruce monoculture might give us more nature, but it would not give us more biodiversity. The same is true across the board—so it is a subject ripe for an argument. I am happy to have that conversation, but I would take some persuading, because I think we are probably in the right place on this.
I am sorry for not having addressed all the issues raised. There have been some fantastic contributions, and I thank everyone who has spoken today. I hope that people feel that I have covered at least the bulk of the points raised. I have met a large number of Members and I am keen to meet more; I shall continue to engage. I also thank the various NGOs, landowning groups and businesses that have helped to develop the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Environment Bill
Monday 21st June 2021
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-II(a) Amendments for Committee (for Third Marshalled List) - (21 Jun 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in the order of request. The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in the group to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make this clear when speaking in the group.
Amendment 1
The Earl of Lindsay
“Environmental objectives
(1) The purpose of Part 1 is to provide a governance framework for enabling the environmental objectives to be met. (2) Within the framework of sustainable development, the environmental objectives referred to in section 1(1) are to achieve and maintain—(a) a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment,(b) an environment that supports human health and wellbeing for everyone, and(c) sustainable use of natural and physical resources.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to align the core elements of the governance framework (process for setting long-term targets, Environmental Improvement Plans and the Policy Statement on Environmental Principles) to a single objective.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I will speak also to Amendments 3, 54 and 74 in my name. The Environment Bill offers a unique opportunity to create a coherent long-term framework for the environment—a framework capable of motivating all sectors and all parts of society to plan, to commit to and to collaborate on improving the environment on which we and future generations depend. I therefore especially welcome the Bill seeking to address the core governance elements that will be needed for decades to come. This is a critical component. Clearly, business will have a key role to play in delivering the changes needed to meet our long-term environmental ambitions and our net-zero target. Unlocking private sector finance and investment will be essential, particularly given the pressures on the public purse.
Having engaged with business groups on how they can rise to the challenge, I have picked up a clear signal. The confidence and certainty that they need to invest in the future—our future—will depend on there being greater clarity and cohesion across the governance provisions set out in the Bill, particularly on the interplay between targets, interim targets and environmental improvement plans. The addition of guiding objectives to the setting of long-term environmental targets, and to bind the core governance elements together, along with an overarching purpose statement at the start of the Bill, would bring that greater level of clarity and cohesion to the governance provisions. That, in turn, would give businesses greater confidence to invest in achieving long-term targets; hence Amendments 1, 3, 54 and 74.
Amendment 1 proposes defining core environmental objective on the face of the Bill. Amendment 3 would ensure that the target-setting process is aligned with the core environmental objectives. Amendment 54 would align environmental improvement plans with these objectives, and Amendment 74 would, likewise, align the environmental principles with these objectives. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership, I am a trustee of the Green Purposes Company that holds the green share in the Green Investment Bank, and I am a director of Aldustria Ltd.
We have recently had the G7 in the part of the world that I live in: Cornwall. Never mind the increase in Covid-19 in those areas since—other than that, it was a very successful bringing together of global leaders. I like to think that one of the reasons our Prime Minister chose Cornwall was because of its natural environment, its beauty and, for that weekend at least, its good weather. I ask the Committee to keep this to itself but the weather is not always quite like that in Cornwall, but it was on those two to three days, I am pleased to say.
Many visitors come to Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly for their staycations because of that great environment but I have to tell the Committee that, on a local basis, biodiversity in that far south-west region is as on the brink as it is elsewhere. For instance, half our mammals are found in fewer places, three out of five of our butterflies are in decline, eight of our bumblebee species have disappeared over the last few years, and some 40% of our breeding birds are in decline. That is in an area that we think of as being beautiful in terms of its biodiversity and its natural heritage.
This is reflected nationally: in the UK we have failed to meet some 17 of our Aichi targets—the targets set 10 years ago at the Convention on Biological Diversity. Some 15% of our species are threatened with extinction; we have a reduced distribution of a quarter of our species, and four out of 10 are in decline. We saw in the Woodland Trust report that only 7% of our forests and woodlands are in good order. So, we have biodiversity as a crisis together with climate change. They are crises and they are emergencies. I think there are very few people who would dispute that at the moment.
One of the interesting things to come out recently, in fact in the last week, is a report —not just by the IPCC on the climate change side, but the IPBES on the UN biodiversity side—that says that these two crises are inextricably linked. One cannot be solved without the other; they are twin crises that are, in effect, Siamese twins as we would understand them. I will talk more about the biodiversity crisis—we are very aware of the climate change crisis. It is a crisis where we believe that we are entering the sixth extinction on the planet. The previous one was the dinosaurs, thought to be caused by an asteroid, but the sixth extinction that is happening at this time is uniquely, clearly and obviously the only one that is due to one species—homo sapiens.
Why is this important? It is not just about cuddly animals or health, welfare and being able to have access to the countryside and to nature. It is because we rely entirely on the ecosystem services that biodiversity affords us, be those pollination, healthy soil, clean water, clean seas or a whole panoply of ways that not just we as individuals but our economy survives. Again, in the south-west, this is certainly true of tourism, fisheries and agriculture, but it is true of industry generally and of our economic well-being. Because of that, I have brought this amendment forward.
It is a particularly auspicious time because this year we have not just COP 26 on climate change in Glasgow in November but COP 15 of the biodiversity convention in Kunming in October. These two important international conferences are coming together towards the end of this year, but, we hope, after this Bill squeezes through Royal Assent and becomes an Act, which we want to happen quickly. It is an ideal opportunity to illustrate to the world how the United Kingdom sees these crises as important and as inextricably combined emergencies, where we can show leadership.
Why this amendment and why in this Bill? First, if local authorities can blaze the trail in this area, our own Government and this Parliament should be able to do so as well. Some 230 local authorities have declared a climate change emergency. Around 15% have declared a biodiversity emergency. They include Bath, Bristol and Brighton, and they are across the political spectrum. A number of other local authorities have declared a combined emergency, including Cambridgeshire, Bournemouth, Windsor, Maidenhead, Brent and Ealing. I am sure all of us can point out those of our own political choice.
Another reason this is important is that, just as the Government have said, this is a landmark Bill. It is critical to how this country moves forward in terms of its environment and even broader issues. What better place is there for the Government to declare this double emergency?
Another important thing is that while there is awareness across this House of the biodiversity crisis, there is less awareness of it more broadly. Climate change is more obvious. This amendment gives an opportunity to give equality to those two issues—to give greater visibility to the biodiversity problem.
Lastly, this amendment gives us a real opportunity to give leadership in both COP 15 and COP 26. These emergencies exist. They are one and connected in so many ways. This gives the opportunity—better than any other way—to show that the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister, the Government and this Parliament give these emergencies the priority they deserve.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have set myself the target for Committee not to make the mistakes of other Committee stages by making mini Second Reading speeches before I get to the amendment. So I will be really brief, because I agree 100% with the points and the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. Business needs clarity. A single objective gives that clarity, and the Minister would be making a big mistake if he did not find a way to clean up the front of the Bill, because it is in his and all our interests that business, which is going to make this work, can be absolutely clear about the objectives. For that reason, I support the noble Earl’s amendments, and I hope the Minister will give a positive response.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Lindsay and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I will just add one or two brief points.
First, my noble friend Lord Lindsay talked about clarity and cohesion. I would add another “C”—consistency. If we are to have a landmark Bill—and this must be a landmark Bill—it is clearly important that we get it right as far as we possibly can. During this dreadful year of the pandemic, when the Government—and I am not scoring cheap points—have been fighting something literally unprecedented in the last century, a degree of confusion has been caused by a lack of clarity, consistency and cohesion. I do not want to stray from the Bill into recent events, but we have seen how people have been uncertain, often, about what the Government are really seeking to do.
It is crucial that when this landmark Bill reaches the statute books—as I, of course, hope it will—it is in a significantly better shape than it is at the moment, good as it is. Therefore, while I would like to see the Bill on the statute book by 1 November, what matters far, far more than any artificial timetable is that this Bill is right. Whether it goes on the statute books on 1 November, 1 December or 1 January matters far less than that it is right. You have only to mention the words “Irish protocol” to realise that if you negotiate to a strict and artificial timetable, you often get it wrong.
I referred to my noble friend: he chaired the Environment Sub-Committee of the EU Committee—on which I had the good fortune to sit—extremely well. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also made some very telling points. We have to realise that we are in this sixth crisis; we have to realise that many species are on the brink of extinction. This year, in our small but quite attractive urban garden in Lincoln, we have hardly seen a butterfly. Talking to friends around, I have heard of similar experiences. I read in the Times this morning, coming up on the train, about the lack of Arctic terns in Northumbria—an extraordinary bird that commutes 14,000 miles a year. There is a very real danger to its survival as a species. There are so many things that the Bill can help to underline and combat, and it is essential that it does.
With those few words, I endorse both my noble friend Lord Lindsay and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in what they are seeking to do. Although in Committee we are mainly probing, it is essential that the Bill finishes Report in this House in as near a perfect state as it is possible for us to make it.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I am speaking in support of Amendment 2 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Clearly, the amendments in this group seek to improve the Bill’s environmental objectives by statute, and that is laudable of them all. But Amendment 2 sets a tone for the Bill, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who indicated the need for an assessment and provided a very good assessment of the current state of biodiversity in Cornwall, which could quite easily be mirrored in other parts of the UK.
The Bill needs to have the purpose and declaration of biodiversity and climate emergency specified in it on an equal basis. It is particularly pertinent to set this in legislation if the Government are serious about the need to protect and nurture our unique biodiversity and to mitigate the problems that the climate emergency is bringing to our planet, with increased levels of flooding, the warming of our planet, and the weekend warning that we now have Mediterranean UV levels in the UK. To take the example of Belfast, Department of the Environment statistics show that on 13 June last week, UV levels reached 9 on the solar UV index. This is due to a number of things, including stratospheric ozone depletion, the position of the sun in the sky at this time of year, and the lack of cloud cover. That is one reason why Amendment 2 is so important and why it must be included in statutory form in the Bill in order to give both areas of climate emergency and biodiversity equal status.
I honestly believe that the PM must take charge of the situation. This amendment provides for him—or for whoever is the postholder—to declare that there is a biodiversity and climate emergency both domestically and globally. It will strengthen the governance regime and give strength and toughness to the need for governmental action to protect our biodiversity and to protect our planet from the climate emergency. It is so important that we agree to do this with COP 15 and COP 26 taking place this year.
As the Aldersgate Group—which supplied us with a briefing—stated, the Environment Bill is a vital opportunity to establish a new, ambitious and robust governance framework that protects and enhances the natural environment. What better way to do that than to ensure that the Government accept an amendment to the Bill which provides for the Prime Minister, with statutory effect, to declare that there is a biodiversity and climate emergency both in the UK and globally and, above all, to enhance and strengthen the Bill to ensure that it becomes an even greater landmark Bill with the legislative teeth to act in such urgent circumstances.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Lindsay’s amendments. They help to clarify the purpose of the Bill—which I welcome, as I said at Second Reading. I like the drift of the Bill, but it needs to be strengthened in more than one area. At the moment, it is not going to tackle the problems that we all face.
I like subsection (2) of my noble friend Lord Lindsay’s Amendment 1, where he sets out that the aim is to achieve
“a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment”.
We all want that, and we have failed in the past. There have been all sorts of attempts to get this right but, as I said at Second Reading and will stress throughout Committee, this needs management—it is the people on the land managing nature in its widest sense who will result in an increased and better performance than we have had to date. I want to focus on those people; they are basically landowners and farmers. At the moment, they have very low confidence in what the Government are doing. They are moving from one farming regime to another; they know nothing about the second farming regime through ELMS, and yet their money is being substantially cut. That might be all right for some owner-occupiers, but it is proving a very serious problem for tenant farmers.
Subsection (2)(b) of Amendment 1 goes on to say that the environment must support
“human health and wellbeing for everyone”.
Yes, and I am a great believer in a good footpath system, because I now rely on that for my exercise. But if you talk to any farmer now, they are not in a good position mentally because of the amount of rubbish and harassment they get from people who visit their land. This is a two-way street. It is all very well to encourage people to go to the countryside, but the sad thing is that there is a quite substantial minority abusing that countryside. Anybody who has read the papers or the news recently will know the problems that farmers have had to face, with blocked driveways, blocked entrances to gateways, rubbish, litter, barbecues and wildfires. How are the Government going to help farmers deliver the intentions of the Bill?
Does my noble friend agree that in order to get a good and diverse natural environment in this country, some 21% of agricultural land will need to be planted to trees or bioenergy crops? The counterbalance to that is that there must be an increase of 10% in the productivity of all other agricultural land, otherwise in 10 years’ time we will say, “Yes, we have done something for the environment, but we have done nothing for our food”; our food prices will be going up, and the poorest will be the ones who suffer.
This is a balance; it is an equation that has to be got right. Although I thoroughly support the necessity of the amendments proposed by my noble friend to set the remit of the Environment Bill, we also need to be very careful when discussing it to get the balance right, so that the people who will produce that improved environment are taken with the Government and can also make a living off the land which they farm and manage.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I feel it is only fair to warn your Lordships that you will see quite a lot of the two wonderful Green Peers over the next few weeks. I am sure your Lordships understand that this is a particularly important Bill for us. We have waited a long time, and it is an issue that we both care very deeply about. Having said that, we care about a lot of other issues as well, as noble Lords will have seen.
Of course, a huge amount hinges on this Bill. As I so often do—surprisingly—I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who said that the Bill has to be right. To do that, it has to be amended here in your Lordships’ House. If we get this Bill right, it will mean that we can get a lot of other things right: our farming, our food production and food growing, clean air and clean water supplies, our health and well-being, and our economy. A good Bill will mean no trade deals with countries like Australia—sorry, Natalie—with its awful farming practices, which have been banned here for years, and none of the ecologically and economically illiterate long-distance swapping of lamb and beef when we can buy UK-produced meat right here from our own farmers with higher welfare standards. A good Bill will offer more tech opportunities and more jobs in sustainable industries. A good Bill would be this Bill, heavily amended by your Lordships’ House.
Moving on, this is a perfect group of amendments. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for such a brief introduction; his amendments are incredibly valuable and go to the heart of why the Bill exists. Personally, I think that if we get this right, it will be as big and important a piece of legislation as the Human Rights Act.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. I welcome this group of amendments, which are excellent as probing amendments. The voice of business is missing in the Bill, in particular the voice of farmers and landowners, and indeed water companies, which have a real role to play here. I regret also that there is a missed opportunity in the Bill, which is very ambitious on certain levels but has some spectacular omissions at other levels, in that the interaction between this Bill and the Agriculture Act and the Trade Act could have been spelled out more, both at Second Reading and as we proceed now with the more cohesive infrastructure.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lindsay and my noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Teverson, under whose chairmanship my noble friend Lord Cormack and I have the honour to serve on the EU Environment Sub-Committee. I also congratulate Cornwall on so successfully hosting what seemed to be in its own right a successful G7 meeting. Had the meeting been held over the past few days, perhaps it would not have been quite so visually attractive. I am sure that Cornwall will go on to benefit from that, as Yorkshire has from the Tour de France and the Tour de Yorkshire that we held in previous years and which we hope to repeat this year.
I invite my noble friend the Minister, not just when he sums up today but as we go through the Bill, to rise to the challenge that has been laid down by my noble friend Lord Lindsay in particular. There are two specific areas my noble friend Lord Caithness has identified where businesses have a role to play. Farmers stand prepared to play their part in tackling climate change; you need only look at the websites of the farming organisations—the Tenant Farmers Association, the NFU and the CLA—in this regard. However, as my noble friend Lord Caithness identified, all the action the Government seem to be proposing, in planting huge numbers of trees, improving soil quality and many other factors, will be of great benefit to the landowners who own the land, but I struggle to see what the benefit will be for tenant farmers. Looking at the future of upland farming, I think that up to 48% of farms in North Yorkshire alone are tenanted farms, which is a very high proportion. It distinguishes England from other parts of Europe, which do not have this background. I am struggling to see how tenant farmers in particular will benefit under the Bill.
The Government are looking to encourage older farmers to retire, but where they will live is a separate question that needs to be addressed. Smaller houses are simply not being built; smaller properties of one or two bedrooms are not available to allow those who are retiring to either rent or own them. It is not just the starter homes but the step-down homes as well. The other area where I believe farmers, landowners and water companies have a real role to play—we will look at this in later amendments—is flood prevention. Again, this area could be explored more fully in this regard.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, have done the House a great service in enabling us to debate this small group of amendments this afternoon and I look forward very much to hearing my noble friend on the Front Bench tell us more about ELMS, flood prevention and other schemes under the Bill where he expects businesses, particularly farming businesses and water companies, might benefit.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I will speak to Amendment 1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lindsay—a subject on which I, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and other noble Lords from across the House have spoken many times in this place.
The specific context of my remarks is the proposal by my noble friend Lord Lindsay to insert a new clause specifically to achieve and maintain
“an environment that supports human health and wellbeing for everyone”.
We emerge from Covid with a nation where obesity and mental health concerns among an unfit and often inactive population, particularly among the young, are a major national concern. The decision by the Government, and the Department of Health in particular, to tackle these challenges on a cross-departmental basis, with the impending establishment of the office for health promotion, is as much about prioritising health and educational opportunities as we build back better and level up as it is about access to the countryside and to an environment that supports human health and well-being for everyone.
In days gone by, the order of priority tended to be: sport, recreation and an active lifestyle. Today, policymakers and the public at large seek to reverse that order. An active lifestyle, recreation and sport are the priorities. Such an approach focuses on well-being, both physical and mental—well-being to be supported, I suggest, by a well-being budget with responsibility for drawing all the cross-departmental strands together. This Bill, and in particular my noble friend’s amendment, sets the environmental objectives in this context, which can play a key part in establishing an important element of the legislative framework capable of delivering these objectives.
For an active lifestyle, human health and well-being and the environment are inextricably linked. They are dependent on their environmental contexts and are potentially environmentally impactful in their own right. Sport and recreational facilities, if inadequately planned—such as ski hills, golf courses and stadia, and even some pathways—can upset ecosystems and displace local residents. Here my noble friend Lord Caithness is absolutely right: there must be appropriate safeguards, with access matched by responsibility. As he said, this equation must be got right.
In this context, access to nature has never been more important. Countless studies confirm the health and well-being benefits of being active and connecting with the outdoors. The Covid-19 pandemic makes the case only more compelling. As we recover from the worst of the pandemic, the Environment Bill, with my noble friend’s amendment, establishes a strategic approach to the provision of public access so that support is targeted where it is most needed, ensuring that more people can benefit from the experience of connecting with nature.
It is with that in mind that the Ramblers, Sustrans, British Canoeing, the British Mountaineering Council and the Open Spaces Society, among many others, see that there is much to welcome in the Bill. However, it could be strengthened by my noble friend’s amendment, not least in the requirements in the Bill, which are already welcome, for the Government to set legally binding long-term targets and to develop long-term plans in relation to the key priority areas.
However, without amendments such as my noble friend’s, the Bill will fail to afford equal priority to access to and enjoyment of the natural environment. It enables, rather than requires, the Government to set targets and develop plans for improvements in this area. Therefore there is a disconnect between the Bill and the Government’s own 25 year-old environment plan—or rather the 25-year environment plan; sadly, it is not yet that old—which includes a policy aim to ensure that the natural environment can be used by everyone. Already, the consequences of the lower priority afforded to access are becoming clear; emerging policy from Defra for target-setting is silent on the way the department intends to improve access in future.
In conclusion, I believe that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lindsay could provide for and strengthen the framework needed for these commitments, by strengthening access to nature. As my noble friend Lord Cormack has said, this Bill will guide policy-making for years to come. I support the proposals to establish a framework of legally binding and long-term targets and plans to drive improvements in environmental quality, not least because the state of the natural environment is encouraging people to get outdoors; that is critical. However, the Bill must be strengthened so that connecting people to nature is afforded equal priority and integrated into the wider plans for environmental improvement. For that reason, above all, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Young of Norwood Green [V]
My Lords, I too support the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in his amendment. I may be challenging the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, but I will be interested to see the Government’s response. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on chairing the environmental sub-committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, got it right when he said that this is a landmark Bill and that business needs certainty. It is also about how the Bill is perceived by Europe and the COP 26—that is, the rest of the world. This is a fundamentally important Bill and we need to get it right. Perhaps I am luckier than the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, in that there are quite a few butterflies in my garden and in a meadow not far away, which shows that there is a variation in what is happening in our environment.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that I see our departure from the common agricultural policy and setting up a new approach to subsidies that would encourage farmers to look after the environment and to have a sustainable approach as a fundamentally important step forward.
There is a challenge for the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was right when she talked about the challenge of retiring farmers; I am more interested in how we are going to encourage young and new tenant farmers, who will bring a new approach. There are many good examples of this around the country; we need a lot more of those young farmers with their different approach that is much more in sympathy with the environment and sustainability.
The benefits to well-being of people using the countryside are of course well known. I apply the 2R formula: if you have a right to access the countryside, you also have a responsibility in the way you use it. You do not leave litter, and we must somehow get rid of the abominable work of flytippers.
I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. As she said, no doubt that there will be many contributions from her and her colleague. However, I disagree fundamentally with her sweeping comment that there should be no trade deals, especially with Australia. Does she really think that this country can survive without any trade deals? Of course there are going to be trade deals, and I do not automatically dismiss the Australian one. There will be a period of phasing in and a requirement to ensure that we do not import products that we would regard as unsafe, but that has to be based on evidence. Quite frankly, I welcome the deal with Australia, and I will listen carefully to the arguments.
I wish the Minister every success as he deals with the range of challenging and probing amendments to what, as a number of noble Lords have said, is probably one of the most important Bills that we will address in this Parliament.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Young. I want to speak to and oppose Amendment 2. Using this Bill to mandate that the Prime Minister should declare that there is a biodiversity and climate emergency, both domestically and globally, strikes me as a form of virtue signalling and almost an imperial version of it by declaring on behalf of the globe. I think that that is a bit too much. I am also concerned that its consequences go beyond wordplay and may play into some anti-democratic trends. In recent years it seems that there has been a competition to up the hyperbole and the catastrophist rhetoric across all parties, perhaps to prove green credentials; I do not know that it helps, and I am not sure that this consensus is healthy either.
We are familiar with the approach on climate and biodiversity being added to the mix. The problem with Amendment 2 is that it follows a certain script, with the emphasis on “emergency”. If the Government keep calling everything an emergency, that will become, “Act now or else command”, and dangerously privileges environmental concerns as trumping all others. That rarely puts those concerns into perspective with other possible emergencies or crises. What about the housing emergency, the jobs emergency and the lack of freedom emergency? By the way, I do not think that the trade deal with Australia is a disaster because it will actually solve an emergency. We do not have enough trade deals and we want more.
I recall back in 2009 the book by James Lovelock, The Vanishing Face of Gaia, in which he wrote that surviving climate change
“may require, as in war, the suspension of democratic government for the duration of the survival period.”
At the time, I thought that that sounded extreme, marginal and farfetched, but after the past 15 months, I feel that it is less farfetched. We have just lived through a public health emergency where exactly these things have occurred. We have suspended democratic governance in many ways in order to survive. I am therefore very wary of allowing a statutory nod to ever more emergencies with similar consequences. Many are worried, for example, that lockdown measures will be used in the future under the auspices of environmentalism. I do not think that that fear is unwarranted.
I note that the independent SAGE group, led by Sir David King, has just announced the setting up of another pseudo-scientific body to be called the Climate Crisis Advisory Group, with 14 experts and10 nations. He has said that it is driven by the urgent need to stabilise climatic conditions and to
“protect vital biodiversity and ecosystem functions for the next generation.”
That is because the biggest challenge we face today are these things. I ask: are they really the biggest challenge? I think it is about the elite PR strategy rather than democracy when Sir David King draws attention to the excess of independent SAGE. He says:
“All 12 members have become media personalities. I hope we get the same level of interest on the climate group.”
I am worried about what is going on and whether it is in good faith.
It seems to me that using the language of crisis and emergency and thus presenting everything as an imminent and existential threat can play fast and loose with democratic accountability. When a state of emergency is declared, as we have seen during Covid, there is no time or space for deliberation or debate. According to Greta Thunberg, the house is on fire.
Civil liberties and democratic freedoms can be suspended, and experts, such as Sir David King, main SAGE, independent SAGE and others suddenly become more important on the centre stage than citizens. When a state of emergency is declared, as would happen in a war, we have to ask who the enemy is. When it comes to biodiversity and the environment, my concern is that the enemy is not the virus, foreign foes or whoever, but us, Homo sapiens, and our nasty overconsumption of energy and demands for decent living standards, cars, homes, industrialisation and development.
My objection to Amendment 2 is not a focus on linguistics and the use of the word “emergency”—my concern is political. Any decision this Bill makes about biodiversity or the natural environment must be concrete, specific, proportionate and avoid the pitfall of whipping up fears about imminent catastrophe. I do not think that declaring an emergency solves anything. I am interested in the details of the Bill, not virtue signalling.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to find myself at this place in the debate and to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. It was certainly a passionate speech, but perhaps not a cohesive one. She spoke about anti-democratic trends and then about there being a consensus. If there is a consensus and local governments are following it, that seems democratic rather than anti-democratic. To point to some figures, a survey was done by the UNDP around the world, of 1.2 million people in 50 countries, published in January this year. It was interesting that in the UK the highest proportion of people—81%—agreed that there is a climate emergency. That is a consensus and, in declaring it, we would be following a democratic path.
My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb noted that your Lordships will be hearing from both of us a great deal. I promise that you will not be hearing from both of us on every amendment, but you will be hearing from us both on Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who introduced it so powerfully. On democracy, the noble Lord pointed out how many local authorities have declared a climate emergency. In fact, 74% of district, county, unitary and metropolitan councils have done that, plus eight combined authorities and city regions. Sheffield Council has just declared a biodiversity emergency, as have Eden District Council and Dorset, so it is spreading around the country.
Perhaps I can offer the Government a little political advice, thinking of the situation in which they find themselves with the blue wall. I note that Henley-on-Thames Town Council, in the heart of what is considered the blue wall, is planning to declare a biodiversity emergency this week. It is going further and plans to back the climate and ecological emergency Bill, so the Government might like to think about not just the science of this but the politics.
I will be brief, because my noble friend has already covered much of this ground, but I want to pick up a point from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering; she said that we have not heard enough from business. I refer to the consultancy firm Deloitte and its environment report a month or so back, which said that there is now, in the combination of environmental, pandemic, social and economic changes, a business emergency. It says that we need cohesive government policies and guidance to tackle this.
This group of amendments, particularly Amendment 2, provides the cohesion that is crucial for this Bill. As we have seen on so many issues, the public are leading here; 81% of the public accept the climate emergency. Local government is not far behind and it is time for the Government, as the chair of COP 26, to catch up.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and my noble friend Lord Teverson, for their amendments. We support the intentions of the noble Earl but believe that other amendments may equally pick up the issues that he rightly raises. There are amendments later in the Bill on setting legally binding interim targets that, we believe, will give business much of the certainty that it requires. We support the important intentions to ensure that public health is addressed, at the same time as supporting the natural environment, but believe that some of the amendments put down by my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market on Clause 7 will give that certainty to reinforce the link between the natural environment and public health.
We think that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Teverson is absolutely right and are glad that it is in the first grouping, because this is a biodiversity crisis. I am happy to stand with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in taking a different line from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley—“opposing” is too strong a term. My strong view is that if we do not address the two climate and biodiversity threats, we cannot address any of the other threats that society faces. They are the fundamental building blocks on which our society, as individuals and businesses, relies. Therefore, it is right and proper to use the language of crisis.
I would perhaps concede that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has a point in how we must be careful not to catastrophise. If we want to bring a democratic society with us, catastrophising will not be enough. We have to lead from the front and tell people how we can address the two crises of biodiversity and climate. There is therefore a key issue of communication. That is why I particularly like it that my noble friend’s amendment—supported by the Labour Party and the Green Party—says that
“the Prime Minister must declare that there is a biodiversity and climate emergency”.
This is about communicating with the public. I hope to see, throughout the progress of the Bill in Committee, the Minister make it clear just how the Government are going to communicate with the public. We can stay here today, tomorrow and for the next seven or so sittings and argue about these matters but, unless we take the British public with us, we will not deliver. The Government have to lead the public, as consumers, recyclers and in all their other guises. We need strong leadership from the Government to communicate that joint climate and sustainability challenge, and I hope to hear a lot more from the Minister on that, as we go through Committee.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have had an excellent start to our debates and consideration of the Bill, which helpfully sets the scene for the weeks ahead and underlines the scale of the challenge before us. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that you will also hear a great deal more from the Labour Front Benches on these issues.
We have become accustomed to accepting that there is a climate emergency, but it is now clear that the decline in biodiversity is having an equally devastating impact on the planet. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, they are inextricably linked. This is why I was pleased to add my name to his Amendment 2.
It is two years since Parliament declared a climate and ecological emergency, on 1 May 2019. Since then, the need for more urgent action on the environment has only increased. The RSPB State of Nature report records that 41% of UK species are declining and one in 10 is threatened with extinction. It documented how the UK has failed to reach 17 of the 20 UN biodiversity targets agreed 10 years ago. The WWF’s Living Planet Report 2020 shows an average 68% decline in the populations of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish, globally, since 1970. Yet we rely on these species to keep our planet’s complex ecological systems in balance.
Noble Lords have spoken eloquently today about the consequences of our neglect of nature both domestically and globally. This need for urgent action has been echoed by a number of noble Lords. As the Dasgupta report drives home, the message that flourishing biodiversity across the planet is crucial for our economies, as well as for our well-being and for life itself, is all too apparent. I recommend that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, reads that report, if she has not already done so, because it underlines the crisis that confronts us now and certainly justifies us calling it an emergency.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Lindsay for beginning this Committee. I note the support for his amendment from my noble friends Lord Cormack, Lord Caithness and Lady McIntosh, the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Young, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. In fact, a great many other speakers supported it as well and I will not continue to list them.
The amendments that my noble friend has tabled are, in effect, a summary of the Bill in its totality—it could not be a clearer summary, in a sense. The Environment Bill, as a manifesto commitment, sets a new and ambitious domestic framework for environmental governance. A resilient environment is essential for our own health and that of our planet. We recognise that the environment, unlike many areas of law where there are more clearly defined legal and economic interests, is often unowned. Environmental harms, including climate change, are necessarily, by their nature, more diffusely spread. That is why we have designed the Bill to create a comprehensive system of environmental governance that will put the environment at the heart of our policy-making and ensure clear and strong accountability.
The overall objective of the Bill is to deliver on the goals of the 25-year environment plan, and the environmental governance framework has been designed with the plan’s key objectives of environmental protection and the improvement of the natural environment at the forefront.
First, both targets and environmental improvement plans have the objective of delivering significant improvements to the natural environment—Clauses 6 and 7 being the obvious places for that. That objective provides certainty on the direction of travel; it will also drive long-lasting significant improvement in the natural environment. Clause 7 creates an ongoing requirement for the Government to have a
“plan for significantly improving the natural environment”.
The Government will be required to review that plan regularly and set out whether further policies are needed to improve the natural environment and achieve those targets.
Secondly, Clause 16 provides an objective for the environmental principles. It requires that the policy statement on environmental principles produced by the Secretary of State must contribute to the “improvement of environmental protection”, as well as “sustainable development”. When making policy, Ministers of the Crown must have due regard to the policy statement. These objectives will be integral to policy-making across government. This is the first time that Ministers across government will be legally obliged to consider the environmental principles in policy development wherever it impacts the environment.
Lastly, the OEP has the principal objective of contributing to environmental protection and the improvement of the natural environment. The OEP is able to undertake enforcement action against a public body’s breach of an environmental law that protects the natural environment, or to provide advice on a proposed change to an environmental law that improves the natural environment.
In summary, the Bill as a whole is designed to deliver the overarching ambition of our 25-year environment plan, which in many respects is reflected in the amendments tabled by my noble friend. The measures have been designed to legally work together with common statutory objectives to deliver the improvement and protection of the natural environment and to deliver the sustainable use of resources.
Before I come to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I want to address some of the points made by noble Lords. My noble friends Lord Caithness and Lady McIntosh raised their concerns about the lack of clarity for the business community, particularly farmers, in relation to the big transition that is happening. There is no doubt that it is a massive and revolutionary transition. It is the first transformation of its kind and something that needs to happen all over the world if we are going to have any hope at all of closing the gap between where we are and where we need to be on biodiversity. I can say that officials in my department have been working closely, as have colleagues at ministerial level, with farmers’ organisations, from the very largest—the National Farmers’ Union—to smaller organisations, to ensure that the sector is very much walking in lockstep with us as we develop the proposals and as those proposals morph into an actual policy.
The principle is pretty clear: we are moving to a system where the things that are not currently recognised by the market but which are good will be paid for through subsidies. As noble Lords might expect, things that are paid for by the market, such as food, will therefore not be on that list. It is a straightforward principle, although of course the effects will differ from farm to farm, and that is the beauty of solutions when it comes to the natural environment.
I should add that farmers, as a whole, are among the most entrepreneurial and dynamic people in this country. They are for ever adapting to circumstance and acting in response to market signals. The discussions, exchanges and engagement that we have been having for months now with the farming community suggest, and give me a great deal of confidence, that they will respond extraordinarily well to these new signals that the Government are going to be providing.
My noble friend Lord Cormack described with great sadness the decline of butterflies in his garden, and I know that that situation is duplicated all around the country and indeed the world. I say that we can still find room for optimism; if you give nature half a chance, it comes back extraordinarily quickly. I have had the privilege of seeing for myself, in areas that have been intensively farmed not particularly carefully for decades but have then been treated in a different manner—with organic farming or even, in some cases, rewilding—that nature returns extraordinarily quickly. That is what the Bill will do: it will give nature not just half a chance but a chance.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan talked about the critical importance of access to nature. If he does not mind, I will not go into detail on that issue because we will be discussing and debating it when we come to the fifth group of amendments—that might even be today, if we make some progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, discussed the comparisons between where we heading with the Bill and what we are leaving with the EU. We repeat our commitment, as we have many times, that the environment will be at least as well protected after this transition as it was under EU treaties. Many noble Lords will agree that those protections greatly exceed those provided by EU treaties, and that too is reflected in the Bill in numerous ways.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, raised the Dasgupta review, which I am pleased about; it needs to be raised at every opportunity, because it is so important. I have had endless discussions with counterparts around the world as part of our attempts to raise ambitions for COP and the CBD, and the Dasgupta review was part of almost every one of those conversations. It is globally recognised for its importance but, despite its length and sometimes complicated language, it has a fairly straightforward message: that our economies and our livelihoods need to be reconciled with the natural world, and everything we have comes from nature. I part company with the noble Baroness on her thoughts on the Government’s response. The response is not exhaustive, but was never the end of the story; it is the beginning. We must do an enormous amount to take heed of and internalise the message of the Dasgupta review in the way we govern. That applies to this Government, and successive Governments. The response was an enthusiastic nod to the principles with examples of the kinds of things we are doing, but without going into the level of detail which a Government would find difficult at this point.
Moving to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for which I thank him, I can reassure him that the Government absolutely are taking climate change and environmental concern seriously. There is an absolute recognition, both at a domestic level and in everything we are doing internationally, that the two are inextricably linked; as he said, you cannot tackle one without the other. A good climate COP will have good implications for nature, and a good CBD will have good implications for climate. We absolutely recognise the extent of the crisis which he and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, relayed to us. There is no doubt that the facts on the ground tell us that we are in crisis territory, and perhaps we will part company here with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. We debated the issue some time ago of whether or not we face a biodiversity crisis, and I will not repeat all the arguments I used, but she is right to be alert to the risk that any crisis can be used to justify authoritarianism and poor policy. It is therefore important that we get policy right but that does not take away from the facts, which paint a bleak picture of continued decline.
We have set out concrete steps towards reaching net zero by 2050, through the PM’s 10-point plan, which brought together £12 billion of government investment. The energy White Paper and industrial decarbonisation strategy will continue to demonstrate global leadership on climate change, and we will bring forward further bold proposals, such as the net-zero strategy, which will be published before COP 26. Again, nature is at the heart—although it is clearly not the only part—of our response to the net-zero challenge here in the UK, and is a critical part of our message globally. We have successfully changed the debate on the role of nature in tackling climate change internationally, such that most countries when they talk about their response to climate change talk about nature, in a way which they simply did not a year ago. It remains the case, however, that of all international climate finance, only 2.5% to 3% is spent on nature-based solutions. That really should be closer to half. That too is something which we hope to shift through our negotiations and discussions with other countries, and through our own example, where we have not only doubled our international climate finance but committed that nearly a third of it will be spent on nature-based solutions.
Of course, the Bill itself is a clear demonstration of our action to tackle the biodiversity crisis, including biodiversity net gain, local nature recovery strategies, and due diligence for forest risk commodities. I hope that this provides reassurance that the amendments, which have provoked a very valuable debate, are nevertheless not needed. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful response, to which I will give careful thought. I am also grateful to other noble Lords who spoke in support of my amendments in this group, and for the wisdom, experience and expertise with which they supplemented my opening remarks.
Achieving cohesion and clarity—and my noble friend Lord Cormack was quite right to add a third C, consistency—is going to be vital. If we can achieve those three Cs, then there are two further critical Cs which we can expect to be delivered by the business community: a commitment to the future, and the confidence to invest. If we are to achieve the environmental objectives which we all want, we must achieve all those five Cs. I will reflect carefully on what has been said in this debate, and especially carefully on the Minister’s remarks. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 4. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 4
The Duke of Wellington
Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to include the cleansing of rivers as a priority.
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, this amendment in my name—and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for adding her name to it—has one simple purpose. I wish to persuade the excellent Ministers—in this House the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and in the other place Rebecca Pow—to acknowledge as a priority the importance of cleaning the rivers of this country. The Government have repeatedly stated that this generation should be the first to leave the environment in a better state than that in which we inherited it. This vision has almost unanimous support, I am sure, in both Houses of Parliament and in the country as a whole. The main target is, of course, to reach a state of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and I understand why this is the overarching ingredient in policy-making.
There is so much in the Bill which I support. In Clause 1(2), the Secretary of State must set long-term targets in respect of air quality, water, biodiversity and waste reduction. Part 5 is devoted to water, and contains clauses on resource management, drought planning, and drainage and sewerage management. Since the Bill arrived in this House, the Government have tabled their own amendments on sewerage management, which I welcome but will attempt to strengthen through amendments later in the Bill. But Chapter 1, which we are debating today, is entitled “Improving the natural environment”, with the subheading “Environmental targets.” My proposal is that the Government set a target for improving the natural environment of our rivers.
I am grateful to the Minister for a meeting last week with a number of Peers, mainly from the Cross Benches. From that meeting, I understand that there is doubt about the appropriateness of the European standard of good ecological status, in which case I suggest to Ministers that they establish a new United Kingdom standard and have a target for progressive percentages of rivers to reach that target in five years, in 10 years, and finally for 100% of rivers to reach that target in 15 years. Ministers have stated that they want to be ambitious, to set high standards and to lead the world by example. That being the case, we must not allow untreated sewage to be discharged into our rivers over 400,000 times or for more than 3 million hours during 2020, as reported by the Environment Agency.
I read again the highlights of the 25-year environment plan published by the Government in 2018. Although “clean and plentiful water” is listed among the environmental benefits to be achieved, there is no specific reference to the elimination of the shocking level of sewage discharges. That is my point: while we strive as a nation to reduce carbon emissions to zero, improve biodiversity and clean the air we breathe, we cannot continue to accept that raw sewage is discharged into rivers, harming all aquatic wildlife and imperilling the health of human beings who swim in or enjoy the rivers.
I fear that the apparent unwillingness of the Government to make this a priority is the great cost involved in converting our drainage and sewerage infrastructure. In other parts of the Bill there will be an opportunity to debate how this could or should be paid for. I do not believe that most members of the public are aware that, in the 21st century in a developed country such as ours, raw sewage is still being discharged into rivers every day. I think most people would expect the Government, in their new Environment Bill, to make it a priority not just to reduce but to eliminate these discharges. That is the purpose of my amendment and I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, in his amendment. On the face of it, this does seem an omission, given that clauses from Clause 83 onwards deal specifically with water quality, yet it does not appear as a specific target.
I declare my interests in the register and that I co-chair the All-Party Water Group. I worked for five years with the water regulator for Scotland—WICS, the Water Industry Commission for Scotland—and I have co-authored two reports on bricks and water which deal with water issues specifically in relation to housing. I am also vice-president of ADA, the Association of Drainage Authorities. Drainage boards have a specific role to play, being responsible for ensuring that lower-lying watercourses of below either eight metres or eight feet—I cannot remember which—flow as smoothly as they should.
Amendment 4 is commendable, and I congratulate my noble friend the Duke of Wellington on bringing it forward. Of course we should aim to have the best water quality, and to ensure that we have clean rivers, that—where possible—farmers can farm less intensively, and that we meet the highest domestic and international water quality standards, as well as seeking to improve our soils. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, we must have a level playing field to ensure that we are not just improving watercourses in this country but ensuring that products grown on less regulated land and soil do not have a free pass to come into this country through trade agreements.
I would like to address one issue that my noble friend the Duke of Wellington referred to—untreated raw sewage being spilled into our watercourses. I would like to pose the question: why is that happening? It is happening because water companies are being placed in an impossible position. They are obliged to connect to major and smaller developments—to provide clean water and to collect wastewater and sewage coming out. We increasingly see that water companies are obliged to connect, even when they are placed in a situation where they may not be deemed able to do so.
I draw attention to the fact that we are seeing increasing amounts of surface water. This is a relatively recent phenomenon; it was identified for the first time in any significant way in 2007. I am drawing on the experience of Sir Michael Pitt, who was asked by the then Labour Government to write a very comprehensive review of how we should adapt to this new form of surface water flooding. Many of his recommendations have been implemented but many have not.
Subsequently, I am tabling amendments which will address the specific point of raw sewage. One way of dealing with it is to end the automatic right to connect to major new developments. This was called for by Sir Michael Pitt. It will address the specific problem of sewage outflow, particularly where combined sewers overflow and cause a public health issue in many cases—where the sewage overflow goes into existing developments and those residents have to leave. I believe we have asked too much of water companies, without giving them the wherewithal to address this, either through the quinquennial price review, or by allowing them to do whatever they choose to connect—sometimes against their better judgment—to major developments.
A way of addressing that is to ensure that water companies are given the same statutory right to consultation as has now been extended to the Environment Agency. Since the Environment Agency has been granted that right, we have seen the number of houses prone to flooding that are being built significantly reduce. Similarly, I hope we can see that water companies are not placed in an impossible position when it comes to major and significant new housing developments, particularly where they may be built on functional flood plains or land prone to flooding in the shorter term.
I entirely endorse the comments and remarks of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, in moving this amendment about the importance of maintenance. We have to differentiate between the maintenance of major and minor watercourses, ensure that local authorities have the budget and resources to do the maintenance they are required to do and that the Environment Agency oversees it. I pay tribute to the work of those local drainage boards and landowners who are often responsible for doing the regular and very necessary maintenance on minor watercourses.
This might seem a small amendment but it is very significant, and I hope my noble friend the Minister will look favourably on it, and on the later amendments we will consider in due course. I support Amendment 4.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 4, so ably moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and congratulate him on the work he has been doing on this important issue. I do not have significant amounts to add, but I believe that, as my noble friend the Minister said, this is a chance to radically improve environmental policy. In particular, the areas outlined in the Bill, such as air quality and water per se, could be enhanced by adding the specific requirement to take account of improvements urgently needed to water quality.
The Government have already said that they proposed to publish a plan by September 2020 to reduce sewage discharges into our rivers and waterways. I am obviously supportive of that and of placing a duty on water companies to publish annual data on storm overflows and set legally binding targets for water quality. However, it is likely that those issues will be dealt with in a more long-term timeframe than one might have hoped, given this landmark Bill.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support the sentiment of Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, but water quality is not the only issue to do with water. I would not want that to be to the particular focus, because with increasing climate change and growing demand, water quantity is also important.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, is rightly exercised about sewage pollution into our rivers, as is the Minister. I look forward to saying more when we debate Amendments 161 and 162 on reducing and eliminating sewage discharges into rivers, which importantly go into detail on the programmes and actions needed to get this to happen.
I declare an interest as a former chief executive of the Environment Agency. I think it is quite clear that, although it has brought only 174 prosecutions over the last 10 years, there could have been more than 2,000 breaches in that period and a vastly greater number of legal discharges under the current regulations. That is a source of considerable public concern.
In support of the considerable work done by the Environment Agency and the water companies, I should say that river water has improved dramatically over the last 20 years. We should not relax in that, because the current situation is totally unacceptable. Nevertheless, a major amount of river water has been cleaned up. Most of our waters were completely dead and highly polluted 20 years ago and they are now in a much better state, but we still have more to do.
We had EU regulation to rely on in the past, which was needed to drive the Government to do something about exactly this problem in the River Thames, by creating the Thames super-sewer. At that stage, we had the dirtiest river of any capital city in Europe. I am delighted that action was taken, but it needed the full weight of environmental regulation coming from Europe and a considerable and hefty programme of fining of the Government to get action taken. We need to ensure through the mechanism of the Bill that we move forward and tackle this running sore—if noble Lords will pardon the phrase. I welcome the creation of the storm overflow task force and look forward to its findings. I look forward to debating the government amendment to tackle this issue and strengthening it in the appropriate place in the Bill.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is right to talk about the Thames. I remember the Thames half a century ago, when I first came to Parliament, and what an utter disgrace it was. But that should not lead us to be in any way complacent. Although my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering referred to this as a small amendment—and it is in terms of words—it is absolutely crucial. Unless we clean up our rivers, the Environment Bill—the Act, as I am sure it will become—will fail. It is as simple as that.
Not so long ago there was a great campaign about our coastal waters, and there is still much to be done. One of my most vivid memories of the other place was an Adjournment Debate at 10 pm one night, introduced by the late Sir Reggie Bennett, about swimming off the coast. I remember he said, “Mr Speaker, you cannot swim off the coast, you can only go through the motions”. I fear that that is the case with many of our rivers today. I hope the Minister will endorse that it is crucial that we get this right, because how clean our waterways are will be a test of the success of the Environment Act.
We have some glorious rivers in this country and some wonderful chalk streams. I think one of the saddest pictures that I have seen in the last 12 months was of a stretch of perhaps the loveliest river of all, the Wye, which had been so contaminated by the effluent from intensively reared battery chickens—something else we need to tackle. We are all in debt to my noble friend the Duke of Wellington, not only for bringing this amendment forward but for introducing on the very day of Second Reading, his own Bill on cleaning up our inland waterways.
This is a vital issue, but I cannot sit down before saying what a joy it is to see my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern in the Chamber. We have seen him many times appear on the Zoom screen, and it is wonderful to have him here in person among us.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I think we can count that as the best joke of the Environment Bill Committee so far, so I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for that. I had not intended to speak on this amendment, so all I shall say is that this is a very important issue. It is probably dealt with more specifically and better later in the Bill, but I very much support the thoughts of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the late Lord Ridley of Liddesdale would be as disappointed as I am that, last year, no English river met the highest chemical standards and only 15% of UK rivers were rated as having good ecological status. That was not the intention when we privatised the water companies in the 1980s. But the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, was absolutely right to say, notwithstanding what I have just said, that the rivers are in a great deal better condition now than they were 30 years ago—and the water Act of the mid-1980s was responsible for that. The rivers would be of better quality now if the National Rivers Authority had continued in existence by itself and not been merged with the Environment Agency. That part of the Environment Agency has not been nearly as effective as it was when it was a single authority.
This is a hugely important issue, and we shall come to it in some more detail. I totally agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. The issue of water is much wider than just water quality; it includes the whole water environment, abstraction and pollution. To prioritise water, as this Bill does, and then to talk particularly about water quality, defeats the object that the Government are trying to achieve, which is to raise the quality of water across the board. Therefore, although I support the principle of what the noble Duke is trying to do, I hope that it will be dealt with at a later stage rather than at this stage.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I take everybody’s point about the fact that this amendment does not quite measure up to everything that we want from it, but it is a really good start. And I think that this is an issue that we will defeat the Government on. In all my talks with Conservative Members of your Lordships’ House, they have mentioned how concerned they are about rivers; a lot of landowners are massively concerned.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, about sewage and water companies. It does her credit that she is so sympathetic towards them but, quite honestly, they make a lot of money and they should be clearing up their own mess. If they cannot take on these contracts, they should not take them on—or they should dig bigger holes to bury the sewage, or whatever it takes. When it comes to cost, we should look at the businesses that make money out of our rivers and our sewage, and we should make them pay.
I shall go back to my speech now. Basically, the issue of water pollution is very much underserved by this Bill at the moment, so I urge the Government to pick this up and run with it, because it is something that they will lose on. The truth is that many of our rivers, lakes and water courses in this country are still filthy and polluted. It is something that the European Commissioner rightly took us to task on—the Government have repeatedly lost legal challenges on the issue. For that reason, it is also one of the big environmental risks of leaving the EU system of environmental laws. The Government could have a convenient opportunity to quietly end their long tradition of losing court battles on water pollution simply by ditching those rules altogether or subjecting them to the jurisdiction of a toothless regulator.
We know that water is life. We cannot do without it and, if we pollute it, many things die, including humans. Water pollution has a long-lasting and pervasive impact on our lives and the natural world around us—it is not always easy to clean up. Most people do not even know how polluted our water is. I have had gastroenteritis from swimming in the Thames; I thought that I was high enough up the Thames for it to be clean but, apparently, it was not.
The Government have to understand that it is not just about chemicals that we should not drink going in; that is only a tiny part of the picture. For example, the River Thames floods with human sewage multiple times a week and also has some of the highest recorded levels of microplastics in the world. It is long overdue for the Government to get a grip on water pollution. Quite honestly, this amendment is a good little start, and I congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on this. I look forward to him toughening up future amendments on sewage.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as in the register, particularly in relation to this amendment, as the president of the Colne Valley Regional Park, where we have had a lot of issues over water quality and the streams. Over the weekend, I was asked to join the advisory board of River Action UK, to replace, I think, my noble friend Lord Benyon, who as a Defra Minister cannot hold that position. I look forward to joining that group and working on this.
This is a very useful debate on a subject close to my heart, and I congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and my noble friend Lady Altmann, on supporting him and signing the amendment with him. We have a lot of problems—and, as we have heard, they are not just around water quality, though we do have a real problem with that. We have heard about sewage discharge and run-off, and we have heard about the River Wye and the run-off from battery chicken farms. Those are all incredibly important and worrying things. But we also have problems around abstraction. The problems of abstraction and river quality have affected us locally in the Colne Valley, with the aquifer that has been compromised, seemingly, by HS2. As I said at Second Reading, that has only recently been admitted and made public—thanks, particularly, to a local campaign.
We also have an issue around Heathrow, which is not mentioned very often. I can remember many years ago, when I was the MP for the area, being asked to have a look at where the settling pools are. The run-off comes from washing aircraft with very highly toxic chemicals to de-ice the planes, and it goes into the settling pools just on the edge of Heathrow. Unfortunately, from time to time, they overflow in times of excessive rain and flow into local river courses. I understand from a recent discussion I had that that is no longer happening—but these are always risks, and things that we do not always think about.
The problem of sewage has been mentioned. We have had problems whereby a hotel or housing development has been misconnected and sewage has run, untreated, straight into our local rivers. It is also worth mentioning that before she was a Minister, the Minister in the other place, Rebecca Pow, raised with me the question of where hairdressers put all the chemicals that they use in their basins. She referred in particular to ladies’ hairdressers, I think—as noble Lords can see from my appearance, I am somewhat hirsute and not too bothered about hair; I just get a quick trim. These are all very important issues.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has just said, we are aware of the state of the water in rivers, but actually it does not matter how far up the Thames you go because any river can have these sewage discharges. What concerns me is the wild swimmers, kayakers, fishermen and, as happened locally last weekend, children in low-level water filling up their water pistols—they are more like water sub-machine guns these days—and firing them happily at each other, probably ingesting some of the water. It would be no surprise to me if some of them come down with gastroenteritis or even worse. I hope that that does not happen.
With regard to fishermen, I have to pay a tribute. In the Colne Valley, the Colne Valley Fisheries Consultative and its chairman Tony Booker, as well as Paul Jennings of the River Chess Association, have really pushed on this and made everyone aware of it.
There is a problem: the Environment Agency is vastly underfunded these days, I am afraid to say. I am sure that, when the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, was in charge, it had more funds and was more able to deal with some of these incidents. There almost seems to be a lack of interest now, or perhaps it is just a lack of resources, which means that it does not follow up some of these cases.
We have got to take these things seriously. I entirely understand that there is probably a better set of amendments, including the Government’s own later, but I wanted to put down a marker to show that I consider this to be extremely important. If we were sitting here in 1858, with the Great Stink going on, before Joseph Bazalgette came in with his plans for the sewerage of London, we would all be taking this a great deal more seriously.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, not down the road of the Great Stink but certainly on his references to his river experiences. I am delighted to support this amendment and thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for tabling it. He spoke eloquently at Second Reading on the issue of the cleanliness of our rivers; I was pleased to support him then and do so now with enthusiasm.
The need to keep our rivers clean, as part of environment policy, is self-evident. Persistent reports of pollution impacting on river life, killing off fish stocks, affecting surrounding lands and environments and even causing health problems to people—particularly children, as has just been mentioned—swimming in rivers are a worrying feature of our contemporary world.
Obviously, there may be implications for landowners, particularly farmers, whose land abuts our rivers—but the overwhelming majority of such people also want to secure clean rivers. If the necessary steps are properly negotiated, they can surely be agreed. The Government should not steer shy of dealing with this issue in the mistaken belief that they will face severe opposition from countryside interests.
Equally, industrial interests must not stand in the way of cleaning up our rivers. Let us reiterate without equivocation that the polluter pays principle must be applied with such force that it becomes a real deterrent. Our water companies must equally be held to account. I want to learn from the Minister what new, effective action to reduce such pollution will emanate from this Bill and who will be responsible in practice for enforcing its provisions in this regard.
As the Minister might expect, I invite him to clarify how he and his department will co-operate with the Welsh Government in relation to rivers that run across the border. Most of them run from Wales into England, but not all and, as river pollution is no respecter of political borders, we must have an agreed approach that respects the wishes of Governments on both sides of the border but also ensures that we work coherently to reduce and, we hope, eliminate the tragic pollution of our rivers.
Incidentally, I have no problem whatever with having UK, or at least GB, standards for these purposes, provided that those targets can be achieved by constructive negotiation by the three, or possibly four, Governments with responsibility for various aspects of environmental policy in Britain.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has said and many important points made by other Peers. I have only one point to make on top of the others: there has been no real improvement for so long now—certainly, not very much since 2016. In 2020, only 40% of waterways were classified as being in good health—meaning as close to their natural state as possible.
We all know that a major cause of this is sewage. In 2020, raw sewage was discharged more than 400,000 times over a period of 3 million hours, and this water, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has claimed, brings huge quantities of microplastics as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, sewage is not the only cause: some 40% comes from run-off from agricultural industries.
The point is that, since legislation was passed and the Environment Agency has been in charge and responsible for it, there has been no real improvement. This may be due to lack of proper funding, but the fact is that it has not been able to bring about any real change. We now have the worst quality in Europe, with England comparing very badly with Scotland, where 65.7% of surface water bodies are in good health. We know this—it has been repeated time and again, and the environmental Ministers acknowledge it.
The question is: how can we ensure that real change takes place soon? Including Amendment 4 is where we must start in ensuring that good quality water is a goal that we fully intend to achieve. We must use this Bill to ensure that we achieve it.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be speaking to this amendment moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. During the past two years, many of your Lordships have raised the issue of the quality of the water in many of our iconic rivers and given very graphic examples of where pollution has been discharged, untreated, into our waterways. We have heard about chicken manure being discharged into the River Wye, previously one of the most beautiful rivers on our island. At Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, reminded us about the discharge of raw sewage into rivers. As one of her first duties, the newly elected MP for Chesham and Amersham, Sarah Green MP, has visited the River Chess to hear from the local action group about the pollution of it.
During lockdown, with local authority swimming pools closed to the public, those who were able took to what has become known as wild swimming in the sea and rivers. I am assured that this is extremely invigorating and refreshing, but probably not so if you are encountering severe pollution on the scale that we have heard of from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Biodiversity is severely affected by the pollution in our rivers.
The treatment of sewage is the responsibility of the sewerage and water authorities. It is not sufficient for them to claim that new housing developments have overwhelmed their treatment plants and they have no choice but to discharge sewage into our rivers and sea. We have heard recently of the public disquiet about the Government’s proposals to change the planning laws. Often, statutory consultees respond to local authorities with “no comment”, but often they do not respond at all. Perhaps this is an issue of resources, with Defra cuts to the Environment Agency filtering down to the front line. The water authorities should be obliged to respond to consultation on proposed housing developments, especially where there is insufficient capacity in existing treatment plants to cope with the current, never mind the future, demand.
All noble Lords taking part in this debate have expressed concern on the issue of water quality. The Government must take it seriously if we are to restore the quality of the water in our rivers to enable biodiversity to increase, even if it is unlikely ever to reach its former levels. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and others have flagged, we will return to this in later amendments. This is a very serious matter, as my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, and we fully support the comments of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, in moving this amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for his amendment and his speech today. I will speak briefly on the amendment. We will come on to a separate debate about whether the environmental targets as a whole are adequate when we consider that matter later in the Bill. We will argue that the targets should be more comprehensive, and combined with legally binding interim targets, to ensure that real progress is made in the time agreed.
In addition to this amendment, the noble Duke has tabled others later in the Bill to address the issue of water quality and the pollution of rivers. We absolutely share his objective to clean up water and prevent sewage flowing into our rivers; he has been a great champion of this. We have tabled similar amendments which would also prevent the discharge of sewage into rivers. We believe that the Government’s proposals on this issue so far are inadequate and we look forward to the debate on this.
In the meantime, I have some concerns about the wording of this amendment. First, it narrows the scope of the long-term water targets to concentrate on water quality when there are much wider concerns to be addressed, for example about the role of water companies, the supply of water, drought and flooding safeguards, and sustainable urban development protection and maintenance. These points have all been made by other noble Lords in this debate and a number have given vivid examples of the challenges we face in these areas. Narrowing it down to water quality perhaps does not achieve what the noble Duke is aiming to do. Secondly, we do not accept that the issue of water quality should be a long-term target: it requires action more urgently, specifically with regard to sewage discharge. This is the subject of our later amendments, and those in the name of the noble Duke, and we look forward to returning to it.
Despite these reservations about this amendment, I agree with the noble Duke’s overall intention and will be supportive when we get to the more substantive debate, when we will have a great deal more to say on the issue.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for tabling Amendment 4. I note the support that it has received from a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady McIntosh, Lord Cormack and Lord Randall and the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Wigley.
The Bill will require the Government to set at least one legally binding long-term water target. I reassure the noble Duke that this of course covers water quality. The Government are currently considering water target objectives in relation to reducing pollution from agriculture, wastewater and abandoned metal mines, as well as in relation to reducing water demand. This approach encompasses water quality, but also allows the inclusion of broader objectives, such as reducing the impact of water demand on the water environment, which I know is of great interest to numerous Members of this House, including the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. This point was echoed and made well by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
I will address some of the individual points that have been made. The amendment essentially relates to the outrage over raw sewage entering our waterways as a consequence of storm overflows. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has pursued this issue relentlessly, and rightly so. To reiterate, the amendment that the Government have tabled does three things. It requires the Government to deliver a plan for tackling sewage discharge, and to report on progress, and it requires the water companies and the Environment Agency to be transparent with their data. In addition, my colleague in the other place, Rebecca Pow, said only last week that if water companies do not step up then we will use the drainage and wastewater management plans to force them to. I am happy to reiterate that commitment now. I hope that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Bakewell and Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
In addition, the Government are already pursuing various measures to improve water quality over and above what has been mentioned. For example, the 2015 river basin management plans confirmed £3 billion of investment over the period to 2021 in England. This has led to over 11,000 kilometres of surface water being enhanced and a further 2,349 kilometres protected since the 2015 plans were published. We are encouraging best agricultural practice to prevent and reduce pollution through regulation, financial incentives and educational schemes for farmers. The shift to ELM, which has already been mentioned, is going to have a radical and profound impact on water pollution. A task force comprising the Government, the water industry, regulators and environmental NGOs is currently working to achieve the long-term goal of eliminating the harm from sewage discharge into our rivers and other waterways from storm overflows. We will, of course, take the recommendations of that task force very seriously. I hope that that also somewhat reassures noble Lords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, asked whether I would be willing to commit to a meeting with a number of noble Lords to discuss this issue further. The answer is yes, of course. I am very happy to do so and will make contact after today’s debate. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, also raised the fact that a mere 15% of our rivers enjoy good ecological status. He is right, but I want to put this in context. This is not to diminish the issue, because water pollution is clearly unacceptable, and we need to get to grips with it. However, it is worth pointing out that, to qualify for good ecological status, the waterway has to be close to a natural form. That means that waterways that have been canalised, straightened or modified—for example, for flood defences, transport or something similar—will be regarded as having been heavily modified. Those waterways cannot achieve good ecological status, no matter how clean the water is or how much biodiversity they have. It is worth putting that in context; while 16% of our waters do have good ecological status, that does not mean that 84% are in poor condition. I hope that we can get to grips with this and develop our own metrics at some point so that we can avoid confusion and have a clearer understanding of the actual situation in our waters.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, asked about enforcement. Defra works closely with the devolved Administrations on environmental issues across the board, particularly with the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales, covering water quality in their respective areas.
By setting a water target that focuses on the biggest pressures on the water environment, the Government will, we hope, make faster progress towards improving water quality. Although we appreciate the noble Duke’s aims, we do not think that focusing the water target priority area on water quality alone, as his amendment proposes, will be the best way of achieving those aims. I therefore respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. Of course, I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that it is not just water quality that matters but water quantity as well. A number of noble Lords made reference to the River Thames. However, anybody who watched the BBC “Panorama” programme about two months ago would surely be left in no doubt that there is still much to do to clean up that river, which is in an embarrassingly poor state. Nevertheless, I understand that the quality of our rivers generally is much better than it was 20 years ago. I was very impressed by the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who clearly understands the problem well. He referred to an event in 1858, when there was general recognition of the appalling state of our rivers and the amount of sewage going into them. It is surprising that, in 2021, there is still quite the quantity of raw, or insufficiently treated, sewage flowing into our rivers.
I very much appreciated the support of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and quite understand his point that it is necessary to have co-operation between England and Wales over the rivers that flow between the two countries, and his acceptance that it would be entirely in order to establish a UK standard. I thank the Minister for his comments, and I was pleased to hear that, in the other place, Rebecca Pow has made a further commitment that the existing regulations will be enforced where required. But I again ask the Minister to consider whether it would be appropriate to establish a UK standard. He did sort of refer to that when talking about metrics, but if he has doubts about the existing European standard then we should surely try to devise our own.
I would be grateful if the Minister would be prepared to discuss with me a way of making targets for water quality a higher priority. There are many aspects of water that need to be improved, nevertheless I am surprised that improving water quality is not yet considered a higher priority than it currently is. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
We come now to the group of amendments headed by Amendment 5. Anyone wishing to press that amendment or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 5
Lord Blencathra
“(c) nature;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to change the word ‘biodiversity’ to ‘nature’ and is designed to have a debate in principle on changing the term throughout the bill.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my environmental interests as on the register. This afternoon I will, if I may, speak from a seated position—I had a long train journey and the old legs are a bit ropier than normal.
My amendments in this group all seek to change the word “biodiversity” in the Bill to the word “nature”. The only two amendments in the group for proper consideration in this debate are Amendment 5, which changes the wording in Clause 1, and Amendment 261, which attempts to give a definition of nature, so that my noble friend the Minister cannot say that nature is a completely different concept from biodiversity and that it would totally destabilise the Bill if we made this change. In this Bill we can define nature any way we like, just as we can define biodiversity, and it need not create any legal lacuna or new obligation.
The other amendments numbered in the 200s are merely examples in the Bill of where “nature” could be used instead of “biodiversity”. I counted over 140 uses of the word “biodiversity”, most of them—more than 100—in Schedule 14, but I have picked just a few examples so that we can have this debate in principle. Therefore, I do not want my noble friend the Minister to waste his time in the wind-up going through all those other examples and explaining why they are technically wrong.
Why change “nature” to “biodiversity”? What am I getting at? It really is quite simple: everyone talks about nature and not about biodiversity. All recent polls and studies show that the vast majority of people want to get closer to nature, to relate to it, and to get out and about and into it more. If you asked them if they wanted to relate to biodiversity, they would think that you were talking about zoo animals. “Biodiversity” has the flavour of a technical, scientific term, more applicable to wild animals than flowers, trees, butterflies and the landscape—at least in the minds of the majority of ordinary people.
The authoritative People and Nature Survey undertaken each month by Natural England found that 61% of people said that they felt that they were part of nature and 87% said that being in nature made them happy. A recent survey quoted by the BBC reveals that most people think that biodiversity is something to do with washing powder. We might scoff at that, and of course colleagues in Parliament, Defra, Natural England, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and all wildlife organisations know what biodiversity is—but we do not count. We need to appeal to the tens of millions of people who are not officials, scientists or policymakers and who have a much more vague idea of what nature is—but know it when they see it, and want more of it.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, with whom I agree in every respect on this subject, that legislation should be precise and intelligible. That is what this is about. If I may give a short history lesson—only a couple of minutes—I will describe my first encounter with the phrase “precise and intelligible” in 1975 in the House of Commons, when a report headed Preparation of Legislation was presented by Sir David Renton, then the MP for Huntingdonshire. He never stopped talking about that report, and when I arrived in your Lordships’ House exactly 20 years ago, he was on the Benches opposite, still talking about the report Preparation of Legislation. He took Bills and amendments apart, and the number of times we had changes because of his scrutiny was enormous. I have also looked at the 2013 Parliamentary Counsel report, When Laws Become Too Complex. This is what this amendment is about: making legislation precise and intelligible. Most of what we have passed is not. This is a chance to actually make sure that it is.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Words matter; so too does the meaning that we give to them. That is especially so where targets are being set that will influence policy in a matter as far-reaching as the environment. That is why the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Randall of Uxbridge, were right to bring forward these amendments so that we can consider whether the choice of the word “biodiversity” to identify one of the priority areas in Clause 1(3) was well made, or whether it should be replaced by the word “nature”, as is being suggested.
I wish to concentrate on the use of words in this clause. I say nothing about the wording of Clauses 95 and 96 and others, except that it seems to make sense to follow whatever the choice is for Clause 1 when deciding what is right for those other clauses too. For me, the choice in Clause 1(3) should be guided by two things: the context, and the meaning of the word “biodiversity” itself.
The context for the choice of words in Clause 1(3) is created by the wording of Clause 1(1). We are told there that the long-term targets that the Secretary of State must have in mind relate to “the natural environment”. That suggests to me that when we come to Clause 1(3), we should expect to find, if I can put it this way, a list of subspecies within the natural environment rather than a repetition of the parent concept itself, embraced by the word “nature”. The word “nature”—the parent concept—embraces everything that comprises the phenomena of the natural world or, as Clause 1(1) puts it, of “the natural environment”. That suggests that we need something more specific and precise to serve the purpose of Clause 1(3), which is to identify the priority areas within that environment. The question then, therefore, is whether “biodiversity” achieves something for the identification of a priority area that “nature” would not achieve.
I was surprised to find, when I was consulting my dictionaries, how recent the word “biodiversity” is in the English language. Everyone talks about nature, said the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and he is absolutely right: it is so much in common use, and “biodiversity”, as the dictionaries indicated to me, is not in common use in that way. It is not even mentioned, let alone defined, in the editions of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary that I have, which were published in the 1990s. It is a mark of our increasing awareness of the importance of the variety and variability of life on earth and its preservation that we have created this portmanteau word to describe it. “Diversity” is what we are talking about when we use this word. The prefix “bio” makes it clear that we are using that word in the context of the natural environment in all its aspects which, of course, is the context in which we are using it here. In that context, it is no exaggeration to say that diversity is what keeps the environment alive. It is absolutely right to concentrate on diversity as a priority area.
I suggest, therefore, that the word “biodiversity”, although not so widely used as “nature”, is the one to use because it is more precisely targeted on that aspect of our environment. It achieves that much more than “nature”. It reaches out across the entirety of the ecosystem, on which the natural environment depends, and the diversity that gives it its life. With great respect to the two noble Lords, I believe that it is the right word to use here in this Bill.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and also the noble Lord, Lord Rooker; I well remember the late Sir David Renton, as he was in the other place, or Lord Renton, as he became in this one. He was an absolute terrier and was determined to try to ensure that all legislation was intelligible to those to whom it applied.
That really is the underlying reason why my noble friend Lord Blencathra has introduced this very interesting and probing amendment. We say again and again during this debate that this is a landmark Bill. It is indeed, and it has to bear the test of time: it has to be an Act of Parliament that becomes familiar to all those to whom it applies, which is virtually every citizen in our land. It must be an Act of Parliament that is understood. It is entirely right that my noble friend Lord Blencathra introduced this amendment so that we can debate, at an early stage of the Bill, what we are really talking about.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and my noble friend Lord Cormack that legislation has to be precise and intelligible. If we are to take the public with us, which we need to on a Bill as complicated and as detailed as this one, it has to resonate with them, so there is a lot to be said for what my noble friend Lord Blencathra has suggested in his amendment.
However, I am slightly troubled on a couple of fronts. In answering the debate at Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister said:
“As for my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s proposal to change ‘biodiversity’ to ‘nature’, he makes an important point, but the trouble is that those two terms are not exactly the same”.—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. 1308.]
He then gave an example about the dreaded Sitka spruce, but he did not tell us why they were not the same and what the implications were for the Bill if we were to go down the route suggested by noble friend Lord Blencathra of half the time using “nature” and half the time using “biodiversity” depending on where it is in the Bill. When he said that, I was immediately sceptical, thinking, “Here comes a lawyers’ charter. If we’re using ‘biodiversity’ in one part of the Bill and ‘nature’ in another, the lawyers are going to have a field day”. I wish my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern were joining in this debate, because he would help us.
I go instead to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who analysed this matter in some detail and came down in favour of “biodiversity”. I am sitting back on the fence where I started, because I was persuaded one way and the legal opinion has pushed me back in the other. I want to hear from my noble friend the Minister what the difference is between biodiversity and nature. If we could get that difference, perhaps we could reconcile it so that we got a Bill that was intelligible.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to participate in this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Blencathra on being so industrious in coming up with such an imaginative way to put forward something that he obviously feels very passionate about. However, I support my noble friend the Minister, who I hope will go on to explain why we have settled on “biodiversity”. I support everything said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, about why “biodiversity” has a specific meaning. We should also look at the history of “biodiversity”. There are a number of international conventions with which I am sure my noble friend Lord Blencathra, particularly wearing his hat with Natural England, will be familiar. Is he proposing that we now try to change all the international conventions which originally referred, even more confusingly, to “biological diversity”? I would put forward “biodiversity” as a compromise between “biological diversity” and “nature” or “the natural environment”, because it has a specific meaning and we have subscribed to a number of international conventions. For those who will have to follow what is asked of them, “biodiversity” has that specific meaning, which I am sure my noble friend will explain.
I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in saying that we need a list of species or a better understanding of what is being asked. I am sure my noble friend will explain that when he moves the series of government amendments later today. I accept “biodiversity” as a compromise, but we need greater clarification of the list of species—flora and fauna—which are to be protected.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, with a degree of sympathy for what he is trying to achieve. We all want to make legislation more simple and able to be understood by members of the public, but in this instance, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. To change the name in the legislation at this stage would cause a level of disruption, because we already have international agreements that refer to “biodiversity”. The Dasgupta report also referred to it.
There is a simple difference between nature and biodiversity. According to my dictionary definition, nature covers all existing systems created at the same time as the earth, whereas biodiversity is the part of nature that is alive, born on a mineral substrate in an earlier geodiversity. Biodiversity provides numerous ecosystem services that are crucial to human well-being at present and in the future. Longer-term changes in climate affect the viability and health of ecosystems, influencing shifts in the distribution of plants, pathogens, animals and even human settlements. Biodiversity loss has negative effects on several aspects of human well-being, such as food security, vulnerability to natural disasters, energy security and access to clean water and raw materials. It also affects human health, social relations and freedom of choice.
Quite simply, through this legislation, we need to protect our living biodiversity. The inclusion of a target-setting framework is a welcome part of the Bill, and something that has already been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. The long-term nature of environmental matters makes this all particularly important. Environmental improvement cannot be achieved over the short timeframe of a political cycle. We need to ensure that this Environment Bill provides an opportunity for the UK to become a world leader in the fight against all forms of pollution and biodiversity loss and in mitigating the impact of the climate emergency. The litmus test for all of us in the Lords is does changing “biodiversity” to “nature” in this Bill strengthen and toughen its provisions, does it weaken existing legal protections or does it make any difference?
I believe this Bill must turn the tide on nature’s decline, biodiversity decline and the climate emergency. It must transform the way we manage waste, protect our precious water resources and all the other aspects. So, I think at this late stage, it is best to keep to the term “biodiversity”, while I fully understand and appreciate the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
My Lords, I was much elated to read my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendments. I completely agree with him that “biodiversity” is one of the worst examples of a pseudointellectual word that most people do not understand and would never use in speech. I think my noble friend is right that, in the main, it would be much better if we used the easily comprehensible word “nature”, on which there is universal agreement on its meaning. I completely agree that it is highly desirable that the Bill should use language with which the public identifies.
It is interesting that, in their response to The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review the Government refer to
“nature, and the biodiversity that underpins it”.
This suggests that biodiversity and nature are not quite the same thing because one underpins the other, but even in a note to the preface to the review, Professor Dasgupta writes that
“the terms Nature, natural capital, the natural environment, the biosphere, and the natural world are used interchangeably.”
The Cambridge Dictionary website informs me that biodiversity means:
“the number and types of plants and animals that exist in a particular area or in the world generally, or the problem of protecting this”.
The first part of this definition sounds to me to be the same as nature, but then I am confused by the notion of protecting it. The “bio” of biodiversity is derived from the Greek bios, meaning life, and all the varieties of animal and plant life on the planet are indeed diverse.
So, although academics may disagree that the simple word “nature” is inadequate, I am not convinced that there is any material difference in meaning. I agree with my noble friend that we should change the word “biodiversity” to “nature” wherever possible. My noble friend’s Amendment 203 changes the “general biodiversity objective” of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to the “general nature objective”. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether that Act was the first in which the term “biodiversity” was used and whether he agrees that it would be much better if our law was written in language that people can understand.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, suggested that “biodiversity” is the correct word because it is broader, but I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord persuaded me that “nature” is narrower than the whole diversity of life. I also worry for the future of the word “diversity” which increasingly carries connotations of gender and race. For all these reasons I support what my noble friend Lord Blencathra is trying to do.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for initiating it. I think it has been very useful and I truly appreciate the passion with which he desires to see public engagement with, and understanding of, this Bill. I very much appreciate that. A number of noble Lords have said we need this Bill to be both precise and intelligible, and when we draw on the legal side of things I am very much influenced, as I often am, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who suggested that in legal terms “nature” would not achieve what “biodiversity” would.
I am going to bring a biological consideration, that being my intellectual foundation to this, and may complicate this debate further by pointing out that where we sit right now at this very moment is, in one definition, a part of nature—we are human animals and the rest of the animal species on this planet are non-human animals—as it is something we created. It is an ecosystem we have created. However, I am not going to go too far down that road, as I fear that may be a debate more fit for the Bishops’ Bar when it re-opens than this Chamber today.
I want to raise the issue that the noble Lord’s amendment brings to the fore, which is the definition of “biodiversity” and, specifically, to explore further what the Government’s understanding of biodiversity is. I can address some questions that have been raised about where this term come from. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, suggested that some things are called “biological diversity” and some things are called “biodiversity”. The term “biodiversity” was coined in 1985, and it is a contraction of “biological diversity”. Without being a lawyer, I do not think there is a legal contradiction between using those two terms interchangeably.
What is not always sufficiently understood is that biodiversity is not just having lots of species. There is sometimes a feeling that we are protecting diversity when there is this really rare moth, and there are three reserves where we are saving it, so that is all right because we are saving biodiversity. If we look at what biodiversity is in a much broader sense, it starts at the level of genes. If you look at a magnificent, enormous murmuration of starlings, should you still be lucky enough to have such a thing, or a wonderful flock of sparrows—ditto—then, although it cannot be seen, in the depths there is great genetic diversity. It is something that keeps that species healthy, and if you get population numbers down to a tiny level a very important part of biodiversity is lost. The interchange of genes is lost if you have a series of isolated populations.
It is really important to have the species to have the genes, but biodiversity is also complete ecosystems. These are systems, such as savannah and woodland, that have developed over billions of years, have complex interrelationships and interrelate to their physical environment. That is all biodiversity as well. This is what has made the earth habitable over billions of years and is what some people call Gaia. To look at this in a way that those of a more literary bent in your Lordships’ House might find familiar, this is a library of life. It a library of ideas and a library of ways of interrelating. It has been said that what we are doing by destroying biodiversity is burning through the library of life. So, I would really like to see, perhaps in the Minister’s answer, or perhaps later in writing, a lot more from the Government about their understanding of what protecting biodiversity means. They must make sure that the target for biodiversity—assuming the Bill goes through in its current form—really addresses the different levels and ways in which we need to understand biodiversity, and does not boil down to “Well, we have three reserves for this rare moth and that will do.”
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 5, to which I added my name. It is always good to follow my noble friend in his wise words. I have to say, though, that I rather feel out of my depth in this debate. I thought that it was going to be quite a simple subject, but I should have thought that we have such experts in your Lordships' House. I have been listening to the legal side of things, which I have little understanding of, while making law, and the excellent speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on a much more scientific, biological aspect.
I come at this with a view that we want to make things simple. We are going to come, in the group following the next, on to a connection with nature. That is my biggest concern. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that the word “biodiversity” arrived in 1985. I was not a young man, necessarily, when it first appeared, and I had been used to using other words. I have been involved in this environmental field as an amateur for all my life, and I accept “biodiversity”—I use it myself—but I am not sure that the people we want to connect more with nature do understand it. I would say to those noble Lords who have mentioned international things that the European Union introduced Natura 2000; it did not call it “Biodiversitas 2000” or anything else. “Natura” and “nature” have their place. I would regard myself as an amateur naturalist; I do not know how you would say I am an “amateur biodiversity person”.
I think this has been a very useful debate. I end up more confused, though that is a position I often find myself in, listening to debates. But I have to say that there is a real need for us to make sure that our fellow citizens understand that the environment is about what they hold dear—and that is nature. When I was at school, we had nature study; we did not have biodiversity study. But I admit that I am not in the first flush of youth.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, one could argue that what is good enough for Sir David Attenborough is good enough for this Bill. Sir David’s 2020 TV programme “Extinction”, in which he talked about biodiversity, was watched by 4.5 million viewers on its premier. Those people, and the millions more who have watched it subsequently, will have some idea of what biodiversity is.
Although I do not support this amendment for the reasons that my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead so clearly articulated, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for tabling the amendment, because it provides me with an opportunity, following the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, to ask the Minister to clarify precisely what the Government mean when they talk about biodiversity. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead said, words do matter. If the Government are to maintain the term “biodiversity” in this Bill, which I hope they will, please could they explain what it actually means?
I am now going to get a little bit technical. Ecologists recognise a number of different, but interrelated, meanings of the word “biodiversity”. At its simplest, it refers to what is called “species richness”—simply the number of species inhabiting a defined geographical area, such as England. A more sophisticated variant of species richness takes into account the relative abundance of different species. On this measure, an area populated by one extremely common species and, say, five very rare ones will be less biodiverse than if all six species were roughly equally abundant.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has already said, biodiversity can also include genetic diversity within a species. For instance, one might be particularly interested in preserving subspecies that are unique to this island, such as the native pied wagtail, motacilla alba Yarrelli. Furthermore, biodiversity might encompass the genetic distinctiveness of species, by placing a premium on species with no close living relatives on the planet, or on endemic species, such as eudarcia Richardsoni, a micro-moth found only in Dorset.
Finally, biodiversity might encompass the diversity of habitats, such as woodland, heath, peatbog and intertidal marshes, found within a geographical area. Many ecologists distinguish between what they call alpha diversity—species richness within a habitat—and beta diversity, which is diversity between habitats.
I hope that the Minister, in his response, or afterwards in writing, will explain what the Government mean when they talk about biodiversity. At the same time, it would be helpful if he could explain the difference between biodiversity and species abundance, as introduced in Amendment 22, which we will debate later.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this has certainly been an interesting discussion around the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to change the wording of the Bill to use the term “nature” instead of “biodiversity”. I can understand why he would want to propose this change, as it is an easier concept for many people to grasp and understand, as many noble Lords have said during our discussion. However, the Minister did explain in his winding-up speech on Second Reading that the two terms are not exactly the same. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referenced the example that the Minister gave:
“Planting a Sitka spruce monoculture might give us more nature, but it would not give us more biodiversity”—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. 1308].
A number of noble Lords have talked about definitions and the definition of “biodiversity” as opposed to the definition of “nature”. I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for providing us so much information. I have learned an awful lot more in this debate than I was expecting. A number of noble Lords have looked at dictionary definitions, so I thought I would add to this by having a look at what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say. It describes “nature” as
“The phenomena of the physical world collectively; esp. plants, animals, and other features and products of the earth itself, as opposed to humans and human creations”
whereas—I would be interested to discuss this further with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, at some point—the dictionary describes “biodiversity” as
“the variety of plant and animal life”.
So these things are different, and my thinking is that the Oxford definition seems to show that “nature” is a broader concept and “biodiversity” fits within that. Therefore, I am not quite sure how helpful Amendment 261 will be.
This is a really important Bill, and, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said, clarity as to exactly what is meant by the wording and terminology in this Bill—and in all legislation—is essential to avoid confusion and potential legal challenge. I am sure that the Minister will be able to provide us with more detail on the wording used and the way that the decisions have come, but noble Lords have requested more explanation of exactly what is meant in the Bill by “biodiversity” and what is going to be demanded of improvements to biodiversity as we go through implementing what the Environment Bill is looking to do.
In short, I have enjoyed listening to the debate, but we are happy to retain the use of “biodiversity” in the wording of the Bill.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his amendments. It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful speech on them by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Like my noble friend, we want people to understand and engage in nature, but it is also important to increase recognition of and engagement with the term “biodiversity”. It is an internationally recognised term that is gaining popularity with the public, parliamentarians and beyond, not least as a consequence of the extraordinary work of Sir David Attenborough, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, pointed out. It confers a direction of travel toward greater diversity, which we want everyone to fully support and engage with.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, pointed out, and this point was echoed extremely interestingly and thoughtfully by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Ritchie, “nature” is a more expansive term than biodiversity, often taken to include non-living elements, and is potentially more open to interpretation. It is perfectly possible to enhance nature with limited or no value for biodiversity. Many monocultures—for example, a green grass valley; I am using a different example from the one that I used last time—are considered beautiful examples of a natural landscape, and “nature” can have a high amenity value. If we are to boost biodiversity, sometimes it will mean moving away from simplistic ideas of what nature should be, and thinking scientifically about how to improve the diversity of living things.
In response to my noble friend Lady McIntosh, I confirm on my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s behalf—if I may—that he is not proposing to renegotiate or replace the international conventions, as I understand it from his introductory speech. However, I want to provide a more detailed interpretation of what we mean by “biodiversity” and why it is important. I do this in response to a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lord Caithness and Lord Trenchard, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Hayman. The Convention on Biological Diversity, which is being hosted in China at the end of this year and is a massively important moment for biodiversity, defines biodiversity as
“the variability amongst living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.”
It is important that variability and diversity should be conserved and the benefits for people secured. The UK is playing a leading role in negotiating an ambitious global framework for biodiversity under that convention, and setting targets and policies for biodiversity helps to demonstrate and further that alignment.
From a more technical perspective, the Bill applies the terms “nature” and “biodiversity” for specific purposes. Associated guidance and regulations will make that clear. We certainly want these measures to benefit all aspects of nature for wildlife and other environmental objectives. Substituting “nature” for “biodiversity” in the Bill would risk creating confusion about the purposes of the measures, especially where “biodiversity” is already a well-established term. Measures such as the biodiversity duty or biodiversity net gain are already established and understood policies, being strengthened through the Bill, and our aim should be to improve their functioning, not create confusion with new terminology.
I hope this does not sound facetious but there is an implied assumption within the amendment that people en masse are going to devour the Bill and base their understanding on the Act that we hope it will become. It feels to me that what really matters is delivering the measures in the Bill and the wider communications that will support it. I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that I am not convinced it is the Act itself that will take people with us; rather, it will be the delivery of good policy, good solutions and the wider comms that we all—not just the Government—are going to have to engage in to advance this agenda.
I reassure my local friend Lord Blencathra that I share and understand his vision and the motivation behind his amendment, as I think does every noble Lord, but nevertheless I ask him to withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has indicated that he wishes to speak.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving a definition. He then said it was going to come in regulations. Would it not be better if it were in the Bill?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am not sure it is necessary to add the definition to the Bill itself, but I will certainly consider my noble friend’s comment carefully as we move through the Bill’s various stages.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My apologies, Lord Deputy Chairman; I did not realise you would be calling the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
I am grateful to all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken—those who have supported me, those who are sitting on the fence and those who are opposed. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that if he goes further and looks at the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel guidelines in detail, he will find that there is an instruction there to government departments to write in simple language, and what I am suggesting here follows that OPC instruction.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, made an important contribution that swayed a number of noble Lords. I looked at changing the word “nature” at the start of Clause 1 but then opted to change it in Clause 1(3). I was in two minds about that but then I thought that I wanted the debate on principle, so we should have it early on in the Bill. I accept what he said about the list in Clause 1(3) containing more specific examples of nature. He said that “biodiversity” was the right word to be used in the Bill but I am suggesting, and I have said so all along, that we can define “nature” to be the right word in the Bill and we can make it as specific or general as we wish.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cormack for his attempt at a definition, “nature in all its diversity”. I am not sure it is right but he is simply making the point that it is possible to define this.
My noble friend Lord Caithness said that he was back to sitting on the fence. I am too; I have a leg on either side of it. I am not suggesting that we have “nature” only or “biodiversity” only; I am suggesting that in some parts of the Bill, where it is safe and sensible to do so, we have “nature” and in other bits we have “biodiversity”.
My noble friend the Minister has already pointed out to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering that I was not proposing to change our international conventions, not even the one that I negotiated myself. As a new Minister I was sent to Rio in 1992 with strict instructions: “You’ll be there for 16 days, Mr Maclean MP. You will not agree to anything until John Major comes out and signs up for everything that you’ve got to resist.” I had to sign, or was party to negotiating, the first Convention on Biological Diversity.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, that there is no need for confusion. It depends on how we define this, and I say to her that the word “nature” would strengthen the Bill.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Trenchard for his strong support. If Dasgupta sees the terms as interchangeable, we should change “biodiversity” in the Bill wherever possible.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. He also said that we should make things simple. The next group of amendments but one is about connecting people with nature. The word “nature” does that but “biodiversity” does not.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, says that the Government need to define biodiversity. If the Government cannot define biodiversity in the Bill, how are the public to understand or relate to it? The Government are capable of defining “natural environment” in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, quoted dictionary definitions. What does that dictionary say about “natural environment”? The phrase “natural environment” is not defined in the Bill according to the Oxford English Dictionary; it is defined in a way that the Government have decided. If the Government can define “natural environment”, they can define “nature”.
My noble friend the Minister said that “nature” can be a more expansive term. It can, and if it is not defined it will be much more expansive. The phrase “natural environment” could be a highly expansive term—indeed, some of us have suggestions to expand it a bit more—but the Government have defined it in the Bill and, if you can define “natural environment”, you can define “nature”.
As far as “biodiversity net gain” is concerned, my noble friend picked one example which might confuse business and industry, and developers may worry that “nature net gain” is not the same as “biodiversity net gain”. If that is the case and we cannot explain it, let us not change that bit. I have resiled from my initial position when I wrote to my noble friend two weeks ago that we can change every word. I know that we cannot; it would not be sensible. It could cause legal problems and confusion. Let us not try to change the word where it is not sensible to do so but change it everywhere else.
My noble friend seemed to conclude by saying, “Let’s use biodiversity in the Bill, but out there we will be talking about nature; it’s how we relate to it and how we deliver it”. It seems a bit odd to say, “Well, let’s just keep this among ourselves. We experts who know all about it and we boffins will use biodiversity in the Bill, but we won’t use it out there among the public. For that, we will use ‘nature’”.
I think there is still some merit in what I say, although it has not commanded the majority support of the noble Lords who have spoken today. I would like my noble friend to consider with me whether we can change the word in some instances where it is safe to do so. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 6. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 6
Lord Teverson
“(c) terrestrial biodiversity;(ca) marine biodiversity;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that there is a long-term biodiversity target both on-shore and off-shore.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that in this Bill the Government are committed to targets on biodiversity and the areas that the Bill covers, including waste. There are only four areas listed, which makes choosing targets a pretty challenging task. I look forward to the debate on this group of amendments, where many different options have been put forward. I recognise that this is not straightforward. Unlike climate change, where we can have a couple of metrics—for example, the proportion of grams of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, or look at emissions as a whole in metric tonnes—biodiversity is far more difficult, and I recognise that. It is not necessarily easy for anybody, let alone the Government, to choose the right targets.
However, within the Bill there is a distinct lack of recognition of the maritime area—the seas around our island nation. Not to put emphasis on the seas and oceans, our EEZ and our territorial seas, is a major weakness in the Bill. I have talked to the Minister about this, and I thank him for his conversations. He will point out that “water” is used very generally in the Bill, but it is usually in a context that does not really include oceans and the sea around us. I congratulate the Government on their blue belt initiative for our overseas territories, but I sometimes wish that the focus on our overseas territories was equal to the focus we have on our own seas in the United Kingdom.
I recognise that this is primarily an English Bill, but let me talk in terms of the UK at the moment Not only are we an island nation, but the territorial area of the United Kingdom is just under a quarter of a million square kilometres. If you look at the seas over which we have some jurisdiction, it is three to four times that level—almost a million square kilometres. That is the EEZ plus our territorial seas. Under UNCLOS we have responsibility for those seas beyond just the 12-mile limit, and I think those are important. I will come back to some of these issues later in our proceedings.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 10. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Carrington and Lord Taylor of Holbeach, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for signing it.
It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. We spent quite a long time on the Fisheries Act, as it now is. I think I would say “marine” rather than “maritime” as a concept—“maritime” has more connotations to do with ships and so forth. But “marine” and “terrestrial” also join together, and of course, there are the shores. This issue could be solved, quite frankly, by my noble friend the Minister making it quite clear exactly what is covered by this.
Amendment 10 deals with light pollution, which has increased from a variety of sources, including domestic residences, public infrastructure—particularly lighting along roads and motorways—and industrial activity, such as energy infrastructure. Much of the earth’s population is affected by light pollution. Some 80% of the world’s population now live under sky glow and nearly every European cannot experience a natural night sky from where they live. I have not seen the night sky properly where I live—except possibly in a power cut—but when I occasionally go up to Norfolk, along the coast I am blessed to be able to see the night sky in all its glory.
In recent years, evidence of the impact of light pollution on species and ecosystems has grown and consolidated. Increased artificial light at night is directly linked to measurable negative impacts on energy consumption, obviously, human health and wildlife such as bats, birds, insects and plants. Unnecessary artificial light increases financial costs and contributes to greenhouse emissions. Light pollution should be treated with the same disdain with which we treat all other forms of pollution.
Among other organisations that I belong to, I am a member of Buglife, a charity devoted to the protection of insects. I am pleased to say that this week is National Insect Week. Studies from Germany suggest that a third of insects attracted to street lights and other fixed light sources will die. This results in the death of an estimated 100 billion insects in Germany every summer. Light pollution is reducing nocturnal pollinator visits to flowers by 62%, in some areas. Again, to show my slightly nerdy side, from time to time I put out a moth trap, but mine is not as successful as those of some of my friends elsewhere, who do not have the same light amount of light coming in from other sources. We know that moths are attracted to light, but that it confuses some.
Glow-worms use luminescence to attract prey and mates. Artificial light can affect their ability to do both. Evidence shows a decline in the abundance of glow-worm populations with increased proximity to artificial light.
Birds that migrate or hunt at night navigate by moonlight and starlight. Artificial light can cause them to fly towards lit areas. Recent research shows more birds migrating over urban, rather than rural, areas. This deviation from traditional routes can have a significant impact on energy levels during migration and lead them to stop in suboptimal habitats.
The US recognises bird strikes against high-rise buildings as a real problem. In Texas, the former First Lady Laura Bush heads a lights-out campaign, twice a year, to encourage high-rise buildings to switch off their lights, so that they do not kill all these migratory birds. Some of the photographs you see of the carnage caused underneath these high-rise buildings are disturbing.
Artificial lighting can cause many problems for bats, including disrupting roosting and feeding behaviour and their movement through the landscape. In the worst cases, it can directly harm these protected species. As all bats in the UK feed on insects, loss of food sources is also a considerable threat.
For us humans, light pollution is negatively impacting astronomy and our ability to observe the stars. To look up on a cloudless night and see the stars is one of the more uplifting pleasures that we can have from childhood onwards.
Many marine species such as crabs and zooplankton are attracted to artificial lights near the shore, from ports or gas facilities, which can disrupt feeding and life cycles. Many noble Lords will have seen, in one of the more recent David Attenborough programmes, the disturbing sight of turtles coming to shore when they are hatched instead of going out to the sea. They are designed to be attracted to moonlight, but are going towards cafes and restaurants, with all their lights, crossing roads and perishing. This is a real problem.
The British Astronomical Association estimates that 90% of the population of the UK are unable to see the Milky Way from where they live. Evidence shows that light exposure at the wrong time has profound impacts on human circadian rhythm, affecting physical and mental functions. Artificial lighting has been linked to trees bursting their buds more than a week early, a magnitude similar to that predicted for 2 degrees centigrade of global warming.
My amendment aims to set a commitment to act on matters that relate to light pollution currently omitted from the Environment Bill. I hope it ensures that the Government produce targets to reduce levels of light pollution in England. The evidence is clear that light pollution has a significant impact on the normal activity of invertebrates, birds, bats and plants, and that these impacts are more than sufficient to require action. It would be a failure not to address this before we have long-term data and doing so would go against the Government’s draft environmental principles, in particular the precautionary principle, but also the prevention and rectification-at-source principles.
The UK does not yet report on light pollution levels. However, measuring light pollution is simple. Satellite images can be used to establish pollution levels and the CPRE has developed a nine-band classification system that could form the basis for monitoring change. Existing policy on light pollution does not provide sufficient guidance and is not strong enough to tackle its increasing impact. Several countries have introduced national policies on light pollution, such as Germany, France, Mexico, South Korea, Croatia and Slovenia. When I was last in France, I noticed that some villages have the designation “village étoile”, which they relish, because people go to them specifically to see the night sky.
The UK’s Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended, provides local authorities with statutory nuisance powers to address light pollution, but only when harmful to humans or if it “unreasonably and substantially” interferes with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises. I am afraid this has not resulted in a reduction in general light pollution. The National Planning Policy Framework offers little consideration of light pollution. The only reference states:
“Planning policies and decisions should … limit the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation.”
The last comprehensive consideration of the issue by the Government was the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s 2009 report, Artificial Light in the Environment. However, I am afraid that almost none of its recommendations has been implemented.
On national targets, Clause 1 of the Environment Bill provides power for the Secretary of State to “set long-term targets” by regulation, in relation to
“(a) the natural environment, or (b) people’s enjoyment of the natural environment.”
Subsection (2) requires the Secretary of State to set long-term targets in the four priority areas of air quality, water, biodiversity and resource efficiency and waste reduction.
I strongly believe that light pollution should be considered a priority area too, so that the Government are required to set a long-term target to reduce its impact on nature and people’s enjoyment of it. This amendment is designed to achieve that outcome. A national plan intended to prevent, limit and reduce light pollution must include a series of targets and a programme of monitoring. National targets should be set to include no net increase in light pollution and an ambition to increase the number of dark sky reserves.
Finally, I support Amendment 11 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I have my own amendment later in the Bill, Amendment 112, on soil quality, which is as fundamental as anything in the Bill.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. The later one, Amendment 31, concerns the health of our trees and the first, Amendment 12, planting new trees. It requires the Government to put before Parliament an annual report on the progress made towards achieving the initial target of planting new trees.
The extent and health of what is left of our forests, woodland and trees is a matter of deep concern. We all know the essential role trees play in absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby making a vital contribution to slowing down climate change. A mature tree absorbs carbon dioxide at the rate of 48 pounds per year. In one year, an acre of forest can absorb twice the CO2 produced by the average car’s annual mileage. We know in our personal lives how fundamental our trees are for physical health, aesthetic satisfaction and our spiritual well-being.
The Committee on Climate Change has said that we need to raise our current 13% forest cover to 17% by 2050 if we are to have any chance of meeting our climate goals. At the moment, the Government are missing their tree-planting targets by 40 years. If we continue at the current slow rate of tree planting, the Government’s own 2050 targets will not be met until 2091. As those figures show, the number of trees planted each year needs to be very significantly increased.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this group of amendments is like some sort of dream list that any environment Bill worthy of its name should contain, so I very much hope that the Government will listen to all noble Lords on this. I will speak on only two amendments. First, I signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on marine, which he explained extremely well. All I can say, in less parliamentary language, is that it is plain daft not to include it. How can you not include another biosphere that is so important, not only for fishing and other things but generally for the well-being of anybody who ever goes down to the seaside?
I will speak specifically to my Amendment 32, which is about the controversial issue of reducing meat and dairy consumption. I eat both, so I am well aware of how difficult it is, but I have tailored my diet to reduce substantially my intake. I have also tabled this amendment because it was a clear recommendation from the Climate Change Committee to make a significant reduction in our carbon footprint. Sadly, and proving yet again the inadequacy of the scrutiny bodies in having any binding power over the Government, the recommendations have been ignored. Farming accounts for 12% of greenhouse gas emissions in the UK and, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said in publishing the committee’s report:
“Changing the way we use our land is critical to delivering the UK’s Net Zero target.”
Looking globally, the UN predicts that global red meat consumption will double by 2050, which will be a disaster for the climate and ecology. Animal husbandry can be part of the solution to climate change, as good-practice grass-fed livestock can be an important part of building soil health and sequestering carbon. However, the levels of meat currently demanded in our western diets are simply incompatible with these sustainable practices. It is time for the Government to be quite brave and bold and start facing up to this reality. The Prime Minister should use his political capital—however much he has left—to begin this conversation and start this road to a more sustainable diet. It will be a test: is he really the skilled communicator that he and his allies believe? If so, I would like to set him a challenge: persuading the public that modifying our diets is an important step towards net zero.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, it is difficult to speak to an amendment that has not yet been spoken to by its proposer. I therefore ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether she could make a note of this; we had exactly the same problem during the passage of the Agriculture Bill, which we finally got sorted out. The speakers’ lists should start off with all those who have amendments consequential to the first amendment. I want to speak to Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but she will speak after me. This is nonsense and it does not help the Committee—I am very glad to see some nods around the Chamber from all sides. I therefore hope that my noble friend will make certain that we get a decent speakers’ list in future.
I support what I believe the noble Baroness will say on Amendment 11, just as she supported me on my Amendment 111, which also refers to soil, so we are as one. Soil is critical to the environment. You cannot get good habitats without proper soil. Unless soil is one of the priorities, we will never get there in the first place. There is a lot more to be said about soil later, but at this stage I just want to support the noble Baroness in her amendment.
On the amendments spoken to by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, he raises some very important points but this also shows the difficulty of having targets, particularly where you have plants and species that can be affected by disease and climate change. It will be very difficult to set a target for tree health, because it can change in a matter of years, as the noble and right reverend Lord said about the ash disease. If you set a target and then have to change it, targets become increasingly meaningless. If we are to have targets, they should have a meaning. I am therefore sceptical. I understand what he is trying to do and part of me supports it, but part of me says that it has to work on the ground—we cannot just tick a box and say that we have done targets, and then keep on changing them. We changed the biodiversity 2020 targets because nobody was going to meet them. It brings the whole concept of targets into disrepute.
The noble and right reverend Lord also mentioned the tree-planting target. I have said before that it is not just tree planting that matters but the maintenance of trees. It is terribly easy to plant trees; I planted lots of trees in the year before I went to agricultural college and I hope that some of them have been clear felled by now—they should have been. However, it is disease and animal destruction of trees, and the planting up after the planting and the support for those trees to grow into mature trees, that really matter. I would rather plant fewer trees and get them all up to maturity than plant x plus 10% when 20% will die, as we end up with a minus quantity. The thrust of the noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment is in the right direction, but again, it is about how it will work in practice; it is the practicalities of the Bill that will make it a success or not.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I welcome this small group of amendments. I will speak in particular to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. He has been very kind in supporting my later amendment along the same lines, Amendment 113. I say to my noble friend the Minister that I find it extraordinary that we have this omission whereby the marine environment, marine mammals, marine flora and marine fauna are excluded from the remit of the Bill. In responding to a question at Oral Questions last week, my noble friend the Minister accepted:
“In relation to the sustainability of inshore fisheries, there is undoubtedly a tension between those activities and new wind farms”.—[Official Report, 16/6/21; col. 1886.]
If we are not going to embrace and try to resolve those tensions in the context of this Bill, what mechanism will we use?
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the evidence we took in the EU Environment Sub-Committee on the ecology of the North Sea. It enabled us to look in some depth at the cumulative impact, as I think it is called, of these rather regrettable tendencies that are building up. It was referred to as the “urbanisation” of the seas, particularly the North Sea, with this plethora of new offshore wind farms growing up in a very short period of time without any concept or research being done—we will debate that later—on what the impact will be on the other uses of that part of the North Sea, such as inshore fisheries, which I just referred to, and shipping.
Nor has research been done on the impact on marine mammals both in the construction phase, with the noise and pollution that will inevitably be caused by a major event such as the construction of an offshore wind farm, and in its operation. I find it overwhelming that there has been no research as to why we are seeing dolphins, whales and other marine mammals banking on our shores with increased regularity—even in the River Thames most recently. I am sure that it has something to do with the sonic boom sent out by these offshore wind farms. It is a constant murmur on the seabed, which must be a distraction and cause some pain to marine mammals. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look favourably on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and that it will be added to—or else some very good reasons must be given as to why there is no recognition in the Bill of the maritime area and the contents of marine ecology.
Like other noble Lords, I support a number of other amendments in this group. Soil quality is extremely important; we will hear about that in a moment. I always offer a word of caution to those like the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, who is looking to increase the planting of new trees. We must be extremely careful and approach where these trees are going to be planted very cautiously. I personally would like to see the creation of more peat bogs. It gives us a sense of the concept of time when we appreciate that it takes 200 years to create a peat bog, but I understand that the effects can also be replicated through the building of mini-dams and bunds, which should also be looked favourably upon.
For the reasons I have rehearsed before, my hesitation about encouraging the planting of new trees—they do have a role to play, as we have seen with the Slowing the Flow at Pickering pilot project on flood prevention and alleviation—is that, if grown in the wrong places, trees can actually contribute to flooding. That is a reason to be cautious. Also, only landowners and not tenant farmers can benefit from the planting of trees in any commercial way; they will therefore not benefit from this.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, realises that I hold her in the greatest respect and affection, but I part company with her on this attack on livestock farmers who face all sorts of onslaughts at the moment, including from the Government’s live transport provisions both domestically in this country and externally. I am sure that she and I can have a little private chat offline and reach some agreement on her amendment. This is an interesting group of amendments looking at all sorts of ways in which we can benefit, but I particularly lend my support to Amendment 6.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 11 in this group, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I will endorse the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; I apologise for speaking in advance of them. I will also comment on Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
I declare my interests as recorded on the register. Specifically, I chair the Cawood Group, which has a large soil-testing facility, so I have a commercial interest in the subject; I am a former chair of the Meat and Livestock Commission; and I was a beef and sheep farmer until two years ago.
On Amendment 11, I endorse the importance of soil health and that soil quality should be included on the face of the Bill as a priority area. As I am sure the Minister will agree, the quality of our soil is a matter of deep concern. The degrading of soil is a worldwide problem with huge consequences for the natural environment. As a soil scientist at Rothamsted Research told me many years ago, once soil has been completely degraded, it cannot be recreated. Its loss can be permanent, with all the consequences that might lead to. We often use “fundamental” rather loosely but, as far as soil is concerned, its quality is of fundamental importance. Without healthy soil, our ability to sustain ourselves, have healthy ecosystems and biodiversity and sustain the entire natural world will be impossible, so it is rather odd that it is not included as a priority in the Bill—especially as it was given significant importance in the Government’s 25-year environment plan. Understanding the health of our soil is crucial if we are to continue on the journey towards more sustainable agricultural production and to capture its carbon sequestration potential, since the organic matter content of soil varies enormously. I hope that the Minister will accept this hugely important small amendment.
On Amendment 32, which is also included in this group, I am sorry but, rather like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I must inform the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that I cannot support this amendment. Perhaps we should all join and have a drink afterwards when we can. First, let me say that the idea that the Government will control what we are allowed to eat by regulation would take the nanny state into new territory entirely. So far, successive Governments have failed to compel consumers to eat five portions of fruit and vegetables a day, so their record of managing consumer diets is not a great success story. Obesity continues to spiral out of control; the Government have a huge enough challenge trying to get to grips with that without trying to intrude on the eating of meat and dairy products. I cannot believe that any Government, particularly a Conservative one, would dare to impose such a policy.
Secondly, the amendment bases the regulation of meat and dairy products solely on the emission of methane when we now know that its impact on the environment is nothing like as long-lasting as carbon and without taking into account the huge benefit that the grazing ruminants sector delivers in supporting a vast range of ecosystems and biodiversity, together with vital carbon sequestration capability—not to mention the visual appeal of the British countryside, in which grazing livestock are a big part of the attraction so are important to tourism and the rural economy. Of course, we must continue to reduce the emission of methane and carbon as well as the environmental impact of ruminants, but I am confident that we will achieve that by building on scientific knowledge, which is very encouraging and developing all the time through protogenetics, better management, influence on ruminant diets and the choice of grassland species.
I just add in conclusion that I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on his Amendment 6, which he presented very confidently. I also have a lot of sympathy with Amendment 31 and the comments of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. Tree health is a huge challenge and we need clear action by government; the Bill is an opportunity to try to improve tree health and reduce disease. I shall listen with interest to the Minister’s response on these issues.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise with a very long list of amendments to speak to, and I shall begin by very briefly addressing the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in response to my noble friend’s Amendment 32. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, for offering his support for my Amendment 11 on soils. I agree with him that it is rather odd that it is not initially in the Bill.
On Amendment 32, I first point out that this amendment does not seek to impose a diet on anyone; it sets a target to head the national diet in a certain direction. On what the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, said about methane, yes, its impact on the climate is shorter lasting, but it is also more than a score higher than that of carbon dioxide. When we consider the facts that we have an emergency and have to ensure that we stay below 1.5 degrees above industrial warming right now, the next 10 years are absolutely crucial and methane emissions now particularly crucial.
My noble friend will not forgive me if I do not stress that we very much understand that animal agriculture has an important place in the British landscape, but we have to start by tackling factory farming—for many reasons, from antimicrobial resistance through to the point that it is food waste to feed perfectly good food that people could eat to animals to produce much less food as a result.
I shall now get to the list that I started with. I shall briefly speak to Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, on light pollution. We in the Green group would have attached our signature to this amendment, had there been space to do so. Clearly, this is a huge issue. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred to what has been called “insectageddon”, the huge loss of insect numbers and species, and light pollution is certainly part of that. I also point out that this is very much a case for joined-up government. So much of the light that we emit and pollute our skies with is utterly unnecessary. For example, the French Government have brought in a law that says that neon shop signs have to be switched off between midnight and dawn, which undoubtedly has benefits for the natural world. I am sure it also has huge benefits for people who live in flats above shops, who live in the environment. We are talking about making the environment benefit people and nature.
I also briefly offer support for the general intentions of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, in focusing on trees, while taking on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that we need the right tree in the right place, to use the buzz-phrase. We talk a great deal about tree planting, but it is important that we think about the natural regeneration of trees, because that is one way in which nature will help to ensure that we get the right tree in the right place. We also need to talk a great deal more about agri-forestry and the possibility of forage crops and crops producing human food—nut and fruit trees and so on—mixed in to our existing agricultural systems.
Now I get to the three amendments that I really want to talk about here. I apologise that this will be rather a long speech, but these are short but very important amendments. I come first to Amendment 7, which appears in my name and changes one of the proposed targets set down by the Government. The target as expressed by the Government is for resource efficiency and waste reduction, but I am calling for the words “resource efficiency” to be replaced by “reduction in resource use”. The current wording essentially says, “We’ll continue to treat the planet as a mine and dumping ground, but we will do it less wastefully”. What I suggest is that the law should acknowledge that we cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet and that a circular economy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a sustainable world. In the terms of the neat video, “The Story of Stuff”, which has been around since 2007, we must have less stuff in our lives.
I refer to an important report from the Green Alliance, which I encourage noble Lords to read, which points out that resource use drives half the world’s climate emissions and 90% of nature destruction around the world. The UK’s use of resources, renewable and finite, is twice the level considered sustainable. Of natural resources alone, the UK uses three times as much as the planet can sustainably provide. That report, by what is not by any means a radical green group, calls for resource use to be halved. The UK’s material footprint was estimated at 971 million tonnes in 2018, equivalent to 14.6 tonnes per person. In 1997, 40% of that came from domestic extraction, which fell to 27% in 2018. We are taking a huge quantity of resources from the world—far more than the world can bear.
I stress that cutting resource use does not have to mean a lesser quality of life. When we think about the damage that stuff is doing, whether the ocean is turned into a plastic soup, the planet heated dangerously or soils destroyed in producing food then wastefully fed to animals, which then produces health-damaging junk food, we can see that reducing resource use can considerably improve our quality of life—not just using it better but using less of it. Really, there is no alternative. In a debate on the Finance Bill earlier this month, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew of Oulton, for the Treasury, responded to my remarks along these lines, by pointing to the book More from Less by Andrew McAfee, which claims that technology is enabling the dematerialisation of growth. As many critics have pointed out, however, that book ignores the fact that very often material use and exploitation are being exported, not replaced, and the acceleration of planned obsolescence means that more efficient use of resources has very often not meant less use of resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, pointed us to the United States Geological Survey figures for 72 resources, saying that only six had passed their peak, but that is a reflection of what the known reserves are. What about the damage done to people and nature by extracting them? Mining is by its very nature inevitably destructive. In a world suffering a pandemic of environmental ill health and the biodiversity emergency, more destruction tips us over multiple planetary boundaries, a concept that the response from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, suggests that the Treasury has yet to grasp.
I am well aware that the Minister will find his work cut out in tackling the Treasury on these issues, but I point out that, if this Government want to be—as they so often tell us—world-leading, the European Parliament has demanded that the EU reduce resource use by 2030 and bring it within planetary boundaries, which means cutting it by two-thirds by 2050. That is the target set by the European Parliament. If we are going to be world-leading, that is where the Bill should be going. I am well aware that running the country for the economy instead of running the economy for the well-being of the country is deeply engrained, but that is a challenge for the Minister to take on.
I come to the two other amendments that appear in my name. Before I do, I want to refer back to a comment made in the first group by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who said that we are inadequately exploring the relationship between the Agriculture Act, the Trade Act and the Environment Bill. I had a meeting last week with farmers and farming advisers who expressed to me exasperation and frustration because they were struggling to understand the Government’s intentions in that process. These two amendments that I am about to speak to attempt to deal with some of those issues.
I come to Amendment 11, on soils—and I hope that I get it through. I express my great thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for attaching his name to this amendment and want to thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for expressing their support for it. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said, it is astonishing that it is not in the Bill to start with.
I want to quote Thomas Jefferson:
“While the farmer holds the title to the land, actually, it belongs to all the people because civilization itself rests upon the soil.”
I will also refer to a few points in the report The State of the Environment: Soil from the Environment Agency in June 2019. It is really telling that it says:
“There is insufficient data on the health of our soils and investment is needed in soil monitoring”.
It is very clear that we do not know enough, and if we set a target, that will create a framework where we need to do the measuring. In some ways perhaps it is a bit “chicken and egg”—but let us get this started, because it clearly needs to happen.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I see this as a key grouping and I intend to speak to Amendment 10, moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It is ironic that we are debating this issue on the day of the summer solstice. However, I am an enthusiast for the Bill, and I think I share that with the previous speaker—although perhaps she is more prone to amending the Bill than I would be. I want to see the Bill on the statute book and, from past experience, I am averse to yet another approach to lists. Dream or not, they do not appeal to me, so it must be really something to get me to seek a change in a Bill.
However, light pollution is a real contamination of our environment. My noble friend drew the attention of the House to the briefing from Buglife, which I too have read, but it is there for us all to see. Light pollution affects not only human health, animal health and bird health; it affects insect health—not only how they function but how they can act as pollinators. There are serious environmental consequences of light pollution. I believe that Amendment 10 picks up on the need for the Bill to allow the Government and local government to set standards, to measure, to monitor and, if necessary, to control, avoid and reduce light pollution.
I must declare my interest in that I am a founding member and vice-chairman of the APPG for Dark Skies. The group was inaugurated by the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, and my honourable friend Andrew Griffiths in another place.
There has been a revolution in lighting: you get a lot of lumens for your buck nowadays. Lighting, properly used, is a good thing. It helps us with road safety and street safety, and with personal and property security. All these things benefit from lighting. But, living in a fenland landscape, I can say that bright lights over a porch doorway from a mile away are not a pretty sight. Lighting installed incorrectly and used inappropriately is a menace.
Closer to home, there is a new development that provides a strong focus for the need to control light pollution. Noble Lords will know what I am involved in intensive horticulture, and I am familiar with Westland, in the area of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, which glows in the night sky as it produces crops. Nearer to home, I am familiar with the Chichester plain, which also has an extensive glass area under lighting. We are now looking at vertical farming, and that after all poses many of the same challenges.
I believe that by putting this amendment in the Bill, we will have regard for this issue. If we are not going to lose the magic of the night sky, we need to do so. Last night, I watched the programme by Brian Cox on the magic of the heavens. They are a fascinating thing and our birthright. It would be a tragedy if by carelessness we lost this for humankind. I support the amendment.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. I put my name on this group only because I want to support Amendment 10. I will not repeat a lot of what the experts said, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Before I say anything about Amendment 10, I want to advise the Minister. In the previous debate, I referred to the preparation of legislation report in 1975. I advise his office to look at the 2013 government report from parliamentary counsel, When Laws Become Too Complex. He does not have to read it all, but it makes a couple of good points about why laws become complex and why Bills have grown: because every group you can think of wants its bit in the Bill. We know it is a competitive arrangement out there from the kind of briefs we get. We get multiple briefs these days, with maybe 20 groups joined together to save us getting 20 separate ones. We need to be very wary.
The idea is to get the Bill and get some action. That is probably more important. The average size of a Bill in 2009—there is obviously some delay here because I take this from the 2013 report—was 98 pages. This Bill is more than twice the average size of a Bill in those days. It already has a huge number of issues that have been planted there by what I will call pressure groups. I am not being critical, by the way, because I agree with many of the speeches that I have heard this afternoon, but I would rather have the Bill and some action than delays to get the holy grail—it will not work.
On light pollution, I was one of those who always approved of permanent summer time—we never managed to get it through—because I think it would be a good idea. I realise there is a problem; the Scots do not want it. It is one of those issues, but I am in favour of it.
The fact of the matter is that presently the Government’s planning guidance, which I think was updated in November 2019, gives advice and guidance but no action. It talks about the common causes of complaints to local authorities. We all know about domestic, shops, exterior security and insensitively positioned decorative lighting. I live—looking out of the window—in Shropshire. I live in the middle of Ludlow, so it is not completely light free, even at night. One or two buildings leave on their security lights, there is street lighting, and even the railways. But the fact of the matter is that looking at the night sky is difficult anywhere in England these days. I also saw the programme with Professor Brian Cox last night. They could not have taken those photographs of 13 billion light-years away with the kind of pollution we have here.
It is the kind of lighting. No action is being taken on the Government’s guidance—I do not think that local authorities do anything on white light sources or filtering out the blue and ultraviolet light. That can be a problem for some people, and not just people. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said, the guidance is only for people and does not take account of the billions of creatures we share this planet with. They are being lost because of light pollution. There is a strong case for putting this amendment in the Bill so that we can get some action.
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness want to give the Secretary of State powers to set targets separately in respect of “terrestrial biodiversity” and “marine biodiversity”. Actually, the definition of “natural environment”, as contained in Clause 43, makes clear that it includes the marine environment as well as the terrestrial and water environments. I do not support this amendment because it is unnecessary. Furthermore, it appears to exclude the crucially important area of the water environment.
I also do not support Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It may well be that efficiency is improved by the increased use of some resources and reduced use of others. This depends on the availability and cost of various resources. The noble Baroness’s amendment is too prescriptive and would constrain the Secretary of State unreasonably in the exercise of his powers.
I welcome Amendment 10, in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It is regrettable that the Bill does not cover light pollution. As new road schemes are progressively introduced across the country, many of them are connected with existing roads by new roundabouts, often on high ground above the towns and villages to which they provide relief. They can be seen for miles. Highways regulations require that roundabouts be lit, unlike gradual road junctions. This is an increasing source of light pollution and has a significant effect on the urbanisation of the countryside. Although I am not sure how to measure the “people’s enjoyment” of the countryside, light pollution has a negative effect.
If my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendment were accepted, at least in some places, could the meaning of “nature” not be extended to include the soil and the organisms that live in it? In that case, Amendment 11 would be redundant.
Amendments 12 and 31, in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, require the Secretary of State to set targets for the planting of new trees. He spoke with conviction in support of his amendments, but I believe that the Secretary of State already has the necessary power to set targets for tree planting, and I wonder whether this needs to be made a separate priority area.
Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to add “nitrogen management” as a priority area, over which the Secretary of State must set a long-term target. Nitrogen is essential for both plant and animal life, but I am not sure that it is necessary to add another priority area because this is surely already included in Clause 1(3)(c), whether we call this “nature” or “biodiversity”. Furthermore, excessive use of nitrogen in fertilisers has already been reduced by more than a third since the mid-1980s.
Amendment 32, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is terrifying, and I hope that my noble friend does not accept it. It seeks to reduce the amount of meat and dairy products that we consume by 20%. I know that the Committee on Climate Change has recommended that we reduce our livestock production, but I am very sceptical that this would have the slightest impact on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Certainly, growing more trees will help, but 65% of British land is suitable only for livestock grazing, and I believe British farmers will find that the growing middle classes in Asia will steadily recognise the quality of our meat products, opening up new and profitable markets for them.
We have grazed cattle and sheep in this country for thousands of years, and the state should not be in the business of telling us to eat less meat, whether through new draconian measures or the application of taxes that would reduce the profitability of our farms, driving farmers off the land and reducing the proportion of our food that is home-produced.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on his amendment, which I support. The marine environment, onshore and offshore, is vitally important, as we on the environmental sub-committee found on many occasions when we were discussing fisheries. Perhaps this is another case of not knowing what we have got until it is gone. There is a danger of over-fishing the environment, and acting in ways that damage the seabed, and that can have profound effects. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is right to stress the importance of this issue.
Before I go on to the light pollution amendment, which I have put my name to, I want to emphasise something that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said. I am puzzled why the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, wants to worry about people eating meat: if ever there was a cause that young people seem to embrace, it is vegetarianism—and indeed veganism. You do not need a government diktat to tell them to do that. Last night, we ate steak at our local pub; today, we had one of Lady Young’s delicious vegetable bakes. You do not need the state to interfere in this—there is a balance to be struck.
I am at one with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about meat and dairy farming. Farming is changing fundamentally. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, reminded us, the use of fertiliser has dropped dramatically, and the way it is applied is much more scientific.
I noticed that there was a sort of aside by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, when she referred to mining. Yes, there will be mining, because we want lithium for batteries for electric cars—unless she is proposing that that is not a way forward. There are those who say that we should not be using cars at all, but you would have a job to convince the British public of that. Even there, science and technology are likely to come to our aid: a different type of battery, possibly using sulphur, may well be available in the future.
I think the advice of my noble friend Lord Rooker and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, was right: we want an Environment Bill, and there is no such thing as a perfect Bill. I remember trying to deal with a Bill on the digital economy—a small Bill that was swamped by about 700 amendments. We have to strike a balance on this Bill.
On the effect of light pollution, I am at one with the noble Lords, Lord Randall and Lord Taylor, and others. There are so many benefits that we can achieve through controlling light pollution. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said, lighting has come along in leaps and bounds, and local authorities are quite capable of doing a lot more to control the use of lighting. Although we are now using LEDs, I notice that they still shine just as brightly right through the night, when they clearly do not need to.
I remember driving along a country lane just outside Swanage, with my two young children. It was completely dark. We looked up at the sky and there, before their amazed eyes, was the Milky Way, stretched out before them in a way they had never seen in town. When I said, “Look, there is a shooting star”, I was met first with derision but was eventually proved right. We are probably never going to be able to return to seeing the Milky Way in London, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and others have brought to the Committee’s attention, we could make a profound difference on pollinators, on the kind of environment that we live in, and on energy saving. I am keen on both those amendments, and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish principally to support Amendments 12 and 31, in the name of my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth, which are about trees. Before I say something about those, I will say a few words about Amendment 6, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and Amendment 10, about light pollution.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is right to draw attention in Amendment 6 to the maritime or marine environment, but the terrestrial and the marine aspects are interconnected and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, pointed out, there is no need for the amendment. You have only to go to the Isle of May—not very far from Edinburgh, where I am—at the mouth of the Firth of Forth, which is inhabited by very large numbers of puffins, to see the way in which that interconnection works. At this time of year, puffins come ashore in their thousands, with their beaks full of sand eels, to feed their young in burrows all round the island. These sand eels live in the sea, and they live on other things in the sea. The maritime environment is their environment, but they are caught by feeding seabirds, which of course spend much of their time at sea as well. The interconnection is obvious in places such as that, and I do not see the need for a distinction. But we do need the Minister to confirm that, when he talks about biodiversity, he means both maritime and terrestrial.
As for light pollution, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, that the summer solstice is a curious time of the year to be talking about it. In my cottage at Craighead in east Perthshire, you can read a newspaper outside at 11 pm. Even at midnight, almost half the sky is still light. We live up in the hills where there is no light pollution at all, and enjoy all the benefits and wonders of the sky where that is true. It is not entirely free of light pollution, because there is a wind farm not far from us which, until recently, had a bright red, winking light warning passing aircraft; it flashed 60 times a minute, right in front of our cottage. We were able to stop it, because there is a condition that required that element of light pollution to be removed by moving to ultraviolet light. This is just a small example of how things can be done by planners who put in the appropriate planning permissions for developments. There is a huge amount of work to do here and, as a bird-watcher, I support very much what the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said about the huge damage done to birds by light pollution, and the enormous loss of life that results to other animals, such as bats, as well.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of the Woodland Trust—I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his positive remarks about that organisation—and as a commissioner on the Commission on Food, Farming and the Countryside.
I will speak to Amendments 11, 12 and 31. Amendment 11 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Whitty indicates that soil quality is a priority area for environmental improvement; that is absolutely the case. Soil has for many years been the poor relation as regards environmental media and priorities yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, outlined so clearly, we are now recognising the importance of our soils and their complex ecosystems for a whole variety of things, such as climate change, agriculture, biodiversity, and reducing runoff and erosion to maintain water quality. So, it would be highly appropriate for soil to be highlighted as a priority; I support that amendment.
On Amendment 12 in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, as chairman of the Woodland Trust, I would commend tree planting, of course, but not just planting. If we are to reverse biodiversity decline and tackle climate change, we need to ensure that existing woodlands are effectively managed to maximise their impact on both of those challenges. We know that existing woodland is for the most part not in good condition, particularly native broadleaf woodland. We also need to ensure that our much-threatened ancient woodlands are properly protected so that, after 300 or 400 years of existence, they can continue their vital task of sequestering carbon and fostering biodiversity for another 100 years or more. We also need to see more natural regeneration of trees. But let us be in no doubt: trees are an important priority and this amendment should be supported. If any noble Lords are in any doubt or need further information, I commend to you the State of the UK’s Woods and Trees, recently published by the Woodland Trust.
Amendment 31, also in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, introduces a new target on tree health. I very much support the spirit of that amendment. I am looking out of my study window on a dying 80-foot ash tree, which is protected by a tree protection order but not from tree disease. I am not sure that targets are the right way forward for tree disease, but I support the need for an annual report from government on action on tree health. Because of the importance of this issue, I have laid Amendment 259, which is about the “how” of biosecurity, and preventing importation of tree disease can help. I do hope that I will have the support of the noble and right reverend Lord when we reach that amendment.
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I had put myself down to speak in this group to support the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, little realising that I would be following the chairman of the Woodland Trust, therefore making it difficult to add much in support of these two amendments. I had thought that the Government’s policy on planting more trees was already in a piece of legislation, but if it is not, it seems sensible to include it as a priority area, and, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has also tabled, to strengthen the regulations on tree health. As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, we have in recent years been blighted by diseases in elm, ash, chestnut and larch, to mention just some of the trees which we have lost. Research into these disease-resistant varieties must also be a sensible suggestion. I should be very grateful to hear from the Minister why tree planting should not be a priority area.
I also wish to support introducing for discussion the question of light pollution for inclusion in the Bill as a priority. This amendment has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who is clearly knowledgeable on this subject, as on so many others. He is completely right about how difficult it is nowadays to have a good view of the night sky. Again, on this I should be most interested to hear the Government’s response to what appears to be a very sensible amendment. I also understand why a number of noble Lords have spoken about soil quality, which is clearly a fundamental element of all aspects of the environment and of biodiversity, and should surely be considered as another priority area.
I am sorry that like the noble Lord, Lord Curry, I am unable to support Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I should hear declare my agricultural interests. As others have said, and as the noble Baroness acknowledges, there is a huge difference between livestock fed on grass pastures in the United Kingdom and meat produced in feed lots amounting to thousands of animals on each lot, fed largely on concentrates, in North and South America, and in Australasia.
In this very diverse group of amendments, there are so many issues to which I look forward to hearing the Government’s reaction, but I also understand the excellent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that if there is too much in the Bill, there is less likelihood of action.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and so many other environmentally passionate Peers, and to talk to this important group of amendments to add further priority areas to the Bill’s environmental targets.
There is of course the danger that focus on individual priority areas relegates other areas to non-priority status. Given that all of our natural environment is in crisis, I should be wary of picking winners and losers at a singular point in time. I should appreciate it if the Minister, when responding to this group, could explain why these four priority areas were being enshrined in this legislation to the exclusion of any others, and what mechanism might be available to amend this list in future, should priorities necessarily change in coming decades. A priority in 2021 may not be a priority in 2041, and it would not help the environment if we were held to antiquated decades-old priorities.
On Amendment 6, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, while I agree on the importance of the marine environment, I remain unconvinced as to the benefits of dividing between terrestrial and marine biodiversity targets. This would set a false division, particularly for those of us who live and work in the intertidal habitats which are a key element of our national biodiversity. Such intertidal spaces, with their vast carbon sequestration potential and particularly productive biodiversity, would be covered either by both targets, which may be considered unfair double counting, or by neither, which would be much worse.
Here I should declare my interests as listed in the register, a number of which are pertinent to this debate and to all my further contributions. In particular, I am a farmer and landowner in Devon, with interests in farmland, foreshore and heritage landscapes, to which public access is key. I am also a lawyer at a firm with natural capital and agricultural practices which represents farmers, land managers, developers and financiers of ecosystem services.
I have some sympathy with Amendment 7 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but it sets a false target which I fear we would be doomed to miss. With our population inevitably growing over the coming decades, we will undoubtedly use more of certain resources and we cannot limit ourselves to an absolute reduction in all resource use, but it is right that we commit to an absolute reduction in waste and an absolute increase in resource efficiency.
I do not agree that either light pollution or nitrogen management deserves separate priority status, as proposed in Amendments 10 and 14. Both are undoubtedly important issues, but they are merely two among many environmental concerns that should not be separately elevated.
Conversely, as to Amendment 11, I believe that soil quality or soil health warrants its own independent priority status, as soil quality is key to the health of our landscape, the provision of healthy and nutritious food, the management and retention of water and the increase in biodiversity, as well as the sequestration of carbon. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, soil is the “mineral substrate” on which our biodiversity has grown. The absence of soil alongside air and water among our priority categories is a gaping omission. As the Bill is drafted, focus will fall predominantly on air and water, and our soil will continue to suffer. It is also noteworthy that soil is the most complex and least understood of our natural habitats. Academics continue to struggle in evaluating the natural capital value of soil, as it is much harder to measure than air or water. By omitting it from Clause 1(3), we are in danger of giving it a permanently second-tier status.
As to trees, which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, seeks to add as both a priority area and a specific environmental target, I am again very sympathetic, but I do not believe they warrant the separate attention that soil so clearly deserves. We already have a national tree strategy and ambitious planting targets within the 25-year environment plan, and trees should continue to get considerable attention with or without these amendments. However, I note that Amendment 12 focuses on the planting of new trees, whereas of more importance, and as set out in Amendment 31, is the management of our existing tree cover, much of which is in poor condition and badly managed. We need to avoid focusing solely on new tree planting targets and should instead give equal if not more attention to thinning existing plantations and managing pests and diseases to ensure that the trees we have are as healthy as possible.
Finally, I have to resist the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to regulate by statute our consumption of meat and dairy. What her amendment does not and cannot do is address the complex issues around meat and dairy farming which are key to the maintenance of our ancient and much-valued pastures. As a Devon farmer, I am bound to resist such regulations, but I encourage the Government to do all they can to promote the UK’s grass-fed meat and dairy as a vastly better form of protein than stall-raised, cereal-fed alternatives from overseas. While I agree that we need to eat less meat and dairy, it needs to be achieved by education and dietary and well-being awareness, and what we do eat needs to be better and locally produced.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Amendment 31 standing in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. In doing so, I also give my support to the lead amendment in this group, Amendment 6, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I hope that the Minister can accept Amendment 6 and incorporate it into the Bill. I indeed agree with many of the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, a moment ago, particularly with regard to trees.
Amendment 31 addresses a tragic contemporary issue: tree disease. I remember, last year hearing the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, speak extremely movingly about the issue of ash dieback, which has been acutely evident in parts of Wales, particularly in Ceredigion, as he knows better than anyone. I should, perhaps, declare an interest: on our fields we had to fell four ash trees last November, because ash dieback was already devastating them. Our tree feller told me then that I probably face several more trees having to be felled this autumn. It is heart-breaking that, on our roadsides in Wales and along our cycle tracks, we see trees with orange marks designating that they have this awful condition and are doomed to be felled. I support this amendment. We are in the middle of a war against tree disease and, in any such battle, we must be adequately equipped with the facts.
In many ways, it is surprising that the considerations covered by this amendment are not already part of government strategy. If they are, perhaps the Minister could put me right. They certainly should be. I hope that he can provide us with assurances that all these provisions are really covered in legislation or, if they are not, that the Government will seriously consider each of the various proposals included in this amendment. If they cannot accept the wording, perhaps they will bring forward at Report their own amendment that can deal effectively with these issues.
Finally, again, can the Minister give an assurance that there is cross-border co-operation with the Welsh Government on this issue, as tree infections are no respecters of political borders? I urge support therefore for both Amendments 6 and 31.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I would like to speak in favour of Amendment 10 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Randall and Lord Taylor. The effect of light pollution is intrinsically part of the existing four priority areas for which environmental targets will be set, but it is not mentioned in any of the actions identified in the Bill to remedy or mitigate the underlying issues raised by these targets. Hence a separate target to reduce levels of light pollution is necessary and will not be difficult to implement or measure.
I declare my interest, being a vice-chair of the APPG on Dark Skies, like the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, and as the grandson of a knighted astronomer. Light pollution is relevant to human health, nature and wildlife, energy consumption and thereby greenhouse gas emissions. First, on health, epidemiological studies conducted in the United States have identified poorer sleep and anxiety disorders emanating from outdoor illumination, affected physical and mental health and well-being. Constant light is a well-known method of torture. Secondly, there is the effect on nature and wildlife. A review from Nature magazine in 2018 concluded that
“early results suggest that light at night is exerting pervasive, long-term stress on ecosystems, from coasts to farmland”
and
“waterways, many of which are already suffering from other, more well-known forms of pollution.”
The article then mentions a UK study on the timing of bud opening in trees, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. The study demonstrated a rate of acceleration “similar to that” now “predicted for … global warming”.
A Defra report in 2019 showed a sharp decline in insect numbers, with a 31% drop in insect pollinators between 1980 and 2016, and a 60% decline in the 2,890 priority species from 1970 to 2016. The State of Nature 2019 report by the National Biodiversity Network identified urban areas as particularly affected. In 2017, a paper from Nature highlighted the connection between light pollution and pollinating insect species, suggesting a threat to world food production.
Thirdly, there is the additional and unnecessary fuel consumption associated with aggressive illumination and the extra burden on greenhouse gas emissions. The reason for illumination that is so often given is that of safety. A study by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine found that crime and road collisions do not increase in dark or dimmed areas.
Measuring light pollution is simple, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, with the use of a system produced by CPRE that can form the basis of monitoring change. Let us use this opportunity to acknowledge and deal with this important area, as encouraged by the Government’s draft environmental principles, encompassing both precaution and prevention. Measures to remedy the problems are not rocket science but clearly achievable through the strengthening of the planning framework, the reform of planning permission processes, the strengthening of statutory nuisance provisions, education, and technological developments. We can also learn from examples of measures taken in countries such as France and Germany.
Surely the amendment has a necessary and worthy place in this important Bill.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendment 10, to which I have added my name, and I support other amendments in this group. I declare my interest, as others have done, as a member of the APPG for Dark Skies. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, has made the case for his amendment very eloquently, as has the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach.
When I was a child—this was a while ago—I was brought up in Bristol. Like all children, I was fascinated by the moon, which shone in the sky. Man had not yet ventured to the moon, which I felt was a distant, magical planet. Although we lived in a city, it was possible to see the night sky. Streetlights were switched off before midnight, probably at about 11 pm. There was much less human activity at night in those days. I was therefore able to concoct wonderful stories in my imagination about the man in the moon and the shadows on the moon’s surface.
Roll forward to today, and the map of the country often shown on news bulletins is of a land illuminated by streetlights that are not turned off. The areas where darkness prevails are few and far between. It is impossible for a child living in an urban area to investigate the sky and see the stars twinkling in the light reflected from the moon.
To move from the emotional view of light pollution to the detail of it, it is impacting our species and ecosystems, and increased artificial light at night is directly linked to negative impacts on energy consumption, human health and wildlife such as bats, insects and plants, as others have referred to. Ten years ago I could walk down the lane at 10 pm and bats would be swooping around overhead, consuming gnats and other flying insects. Today it is very rare to see any bats overhead at night. There is a wealth of information about the effect on birds and insects of artificial light, and others have made powerful speeches about the impact of light pollution on night pollinators and on feeding cycles.
My neighbour has a telescope in their upstairs window to see the stars. How very lucky we are to live in a dark area—the only light pollution that we suffer is from Advent to Epiphany, when the church is illuminated by floodlights—but over 90% of the UK population are estimated to be unable to see the Milky Way from where they live. To my mind, that is a severe limit on their ability to observe and wonder at the world that we live in, as well as having a devastating effect on the ecosystems and biodiversity of the nocturnal environment. The night-time economy is often referred to as a good thing. It is time that the animal, insect and plant nocturnal economy was given protection to ensure its survival. I fully support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Randall.
My noble friend Lord Teverson spoke eloquently about the long-term biodiversity target, both onshore and offshore. I share his comments and his concerns about our territorial seas, the marine ecosystems and seagrass.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, urged us to reduce consumption of resources rather than improve efficiency. To make a difference, both will need to be high on the Minister’s agenda.
Tree planting, which we have debated many times, is essential to carbon sequestration, habitat protection and improving flood alleviation. Protecting our native trees from diseases imported from other countries and those carried on the wind is essential to maintain a steady increase in the number of trees. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harris of Pentregarth, raised tree planting.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on soil quality is really important; the subject was raised on Second Reading. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has also supported this. If we do not get the soil quality right, we will not move forward.
We are all aware of the contribution that cattle make to agricultural emissions—currently accounting for 60%. The Committee on Climate Change recommends that the Government implement a 20% reduction in the consumption of meat and dairy; most speakers referred to that. Can the Minister say whether the Government are preparing a strategy to ensure that this 20% reduction is implemented? Perhaps this will be through raising awareness with the public of the effect on the environment of meat and dairy consumption.
This has been an important and fascinating group of amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for introducing this important debate and all noble Lords who have contributed to the hugely important spectrum of issues raised this evening.
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a significant point that repairing our marine biodiversity is as important as rebuilding our land-based biodiversity. But it is true that, as it stands, the Bill ignores the marine environment completely. I agree that that needs to be addressed.
Sadly, our seas and oceans are increasingly polluted. Plastics and microplastics, chemical fertiliser, run-offs from agriculture and, as we debated earlier, sewage discharges, are all damaging the quality of our seas. We are killing off our coral, creating ocean dead zones, and allowing excess algae blooms to suck the oxygen out of our water. The effects of this are damaging to both marine and human life, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, argued, if we act now, reverse those trends and encourage new growths of seaweeds and seagrasses, the oceans could be harnessed as a positive source of carbon sequestration in our climate change strategy. There is everything to fight for.
In his Second Reading response, the Minister mentioned the blue belt around our overseas territories. Of course this is welcome, as is the growth of marine protected areas around the UK coastline, but there is so much more we should be doing. The current marine protected areas still allow damaging seabed extraction and fishing. I hope the Minister can confirm that the recommendation of his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, that there should be a string of highly protected marine areas will be implemented in full.
Sadly, so far, the Government have seemed reluctant to legislate to ensure that any future marine protections are legally enforceable. That is why we would welcome the inclusion of robust marine biodiversity targets in the Bill. Our experience with the Fisheries Bill last year was that the Government were not prepared to put sustainable fishing at the heart of the Bill. As a result, the charity Oceana has reported that, post Brexit, only one-third of the UK’s key fish populations is in a healthy state, with bottom trawlers and supertrawlers causing particularly damaging effects on the marine environment. So, if not now, when will we see action on these issues?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions, and I would like to clarify that the Bill gives us the power to set legally-binding long-term targets on any aspect of the natural environment, including the marine environment, soils and waste reduction. In further answer to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, we are not limiting our targets to four, nor are we binding the hands of future Governments. Developing targets is an iterative process where we should seek continuous improvements to strengthen our environmental outcomes. The Government will periodically review targets and can set more, especially if that is what is required to deliver significant improvement to the natural environment in England.
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for tabling Amendment 6. I reassure the noble Lord and others who have spoken on this issue that the initial round of targets is likely to include a target that covers the marine environment. I am pleased to confirm that we are collating evidence with a view to developing a new target on the condition of marine protected areas right now. We are aware that any marine-related target will need to complement and avoid duplication with the existing suite of targets set at UK level under the UK marine strategy. However, we do not want to prejudge where this evidence-based process will take us.
I want to comment on a number of points raised by noble Lords regarding marine targets and will touch on the “significant improvement test” for targets covered in Clause 6. A government amendment made in the other place clarified that both the terrestrial and marine aspects of England’s natural environment will be considered when conducting the significant improvement test. That has always been the ambition and there has never been any doubt about it, but that amendment removes whatever doubt might still linger. I hope that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Young, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about the importance of our domestic marine environment, highlighting the great story that is our blue belt programme around our overseas territories. She is right of course that we need to do much more to protect our domestic marine environment. We are at a stage now where we have 372 marine protected areas, that is about 38% of UK waters, but the focus now, having designated all those marine protected areas, has to be on ramping up protection. There is no doubt about that. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the central conclusions and recommendations of the Benyon Review Into Highly Protected Marine Areas and I believe the first designations are expected early next year. If that is wrong, I will be in touch, but I think it is early next year.
With regards to Amendment 7, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, our current target priority area is
“resource efficiency and waste reduction.”
The broader notion of “resource efficiency” in the Bill’s clauses, rather than “reduction of resource use” in the noble Baroness’s amendment, allows us to explore a target on resource productivity, which measures the economic value per unit of raw material use. This builds on the Government’s previous commitments to double resource productivity by 2050. Setting a target of resource productivity would allow us to reduce resource use, while helping to build the economy’s resilience to price volatility, increase resource security and enhance our international competitiveness. The concern is that the noble Baroness’s amendment would restrict our target development in this area.
Moving on, I agree very strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that soil health is important. It is more than important, it is almost a pre-requisite for our survival, a point made by my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Curry. This is why the Government are working collaboratively with technical experts to identify appropriate soil health metrics that can represent diverse functions and ecosystem services provided by soils across different land-use types. As she explained so well in her speech, it is a complicated business and an area where our understanding is perhaps not as complete as it should be.
These metrics will inform the development of the healthy soils indicator, as set out in the 25-year environment plan. We are also developing an evidence base, which could inform a long-term soil target and our understanding of soil health. Given our evidence-based approach to developing targets, I am sure that the noble Baroness appreciates the need to gather more data on soil health before pressing on and setting the actual target.
On Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, Defra modelling indicates that the action planned in the Clean Air Strategy to achieve existing legally binding targets will reduce the
“damaging deposition of reactive forms of nitrogen by 17% over … protected priority sensitive habitats by 2030”.
However, I scribbled my notes on that percentage in haste, and my writing is so bad that I might have got the percentage wrong. If I have, again, I will be in touch, but I think I can just about see what I have written here.
Moving on to the amendments tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, I agree that increasing tree cover and improving tree health are, of course, important areas that require action, as many noble Lords have echoed. As noted in the policy paper on environmental targets published in August last year, the Government are considering a statutory target for trees in England. We will consult on a long-term tree target to help meet the Government’s commitments on climate change and biodiversity as part of a broader public consultation on targets expected early next year, based on recommendations of the Climate Change Committee. Again, we should not prejudge where this evidence-based process will take us. I also note that the Government have already committed, potentially as a first step, to at least 7,000 hectares per year in England by 2025, as announced in the recently published England Trees Action Plan, and have announced a Nature for Climate Fund of £640 million to increase planting in England.
I note the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the potential role of natural regeneration over and above formal planting. I strongly agree with her there again. We have designed our incentives package in such a way that people can present plans for natural regeneration. If they are appropriate plans, the Government will provide the funding, just as they would in relation to other forms of tree planting. I hope we will see a significant uptake in the amount of land that is allowed to naturally regenerate.
I hope it reassures the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to know that the Tree Health Resilience Strategy—published in 2018—outlined plans to protect England’s tree population from pest and disease threats. Tree health is continually monitored under Forest Research’s national forest inventory, providing accurate information about the condition of our forests and woodlands. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, asked if we co-operated with Wales. The answer is that we absolutely do so very regularly on an issue which, as he rightly says, does not respect borders. Our evidence suggests that the right approach is to continue to use these measures to drive positive results for tree health.
Before I move off this issue, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, asked that we do not merely focus on new trees. He is right; the amount of existing woodland that is managed is far lower than it ought to be. I encourage him to look again at the England Trees Action Plan because there is a big emphasis throughout the plan on incentives for the better management of existing woodlands.
Moving on to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, based on the currently available evidence, artificial light is not identified as one of the main drivers of species decline, though I very much share his concerns on this issue. I agree, of course, that there is an urgent need for increased and further study in this area. The Government continue to take a broad approach to conserving insect pollinators, including in relation to artificial light. This includes measures such as controls in the planning system and the statutory nuisance regime.
As the designation of several of England’s national parks as International Dark Sky Reserves demonstrates, we are working to protect exceptional nocturnal environments, which bring huge natural, educational and cultural enjoyment to members of the public, a point made extremely powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I hope this goes some way to reassuring my noble friends Lord Taylor and Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Carrington, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that we take this issue seriously.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I would be most grateful if the Minister could tell us what financial assessment has been made of the short-term benefit from these amendments, particularly the one on light pollution. There is a high cost to the NHS of the human health conditions that are aggravated by excessive light pollution exposure, especially in mental health disorders, and probably obesity and some cancers. There is also the financial benefit of decreasing the contamination of our marine waters, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, highlighted. That contamination seriously damages our seafood production. The financial benefit in the short term could therefore go hand in hand with a longer-term benefit from both these amendments of meeting our other targets.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. On the first point about the cost assessments in relation to light pollution, I do not know whether that data exists. If it does, I have not seen it but I will ask the department whether it exists. If it does, I will make that information available by putting it in the Library—but I am not convinced that it does. On the broader point, in a sense this goes to the heart of the Bill. There are enormous cost savings in doing right by the environment. We know that if we do not use chemicals on our farms and allow them to wash into rivers, we will not have to spend money cleaning up our rivers downstream. If we manage land in a way that slows down the flow of water, we will need to spend less on concrete flood defences further downstream. It goes on and on. Perhaps the biggest saving of all relates, as the noble Baroness says, to human health. It is not an exact science; there is no data that we can point to and say, “This is exactly what we’re going to save by doing this or that”. But there is no doubt that if we take care of our environment in a way that, frankly, we have not for many decades, there will be an enormous saving to society in many different respects as a consequence.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken favourably on Amendment 6 about the maritime side, particularly my Green Party colleagues who have added their names to it. Having referred, as has the Minister, to Clause 6, I have ploughed my way through 233 sections of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and am delighted to confirm that the Bill does define “England” as including not just territorial seas but the EEZ. That is certainly how I read it. It is an improvement, and I welcome it.
I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that the marine and territorial ecosystems and environments are completely interconnected. Absolutely they are, but that is not the point. The point is that, if there is one target it will almost certainly be terrestrial and the whole of marine will be left out, or the other way around: we need them both. I take the Minister’s assurance that there will probably be more than four. I hope there will be something like the Ocean Health Index—I am sure he is aware of it—which is being developed internationally, as well as nationally. I welcome the fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, that the recommendations from the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, on highly protected marine areas will come forward. I have an amendment about that later.
I am optimistic that the Government have included in the Bill the marine side of things. This can often be left out, but I know that that is not true of the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Could I suggest a five-minute adjournment while we just look for the Minister?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 8. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 8
“(e) public access to and enjoyment of the natural environment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is designed to require, rather than enable, the Government to set legally binding, long-term targets to increase public access to, and enjoyment of, the natural environment.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
One of the themes that has run through the debates that we have had so far today is the extent to which the public understand the provisions in these Bills and, more importantly, the extent to which they buy in to the sorts of things that we are trying to achieve with this legislation. It seems to me that the best way to make sure that people support what we are trying to do is to ensure that they have access to nature in all of its different forms, because it is very difficult to get public support for something that is entirely theoretical.
It seems to me that there is an opportunity in the Bill to think about creating a new national framework that relates to people’s access to, enjoyment of and understanding of the natural world. From all sorts of studies that have been carried out, including by government, we know just how important access to open spaces and nature is for people’s physical and mental well-being. This has been particularly important over the last year.
As I say, we also need to understand that people need to have access to nature if they are going to support what we are trying to do. They should not feel shut out or that the countryside or nature are somehow for someone else. I am not just talking about the countryside or public rights of way; I am really talking about access to nature in all its forms, whether it is our magnificent urban parks, the smaller spaces that pop up sometimes, or places such as canal tow-paths. All of these provide important opportunities for people to access the natural world. This is not just about walkers, although it is mainly walkers: there are also cyclists, bird-watchers, kayakers, wild swimmers and all sorts of other people who benefit and wish to get access. But we know that that access is not equally distributed. We know that access is limited for people with disabilities, for example. We know that, in a lot of deprived, particularly urban, environments, access is limited, and that this is particularly a problem among certain ethnic groups.
We are still debating Clause 1, and we are talking about creating a framework for target-setting. But while subsection (3) creates areas where the Government must set targets, the whole question of access and public enjoyment is in subsection (1), which sets out areas where targets “may” be set. Similarly, when we get to the EIPs, in Clause 7, with all of its monitoring, planning and reporting requirements, enjoyment of the countryside is enabled rather than required.
So these amendments would require the Government to put more focus on the question of access and the public enjoyment of nature. However, there are real benefits to the Government from thinking about this approach, because it would enable them to start pulling together a framework that would link the work they are doing on the coastal path and the refreshed Countryside Code with the system of new payments for farmers, with its emphasis on public goods, as well as the planning Bill when it emerges and the green infrastructure provision—all alongside the health and well-being agenda, and in particular social prescribing. So I hope that the Government will at least consider putting public access and enjoyment on a slightly more secure footing and I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it does not seem that long ago that we discussed these types of issues on the Agriculture Bill. My noble friend is a skilled and subtle operator in Parliament and did not dive in on the issue of footpaths and their creation. Footpaths and access to the countryside inspire in people either a Messianic gleam—“This is where you should go”—or a grating of teeth because you hate the person who is planning the path. The advantage of this approach is that you are looking at it as a whole. If you are trying to make sure that people have some access to the countryside and put it in a plan, you stand a chance, albeit a slim one, of getting rid of these quite silly and childish arguments. We should have access.
The comments of my noble friend bring this down to the fact that we should have access. There is a benefit to you and a way out, and this cuts into other agendas. I will not expand on this for long, because I will have another opportunity later in Committee, but the fact is that, if you want a fitter and healthier society, you should give people some access. Opportunities for gentle exercise are there for those of a more advanced age, but—why not?—if you want to run up that hill, off you go. We need to make sure that people have opportunities to use and enjoy the countryside. That will enhance people’s buy-in, because they will see what is there. There is also a chance that they will see the problems that other people have in making sure that the countryside works to deliver a good environment and to produce food; it is all there.
I hope that when the Minister comes to answer he will make sure that he embraces the idea that things come together. We all know that Ministers are very keen on working across government so long as their department is dominant and their scheme is the one having the final say. I have seen dozens of documents that state, “Yes, the other departments should really do what we say, but we don’t impose upon them to actually do it”. The Government should get a plan together that makes people co-operate. I would be interested—maybe I will get a chance to expand on this later—to see how the various bits of government will communicate, what is required here, and what they can expect.
Also, when the Government encourage people to enjoy the environment, they should take into account little things, such as whether there is a bus service to walking facilities or whether everybody has to pile into a car, go down small roads and clog up the local infrastructure. Things such as this matter. You have to get in there and make sure that there is some form of communication. This is a good idea.
I also cannot resist saying that we have a bit of a parliamentary evolution; it is now “may” and “must”, as opposed to “may” and “shall”. Maybe that is a step forward—or are we just going to a new cliché? I do not know. But if we are moving things into these areas, it will be interesting to see what the Government are going to say and what the priorities are, because good intentions have far too often been the paving stones of the road to hell.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, my two amendments in this group are Amendments 9 and 57. Amendment 9 adds “connecting people with nature” to the priority areas in Clause 1(3), and Amendment 57 looks at the environmental improvement plans and adds “understanding” and “participation” to “enjoyment” in Clause 7(5).
Clause 1(3) lists the priority areas of air quality, water, biodiversity, resource efficiency and waste reduction. If we are giving priority to all those areas, we will be asking people to make substantial changes to the way they behave: to use less water; to drive less; to drive slower cars; to make fewer demands on the environment and the food they eat; to spend much more time recycling than they do at the moment; and doubtless other changes too. People need a motivation to do that, and the underlying motivation surely has to come from reconnecting people with nature, so that they value it and feel part of it, and it will therefore come into the equation when they are considering whether to go along with and support the changes the Government are proposing. There have been a number of changes recently where those proposing them have not chosen to take people with them. There is growing opposition to low-traffic neighbourhoods, for instance, because people were never involved, consulted or taken with them, and there was no underlying motivation for the improvement of the common environment.
It is silly to make those entirely desirable changes in a way which conjures opposition. Stonewall has done this with trans rights. It does not have to be this way. It means that those proposing change must take long steps to involve people in the reasons for those changes, and the underlying motivations. In the case of subsection (3), the underlying motivation is a love of and connection with nature. We know that people are capable of that because we can see it all around us, in those people who are connected. We know from that, and from research, how much well-being and how much joy and pleasure—at a very low cost to the environment—comes from having a deep love and understanding of nature. It really ought to be the underpinning value in subsection (3), and it ought not—coming to the environmental improvement plans—be just about the enjoyment of nature. This is not a passive thing, like a television show, but something which people need to be part of. I hope that the changes I propose will find favour with the Government. They will make everything else they are trying to do much more effective when it comes to putting it into practice.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We will return to the noble Lord later. We now move to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and after her the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, have withdrawn.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I rise to speak to Amendments 8 and 56, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, to which I have attached my name, though I will also offer my support to Amendment 9, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about connecting people with nature. It is clearly much connected to Amendments 8 and 56.
In introducing this amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, focused on the need to win support for the Bill by allowing people to access nature. I will also focus on the public health elements, and the fact that we now have increasing awareness—with particular credit to many campaigners over the years, and to many researchers who have helped us understand this—that for the human microbiome, mental health or general well-being, exposure to, involvement in and being in nature is good for people’s health. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was talking about access to small spaces. I will talk much more broadly, and I fear that perhaps I will scare the horses a little here, but I want to draw noble Lords’ attention to the degree of the desire for access to nature that exists out there. I put it to your Lordships’ Committee that we very much need to create more space because there is a push for very great openness.
In talking about that, I will refer, and offer my support, to something known as the Right to Roam campaign. It highlights that, in England, 92% of the countryside and 97% of rivers are not accessible to the public. We often talk about “these overcrowded islands” and how difficult it is for people to get to open space. But some parts of these islands are not very crowded at all. The Right to Roam campaign is calling for an extension to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, so that people will have much broader and easier access to open space, including hundreds of thousands of acres of woodland, meadows, rivers and their banks. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 gave access to 8% of England. That is mountain, moorland, commons and some downland heath. By the very nature of those spaces, they tend to be very remote. They are not easy to access, particularly with our extraordinary lack of public transport in rural areas—in fact, they are almost totally inaccessible to people who do not have access to a car. There is a real postcode lottery, and a clear inequality and unfairness in our current arrangements.
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
My Lords, I think that farmers and landowners welcome the public’s enjoyment of and responsible access to the countryside. Of course, one of the joys of the countryside is that few people are there. If the whole of our urban population walked in the countryside for all their free time, it would be wrecked. There has been an enormous increase in recent years in public access to the countryside. Unfortunately, public understanding of and respect for nature and the countryside environment have not developed commensurately.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, in Amendments 8 and 56, seeks to add targets in respect of public access to and enjoyment of the natural environment. I am not quite sure how public enjoyment of the countryside can be measured. It depends in part on the weather. Ironically, the increased, and in many cases unauthorised, public access which has occurred during the past year or more has been the single greatest cause of damage to the land and to nature. There has been a massive increase in fly-tipping, littering and trespassing. All this has produced unexpected costs for farmers and landowners in the very year in which they suffer the first big cut in the direct payments scheme, and this before they are able to compensate their loss of earnings through enrolment in the new ELM schemes.
Natural England has launched a new countryside code, which should be taught in schools, as the CLA has recommended. Farmers and landowners welcome responsible visitors, but it is vital that the increased numbers enjoying the countryside stick to footpaths. They must also understand the risks around livestock. There are many areas where wildlife habitats need protection and should be left undisturbed. So I would not support an unfettered right to roam, and any measures that the Government take to encourage increased public access must be balanced by measures to improve public understanding of, and respect for, the countryside.
Some people believe that agriculture is the enemy of environmentalism, but surely the opposite is true: sustainable agriculture and the recovery of nature can and must coexist. I very much hope that the ELM schemes under development will encourage that. For these reasons I prefer Amendments 9 and 57 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas: they presuppose improved public understanding of the countryside. I am not convinced, however, that the countryside needs, or can easily cope with, any accelerated increase in public access beyond that which increased prosperity and improved work/life balance is in any case already enabling.
Amendment 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is interesting. Illegal use of motor vehicles on private roads and tracks, whether sealed or unsealed, should be prevented by better enforcement, but I do not think that the state should distinguish between driving on sealed and unsealed tracks. Furthermore, many tracks which were sealed years ago are now indistinguishable from unsealed tracks.
The last amendment in this group is Amendment 284, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It is probably otiose, in that the Bill already gives the Secretary of State the powers to set targets for the people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. There are already 140,000 miles of public footpaths and other rights of way in England and Wales, and landowners are busy considering what additional paths they might open to the public. Can the Minister confirm whether ELMS will provide the opportunity for land managers to receive grants for allowing permissive access, similar to those which were offered under countryside stewardship schemes?
The noble Baroness suggested that a review should compare public access rights in England with those in other parts of the United Kingdom. Is she not aware how great the differences are? The population density of England is 279 people per square kilometre, more than four times that of Scotland at 67 people per square kilometre, and nearly twice that of Wales at 151 people per square kilometre. The vast difference between England and Scotland in typical terrain and density suggests that a comparison of access rights would be irrelevant, even if interesting. I regret therefore that I cannot support this amendment either.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. She is not here, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Trenchard. I agree with nearly everything he says. That may surprise some noble Lords but, as I think he will understand, I have a great connection with nature. At the age of nine, in 1964, I was made a member of the RSPB by my grandfather. I am still a member—in fact I am a member of the council of the RSPB. Wildlife and nature have virtually become my religion, in the sense of being where I find solace.
However, there is a lot that can still be done on access for those people who cannot get it. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned public transport. Certainly I have been active in trying to get access for those with disabilities. I am not sure that it is the Government’s job. A lot of the NGOs, including the RSPB itself and the National Trust, are trying their best but it is difficult. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, if all people were responsible, more access for walking and so on would be desirable. However, I am afraid that I have seen too many examples—not just in the last year although it has been accentuated—of people who do not know the countryside code and, quite frankly, do not want to know it. I live not in the country but in suburbia. We have some very pleasant walks around our local lake, Little Britain Lake, but it is constantly ruined by picnics and barbecues and so forth. The litter is appalling and ruins the enjoyment of the many people who go there to just wander around and enjoy nature.
Another point I think relevant is that unfettered access is not necessarily good for the natural environment. Again, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard mentioned, where wildlife is concerned, you have to make sure there are some areas without access. You will see it in in reserves and in other places, certainly at breeding times. Again, responsibility comes into it. I am a dog owner myself but I would not let my dog off the lead if there were ground-nesting birds, whether on the shore or indeed on heath-land. Heath-land is another example where you see many paths cut through, where people have just walked all over it—not to mention the dreaded portable barbecues.
Although I want to make sure that people have that connection to nature, we cannot force people. I think there is a role for education, and I have certainly noticed more people being interested—that perhaps goes back to the first debates we had about biodiversity and nature—but it would be unwise to just have unfettered access. I feel extremely sorry for landowners and farmers, and say that I regard the majority of them as custodians of the natural world; there are one or two exceptions but normally they are not individuals that I have come across. We have to be very careful. The idea of getting more people connected with nature is a good one. I am not sure that it should be in the Bill, but I am prepared to see what comes forward.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I could not make up my mind—I do not think he could either —about exactly what he wanted. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. She has a point about getting public buy-in, the principle of well-being, and people enjoying the countryside. It is a shared environment. I live next door to the Grand Union Canal and across the road I have access to farmland and so on. Yes, there are people who do not respect that environment; that was one thing on which I agreed with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard—it is a question of teaching young people the countryside code. However, the basic principle of including a reference to this in the Bill is worth while. I probably agree in this instance with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that the Government ought to consider exploring the principle of the right to roam. It is as though we imagine that, as soon as we open up these places, they will be terrorised by people who have no respect for the environment. The reality is that the vast majority of people have, and appreciate it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride)
After the noble Earl, Lord Devon, I will call the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, noting my interests previously declared, I am a passionate believer in better access to our natural environment. Access goes hand in hand with education and knowledge of the environment, our landscape and the sources of our food. Without this understanding, landscape management will suffer and our health outcomes will be worse. I am glad that the Minister welcomes us referencing Professor Dasgupta’s review into the economics of biodiversity. Professor Dasgupta clearly highlighted the need to educate the nation about the natural capital we consume and the landscape in which we live. This education is dependent on properly managed access.
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on the first set of amendments, in recommending the health and well-being benefits of being active in and connected to the outdoors. The pandemic has laid bare stark inequalities in people’s access to nature, often along wealth and social divides. Our work for the national plan for sport and recreation highlighted the basic need of many urban communities for better access to green and open space. The Bill needs to do all it can to encourage better managed access to nature and better education about how our predominantly farmed landscape came into being and is now managed.
Observant Lords will note that I am not calling for an increase in access and I do not support Amendment 284 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Rather, I am talking about better quality of access, provided where it is needed most for public health and well-being and has the least impact on the biodiversity that is really at the heart of the Bill.
Noble Lords may recall that, almost exactly a year ago, we debated access in the context of the ELMS under the Agriculture Bill. I note how much we miss the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, at this time, whose wisdom and contributions were so valuable in this regard. During that debate, I listed the negative impact of access on our small part of Devon over the previous few years. I will not repeat the graphic details of the baseball-bat attacks on young lambs, but will remind noble Lords of that, of IRA bomb-making equipment stashed in our woods alongside flytipped asbestos, of the dangers of chestnut blight and other tree diseases being spread by human contact, of the theft of shellfish and of the disastrous impact of dogs on nesting waders and other birds across the SSSI of the Exminster marshes.
Access is key to improving our understanding of the environment and obtaining well-being benefits from it but is often not good for the environment itself. Thus, where access is to be granted, it must be properly managed and fully funded, taking into account the preservation of nature and the land management that is responsible for maintaining it. Improved access requires better gates, fences, signs, pathways and knowledge of the functions of our land and the heritage that brought it into being. For that reason, I support Amendments 9 and 57, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but remain equivocal about Amendment 8, particularly as the explanatory statement reveals an intention to “increase” access. Increased access is not the answer; better access is.
Finally, I speak for farmers and land managers who, for the most part, remain nervous about public access for the reasons I have stated. Improving public access is dependent on their willingness to open their homes and farms to others. We need to bring them with us and to educate them about the benefits of improved access, as much as we need to educate those seeking such access.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start with a short explanation of the reason for Amendment 58. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 protected footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways from use and damage by recreational motor vehicles. However, the same Act left unprotected a further 3,000 miles of countryside tracks. These are the nation’s green lanes. They are being used and damaged by 4x4s, motorbikes and quad bikes, which are being driven entirely for recreational purposes. This amendment is the first step in closing the loophole in the NERC Act which allows non-essential motors to inflict environmental damage and nuisance to green lanes. The amendment does not affect the rights of landowners, occupiers or residents, drivers of essential motor vehicles, or people with disabilities who use powered mobility scooters.
The context for this amendment is twofold. First, the stated purpose of the Environment Bill is to improve the natural environment. Secondly, the 2019 Glover review of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty called for radical change in the way we protect our landscapes and stressed the need to take urgent steps to recover and enhance nature. One of the things that is causing damage to the natural environment, and to fragile and precious landscapes, is that, at present, 4x4 vehicles, motorbikes and quad bikes are allowed to be driven for purely recreational purposes on unsealed tracks all over the countryside, including in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
This is allowed to happen only because the law currently says that if an unsealed track, whatever it may be, was used in the past by the public with horse-drawn carts, that it is now a right of way for any kind of modern motor vehicle. Parliament attempted to deal with this in 2006 by passing the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act: other vehicles could use footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways, but it left unprotected over 3,000 miles of other track in the countryside that have no public right of way classification. These amount to over half of the country’s green lanes. They are open to use and abuse by recreational motor vehicles and, as a result, great damage is being done, even on the high fells.
There are similar problems on many of the other 3,000 miles of the country’s green lanes—those classified as byways, open to all traffic. In reality, many of them are effectively no longer open to walkers, cyclists, horse-riders, horse-drawn vehicles and the disabled for peaceful enjoyment of the countryside because of a loss of amenity caused by recreational motor vehicles—many riders of which are based abroad.
The amendment does not seek an immediate change in the law. If passed it requires the Secretary of State to return to the business left unfinished by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act and to carry out a public consultation on whether the loophole left by that Act, should now be closed.
The Minister may say that there is another way of dealing with the problem: the use of traffic regulations orders. The highway authorities have had TRO-making powers since 1984, the national parks since 2007, but such orders are costly to make, rarely used and almost invariably are fiercely resisted by the recreational motor vehicle groups—often with threats of legal action. TROs must be made one track at a time. If they could put a stop to the environmental damage being made by motor vehicles, the problem would have been solved long ago. A new approach and ultimately a change in the law is needed.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, it was an absolute delight to listen to the excellent speech from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and his call for better-quality access. There is considerable merit in Amendment 8 and especially in Amendment 9, and it probably should be a priority target. I urge my noble friend the Minister to accept them in principle. The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas is very important. Could Amendments 8 and 9 be amalgamated into one target?
Of course, this is a very difficult area for the Government to set targets in and that is possibly why the Government have not added it to the clause. If you cannot measure it then you cannot manage it, and as for measuring people’s enjoyment of something, I should love to see how one can make a target for people to enjoy something. However, with time and work, I believe that we can figure out some targets in this area, especially on connecting people with nature.
Every month Natural England publishes its people and nature survey. Despite Covid, there are still very much the same patterns emerging. When one looks at March 2020, before lockdown—an idiotic term which I hate—and compares it with April 2021, one gets roughly the same statistics: 30% had not visited a green space or nature in a 14-day period, and of those who did, the vast majority numerically were older people. The justification in April this year by the 34% of people who had not visited was to stop Covid spreading. That is a noble reason not to go. However, I looked at our previous studies, in what was then called the monitor of engagement with the natural environment, and in 2017 more than 30%, the same figure, had not visited a green space. Exactly 34% said that they had not visited because they were too busy, 23% said health reasons and 18% had no interest whatsoever. The justification or excuse may vary but the numbers stay the same.
However, the other statistic that the survey highlights is that of earnings. Of those earning more than £50,000 per annum, 75% reported a visit to a green and natural space. This is compared to 50% of those earning less than £15,000 per annum. Adults earning more than £50,000 also took three times as many visits as those earning less than £15,000. That confirms the anecdotal evidence of our own eyes. You do not see many black and ethnic-community people in their Range Rovers visiting the Lake District National Park, stately homes, or National Trust properties.
There is of course a big cost element for those who cannot afford the time or money to go far visiting green space, but there is also a cultural problem. I was told in a briefing from the creators of the brilliant London National Park City scheme that they found that children walking to school would prefer to take the slightly longer route round by the shops and the high street rather than the shorter route through the local park or green space. There is thus a problem that even when green space is on their doorstep, many people are not connecting with it. That is why Amendment 9 is so important. I believe that Natural England is in discussions with Defra on what more we can do to connect people with nature, and that could lead to a target.
The briefing we have all received from the Ramblers, Open Spaces Society, and others, cannot identify targets, but suggests three areas where it might be possible to set them. I am glad that they acknowledge that this is not easy. Their first suggested area is proximity. Are there access opportunities close to where people live and work? The second is accessibility. Are different types of users, including disabled people, able to connect with and make use of access to green spaces and good quality paths, and do they feel welcome? The third is quality. Are green spaces of sufficient standard to ensure that people want to use them?
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, as this is my first intervention in Committee, and for the purposes of all the stages of the Bill, I declare my interests as a retired farmer and landowner, chair of an internet travel business and chair of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology research.
Most of these amendments stress the importance of the Government taking seriously the planning of people’s enjoyment of nature and all that the countryside has to offer. Other noble Lords have outlined the advantages for people and their health, and indeed for nature itself. I am pleased to be following the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, with his knowledge and expertise in the subject.
I very much support the principle that the Government should get involved in the promotion of access, as it is no use leaving these things to chance. If it is worth a taxpayer paying land managers to produce a landscape or habitats of which we can be proud, it is vital that the same taxpayer should be enabled, and even encouraged, to enjoy the fruits of their spending. As Professor Dasgupta has indicated, our countryside and its wildlife are extremely valuable. I ask noble Lords: would an artist complete a wonderful painting without thinking about how they were going to display it? Would a drama company put on a play without thinking seriously about attracting an audience? In my view, the taxpayer deserves no less. The Government must set out how they are going to facilitate and improve the public enjoyment of our countryside and its nature.
I will add a note of caution to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said, it is relevant that, while Scotland has a population density of 65 people per square kilometre, and Norway, another country that she mentioned, has 15 people per square kilometre, and the UK has 278 people per square kilometre, for England by itself the figure is actually 432 people per square kilometre. We are a very crowded country, and all land uses therefore have to be carefully planned, although I believe that where access is available it should be well-promoted.
I sat on the Glover review of the management and uses of our national parks and AONBs. We are still waiting for the Government’s response to it, although I am told that it is extremely imminent. I remain hopeful that that response will be a first step in the right direction of improving people’s enjoyment of our natural environment.
I turn to Amendment 58, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. The issue is an old chestnut that this House has touched on many times before, and indeed Governments and local authorities have skirted around it for decades without really resolving it. The NERC Act 2006 tried to put it to bed, as the noble Lord said, and partially succeeded, but the despoilation of green lanes remains a thorny issue. The problem, as he said, is that these lanes, made for use by horses, and by horses and carts and carriages, have become an attraction for four-wheel-drive vehicles, trail bikes and quad bikes. In some rare instances—I stress that they are rare because mostly coexistence works quite well—they have become so popular, and, frankly, so irresponsibly used, that parts of the green lane have become almost impassable mud baths. That often makes those sections impossible to pass for the very horses and carriages that they were originally intended for, and even sometimes for ramblers on foot. Some of the photographs that I have seen are not attractive.
There is also the problem of local farmers who have permitted rights over the green lanes, usually to feed their stock on the nearby hill. On rare occasions, even they have found it hard to get access to their stock because of the state of the green lane. It is not common, as I say, but it is a problem.
When the Select Committee looked at the NERC Act 12 years on, in 2018, we recognised the problems and the controversy between the various users and suggested that if the rules were clear, as well as easy and inexpensive to use, the small number of problem sections could be dealt with by local authorities imposing traffic regulation orders, or TROs. These TROs could either ban motorised vehicles altogether or limit them to summer months, or even just summer weekends, or whatever. But the point is that they have to be put in place cheaply and without bother by the local authorities, which do not have the money to put into them at the moment. Nor is the legal situation very clear. If these problems could be dealt with simply, firmly and, I hope, cheaply, and on a localised basis, that would be a successful result.
The Government’s response to our report was to ask the motor vehicle stakeholder group to produce recommendations for how the TRO process could be used more efficiently by highway authorities. The Government indicated that they would consider bringing forward legislative or regulatory changes in the light of the stakeholder group’s report. But as far as I know, no new enabling regulatory changes have been brought forward, and it would seem that the issue continues to be controversial. I am not sure whether a new consultation, as proposed by the amendment, would actually help the situation—I expect the views of the various participants are by now well known to all. As I say, in 2018, Defra was expecting to bring forward measures to simplify the TRO system very soon, and maybe now it should, frankly, just get on with it.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I put my name to Amendment 8, and it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves what that says given the debate that we have just had. It says
“public access to and enjoyment of the natural environment”,
but it does not say whether that should be urban or rural.
My noble friend Lady Scott emphasised small spaces, and I very much welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who emphasised urban space and greenery, which is much more accessible to the majority of our population. That reminds us of something which has always been true: in the countryside, perhaps as well as in urban areas, once people are at the car park, or wherever they decide to park their car—in a national park, an area of outstanding natural beauty, or by a nature reserve—the amount of travel that they do from that point is extremely limited.
One of the key things about this is public health and social prescribing, which people have been talking about. I am not an expert in that area, but in my role as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership, we have decided to work closely with the local health and well-being board to make sure that we have a combined aim and goal to improve people’s lives by their access to the environment and to green spaces, which needs to be frequent rather than occasional—small bites, rather than occasional large sorties into the countryside.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that access to the countryside tends to be fairly limited, but I have to agree with him: during last summer in particular, I saw pictures on television of improvised barbecues and camping on beaches and areas of Dartmoor National Park. That is clearly an issue. But when I think about that I wonder what the equivalent is in an urban area. Yes, there is probably equal aggravation from litter and barbecues in parks, or whatever, but the point is that, in urban contexts, normally there are people there, and there is a budget, to clear this up. In the countryside, national parks, and in particular areas of outstanding natural beauty, have very small budgets for rectifying these sorts of issues that are created by minorities.
As the noble Viscount said, there is an issue with fly-tipping; it is an increasing problem and I suspect that, last year, it was partly because tips—I have been told off for using that word, and should say public waste disposal facilities—were closed for quite a long period of time. There is a real need there. I identify entirely with farmers who find that there is waste-tipping on their land and suddenly it becomes their responsibility. We somehow need to transfer the way that it works in urban and suburban areas, where there is a community responsibility to put that fly-tipping right, to the countryside. Obviously, the most important thing is to try to prevent it in the first place.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate on a very important issue. I will concentrate on Amendments 8 and 56, which are both in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, but also in the name of my noble friend Lady Quin, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. As we have heard, these would require rather than enable the Government to set legally binding, long-term targets to increase public access to and enjoyment of our natural environment.
First, however, I will say a few words about Amendment 58 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, which addresses the issue of motor vehicles driving for recreational purposes on unsealed tracks. I thank him for his introduction and for bringing this important issue to the attention of your Lordships’ House and of the Minister. I have been involved with the Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement, or GLEAM, and with Friends of the Lake District. Both are concerned about the deterioration of a number of these lanes due to the large increase in motor vehicle usage over the past 20 years or so. These lanes are an important part of the Lake District’s cultural heritage and were of course originally made for pedestrian and horse-drawn traffic. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, himself mentioned the problem in the national parks, and it is only getting worse.
Friends of the Lake District believes that there is a strong case for introducing traffic regulation orders, or TROs, to restrict motorised use of the lanes to preserve their natural beauty and tranquillity. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, also mentioned this and talked about how TROs could be used effectively. However, I was also interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who believes that we need to look at other solutions. Will the Minister listen sympathetically to the concerns that have been expressed about the damage that is being caused? This may be quite niche but it has a big impact.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, introduced Amendments 9 and 57, which have the important aims of connecting people to nature. He also talked about getting their buy-in to the behaviour changes that may be needed. Perhaps we do not pay enough attention to this.
Amendments 8 and 56 were ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. I was interested to hear her idea of creating a new national framework for access to open spaces and nature, so that we properly enable public access. She also made the important point that we need to make sure that we pull together different parts of policy and legislation. For example, ELMS, planning and health and well-being all need to come together. I was also interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on this area.
I am very fortunate in that I live right on the edge of the Lake District National Park, so I have some of the most beautiful countryside in the UK right on my doorstep. I can regularly enjoy fell walking with my family and my dog. This means that I also know that our personal experiences with nature are powerful. As the Committee has heard, numerous studies have demonstrated how important being active and getting outdoors in the fresh air are for both our physical and mental health and well-being. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, focused on the public health elements and the importance of access to open space. This is especially true when we are young, with nature acting as both an active playground and a place for curiosity and learning. Whether children are active in nature or not links to childhood obesity and to their mental health and happiness.
The Covid pandemic has shone a spotlight on our need to be outside enjoying nature. For those who have been less able to get outside, for example people without gardens or with less access to parks, the impact on mental health can be severely detrimental. The pandemic has also highlighted the fact that, for many people, easy access to the great outdoors and enjoyment of nature is far from guaranteed. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, made the point that, if you want a fitter and healthier society, access is clearly important. On the subject of the pandemic, I refer to what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said about the need to enjoy the countryside responsibly. It has been pretty appalling in the Lake District, with a huge increase in litter, fires, trees being chopped down and campsites abandoned. It is very sad for local communities when that happens. I get so frustrated: they come here because it is beautiful, so why have they trashed it? This brings me on to the points made by my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green. We really need to educate people and teach them the countryside code. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, also mentioned the importance of education about our natural environment.
For many years, the connection with nature has been steadily declining for parts of our society. Fewer than a quarter of children regularly use their local patch of nature, compared to over half of all adults when they were children. This lack of access to nature is exacerbated by inequality. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made an important contribution to the debate by bringing the Committee’s attention to the statistics in Natural England’s people and nature survey, which support this. He also made an important contribution on what we need to do to try to turn this around. We know that, in urban areas, the most affluent 20% of wards have five times the number of parks or general green spaces, excluding gardens, per person that the most deprived 10% have. Similarly, in areas where more than 40% of residents are black or minority ethnic, there is 11 times less green space than in areas where residents are largely white. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, talked about access for those who had difficulty in getting out and about in the countryside. He particularly mentioned people with disabilities, though there is no guarantee that we can all have this access.
Clearly, we need to address this. The Government’s 25-year environment plan, which is due to be incorporated, as we know, as the first environmental plan, includes a policy aim to ensure that the natural environment can be used by everyone. Why is the opportunity not being taken to address this more directly in the Bill? Does the Minister accept that these amendments would go some way to start to improve access to nature for everyone, not just those like myself, who are fortunate to live close to nature or who can afford to go out and enjoy green spaces.
The changes brought about by these amendments would ensure that access to nature is a core consideration in the development of future policy. I think that they are needed because, as published, the Bill fails to commit the Government to act. I urge the Minister to give these proposals serious consideration.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions and agree that the Covid pandemic has underlined the important role of nature in our health and well-being in so many different ways. Before I go any further, I sincerely apologise to the House for not having been in my place when the debate began. I extend my apologies to everyone taking part.
Regarding Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, and Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, on environmental targets, the Government considered adding enjoyment of the natural environment as a priority area for setting targets. However, there are substantial uncertainties, as numerous noble Lords have pointed out, over how to objectively measure these areas to be able to set a meaningful and achievable target now.
While there is evidence that engaging with nature can and does benefit people’s health and well-being in many ways, the evidence necessary to support setting a legally binding target for this area is still developing. For example, increased footfall may reflect not increased access but increased human population in an area. The Government are researching how to objectively measure this area and the best mechanisms to drive change. However, I reassure noble Lords that the Bill’s framework allows for long-term targets to be set on any aspect of the natural environment or people’s enjoyment of it in future, if the evidence base develops.
Before I move on to Amendments 56 and 57, I acknowledge the comments of my noble friend Lord Lucas, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on the need to secure consent in relation to policy of any sort, particularly environmental policy. It is so important that, when we arrive at solutions, they are thought up in such a way as to bring people with us. If we fail to do that, the risk is always there that we exhaust the public appetite for environmental policy. I have seen that on numerous occasions, where good initiatives have met with public opposition because of the manner in which they have been introduced. It is so important that we get that right.
Amendments 56 and 57, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, are on environmental improvement plans. Connecting people with nature to improve health and well-being is a core objective of the 25-year environment plan. We anticipate that the plan will set the benchmark for future environmental improvement plans, as outlined in Clause 7 and the Explanatory Notes. However, the primary purpose of the environmental improvement plans is to set out the steps that the Government intend to take to improve the environment. Therefore, we do not necessarily want to give equal prominence to people’s enjoyment in environmental improvement plans, although, in practice, future Governments are absolutely free to do so.
Public access to, and people’s enjoyment of, the natural environment can in some instances have negative impacts on it, as my noble friend Lord Randall and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, explained. For example, too many visitors to beaches can negatively affect wildlife and their habitats, including through the litter that is so often infuriatingly left behind. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made this point in relation to the Lake District, and it is something that I have seen myself. When I was Member of Parliament for Richmond Park, I saw piles of fast-food packaging left in the most beautiful spots in the park, which were chosen precisely because they were beautiful. It is mind-boggling and tells us that there is a need for some form of education, combined with incentives or disincentives, when it comes to leaving litter in the natural environment. Our enjoyment of nature cannot take precedence over our stewardship of that environment for the future.
I turn to the point made compellingly by my noble friend Lord Trenchard about the tensions that can exist between different groups. It is worth emphasising that Defra’s work to improve access always seeks to balance the needs of users and landowners. The Government work closely with stakeholders, representing as many interests as we possibly can, and landowners can formally object to proposals to create national trails across their land. Rural communities—this is a point worth stressing because it is not always about people coming in from miles away—can benefit from improved access, according to our evidence. Recent surveys show that 51% of walkers along the coast are local people, not those coming from miles away.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, I have had three requests to speak after the Minister, so we will take them in turn for him to respond. I have the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. We will hear from the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, first.
Viscount Bridgeman (Con) [V]
I am most grateful for the opportunity to come in after the Minister. I wish to support the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Cameron of Dillington, in their Amendment 58. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has given us an explanation of the omissions from the NERC Act 2006 for part of the green lanes provision. Both noble Lords referred to the abuse that that has involved.
The advantage of this amendment is—[Inaudible.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
The Minister will respond to the first part of the question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman.
Viscount Bridgeman (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will try to get this issue dealt with.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
The time for the noble Lord to do that may be tight but let us try. The Minister will respond to the points already made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and we will then move on to the other speakers. If, at the end, we can get the noble Viscount reconnected, we will come back to him.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for half of his question. He got to the point of echoing some of the concerns which were raised by previous speakers. Because we did not get to the substance of his question, I would be happy to arrange to contact him tomorrow with a view to discussing the issue—whatever it is—with my officials.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his responses to my amendments, but if he wants an example of how a connection with nature could be measured, he need not look further than the Glover review. Proposal 8, as I remember, is a night under the stars in a national landscape for every child; that is a pretty good target to aim at, and one which would go a long way toward achieving what I would like to see achieved at least over the long term. Once a child has done that sort of thing, they tend to bring their parents back, if it is properly organised.
I understand the difficulties that my noble friend faces, but there are things that, given the incentive of something in the Bill, could be done. An information system, for instance—a decent national online database of parks—would be something which people could use, and would then be a vehicle for the countryside code and enable areas to be set aside during the nesting season or lambing season, so that the relationship between the rambler and the farmer could be better moderated. There are things which the Government could do in this area if they set their mind to it. I have been really encouraged by what Natural England has been saying in this area. If the Government have a change of heart, I shall be delighted.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I can reassure my noble friend that it does not require the Government to have a change of heart, as we fully support access to nature for all the reasons which have been described so well by so many noble Lords. Indeed, just a few months ago the Defra Secretary committed £4 million for a project aimed at tackling mental ill-health through green social prescribing, which goes to the heart of some of the issues raised today. We want everyone to have access to a healthy, abundant and diverse environment, and the Environment Bill as a whole is an attempt to try to improve both our environment and access and enjoyment of it. Of course, we have much more to do and I am interested in the examples he has cited.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in his response the Minister referred to the issue of littering, particularly personal responsibility for littering, but we were earlier talking about waste reduction targets. The people who profit from the production of that litter are of course fast-food companies and multinational food production companies. When it finally arrives, the bottle deposit scheme will be an important area of this. Will the Minister acknowledge that this is not just a personal issue but a case where we have to see system change, that multinational companies and fast-food outlets have to look at the ways their food is sold, and the packaging they produce, and that this needs to be seen as more than a personal problem?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I could not agree more. There is of course an element of personal responsibility; it is not always down to the Government, but the noble Baroness is absolutely right. That is the whole point of our approach to extended producer responsibility, and that can apply to anything. It is very much my hope that we will be at a point not too far off where fast-food companies are financially responsible for the waste generated by their activities. We would see, the moment one creates a financial dynamic of that sort, that companies will do anything they can either to design waste out of the way they do business or to minimise the amount of waste they know they will generate. I do not think there is a better way of doing it, but clearly having created the apparatus, which we will do through this Bill, we then must use it, and use it properly. If we do, we can get where we need to in relation to waste.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We shall have one more try at reaching the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. If this does not work, the Minister has offered to contact him directly. Viscount Bridgeman?
Viscount Bridgeman (Con) [V]
My Lords, thank you very much. I am most grateful and I apologise for the problems.
The advantage of this amendment is that it is easy for the general public to appreciate: quite simply, it requires the Secretary of State to institute a public consultation affecting unsealed tracks. “Unsealed” is an unqualified word, and it means all—I repeat, all—unsealed tracks. Here, I take issue with my noble friend Lord Trenchard. A lot of thought went into the framing of that amendment, and I suggest to your Lordships that “unsealed” is sufficiently definitive.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, it does not seek a change in the law and it does not aim to be confrontational against the users of off-road motor vehicles; it simply seeks to ensure that any proposal for the use of these green lanes by such users is as widely aired with the general public as possible. This is in line with the lead amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, about public access to and general knowledge of the countryside.
There is one beneficial effect which I hope the passing of the amendment will bring, and here I venture to disagree with my two noble colleagues. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, the TROs are very divisive, costly and lead to unpleasantness and legal actions. But, at the end of the day, the general lanes of this country are a priceless part of our national heritage, and they are beautiful. However, it has to be faced that any use for recreational purposes by motorbikes, quad bikes, et cetera, renders them ugly. I have said that we do not wish to have a confrontation with those users, but compromise is always probably necessary, and I suggest that it is just a reasonable and small additional step to safeguard our precious inheritance.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount for his question. I certainly do not pretend to be an expert on this, but my understanding is that the use of motorised vehicles is already regulated and, therefore, limited to access routes classed as byways. My understanding—I think this is what the noble Viscount said—is that it is not about creating new laws or new restrictions; it is about implementing the rules already in existence. If he disagrees with that and thinks that it is a matter of tweaking the laws, I am very happy to hear from him after this debate—not tonight, I hope, but perhaps tomorrow.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. I am very pleased that I tabled these amendments because they have enabled the Committee to surface a number of almost apparently contradictory themes. There seems to be a general sense that access is a good thing, but only on certain terms and only if people do not do certain things. It has really highlighted the tensions involved, whether greater access or better access. In many ways, the debate has made the case for a more strategic approach on the part of government, because it is the only way some of these things can be resolved.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his broadly constructive response. I was slightly struck by the irony that it appears that all sorts of government initiatives and funds are being put into this, but they are not really being joined up in the way that they probably should be. I will bet that there is already a whole set of targets established in every one of these funds, because that is the way government funds always work. I think it is possible to set targets in this way, so I hope the Minister will give a little more thought about how he can work with user groups and other interested people to think about this.
Finally, for me, this is always about access to nature; it is not just about access to the countryside. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made a really important contribution when he focused first on the financial and economic inequalities, but also on the importance of these smaller local green spaces. There are many people in our crowded island who, sadly, will never get out into the countryside. That does not mean we should not aspire to it, but they will find it difficult. It just makes it all the more important that they have access to good-quality space close to where they live. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Environment Bill
Wednesday 23rd June 2021
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-III Third Marshalled list for Committee - (23 Jun 2021)
“(e) a reduction in the use of conventional plastic packaging.(3A) In this section “conventional plastic packaging” means plastic products that are defined as packaging under EU Directive 94/62/EC, or its successor legislation, and which are not— (a) reusable;(b) recyclable; or(c) compostable as specified within the standard BS EN 13432 or BS EN 14995.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment specifies a reduction in the use of conventional plastic packaging as a priority area in which the Secretary of State must set a long-term target, which must be achieved over 15 or more years.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 13 I will speak to Amendment 30, standing in my name, and wish to support Amendment 28, whose objectives we share.
The pioneering Breaking the Plastic Wave report by the Pew Charitable Trusts and SYSTEMIQ, published last year, made for stark reading. Without concerted action to hold back the ever-increasing tide of plastic production and consequent plastic waste, we will see the annual flow of plastic into the world’s oceans triple by 2040. My amendments provide two opportunities to place in the Bill the necessity of clear UK targets for reducing the import and production of conventional plastic packaging in this country.
The Government, I know, want to use the Bill, once passed into law, to embed their world-leading environmental credentials at COP 26 in November. Agreeing to clear, enforced targets on the production of plastic packaging would genuinely be world-leading. I know that the Minister is likely to say that he shares our ambition to reduce plastic waste. If that is the case, it follows that we must reduce plastic production, which is the source of the waste. The Government must address both ends of the spectrum.
To be clear, in Amendment 30 we are seeking an immediate target on plastic production and imports, coupled with Amendment 13, which seeks to set a long-term target of the kind envisaged under Clause 1. The immediate target is the more important, since we must see a reduction in the production of conventional plastic as a short-term and long-term issue. This must not be a can to kick down the road.
I want to turn to the issue that marks out my amendments from the other in this group—recognition of the role of independently certified compostable materials in addressing part of the plastics crisis. The Breaking the Plastic Wave report was clear that there is no single solution to ending ocean plastic pollution. As I have said previously, a mix of approaches is needed, starting with producing less plastic, which is at the core of the amendments, and involving more re-use of the plastic that is produced and more recycling where possible. But recycling, like composting, is not a silver bullet.
The current discourse around plastics recycling implies that a plastic bottle or food tray might become another bottle or food tray, but that is seldom the case. Plastics recycling is rarely, if ever, genuinely circular, but we should strive to recycle. When I was a leader in local government, I was proud to increase recycling in my area significantly. But we should not fool ourselves that recycling is a universal escape hatch from the planet’s plastic problem.
What the industry calls flexible films—the sort used in bags containing fruit and vegetables, or in pouches to keep dried fruit preserved—are very hard to recycle, not least because they are frequently contaminated with food. According to 2020 figures from WRAP, flexible plastic represents a quarter of all UK consumer plastic packaging but only 4% is currently recycled. We must attempt to improve on this. We have all found ourselves with a bag of salad in the fridge that has turned to mulch, or a microwave meal film covered in food. This kind of food contact packaging can seldom be recycled because of that contamination. Conversely, recycled plastics cannot be used in food packaging because of food hygiene laws.
It is right to conclude that a measure of substitution of conventional plastics with compostable materials is an essential part of the mix. Such materials must be certified as complying with stringent international standards, referenced in the amendment. The certification is undertaken by an organisation independent from the manufacturer, which assesses technical information about the product and produces an independent laboratory report on how samples of the product performed when tested, as specified in the standard. So long as it makes the grade, the product can then be recycled within the food waste stream.
There are around 45 composting sites in the UK that can handle compostable films, and there is good evidence from Europe to show that using them has three effects. First, the compostable films break down in industrial composting conditions without leaving microplastics behind. Secondly, deploying such films reduces the amount of conventional, polluting plastic that gets into the soil through food waste and achieves a reduction of conventional plastic in circulation. Thirdly, by deploying compostable films as packaging for food waste, we end up with less food contamination in the dry recycling streams, such as plastic bottles and trays.
Compostables can therefore play a key role in capturing biowaste and ensuring that food contact packaging biodegrades with its contents. Instead of being incinerated or sent to landfill, it is converted into high-quality compost and, in turn, used to regenerate our rapidly depleting agricultural soils. This is a win-win, and one that the Government should grasp. The recent Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging consultation paper took a dismissive tone, rather than look at how an EPR scheme could and should be applied to compostables, so that the industry pays, as it is willing to, for the expansion in composting infrastructure.
All the while, global flexible plastic packaging is set to reach 33.5 million metric tonnes in 2022, with no viable end-of-life solution to dispose of it safely. That is only next year. Perhaps the Minister can say whether it is this waste that he is proposing to be the subject of trans-frontier shipments of waste. This is deeply frustrating to those represented by the Bio-based and Biodegradable Industries Association, including companies such as TIPA, which is investing in the UK market. It has come together with the association for renewable energy and clean technology, REA, and with anti-plastic campaigners A Plastic Planet to draw attention to the missed opportunities in the UK.
The intentions behind Amendments 13 and 30 are therefore twofold: to emphasise the commitment on these Benches to reducing the production of plastic packaging, and to make clear the need for a variety of solutions to reduce plastic pollution, here at home and globally. Compostable materials are part of the mix, and one the Government should recognise. Everyone has a responsibility to both reduce the use of plastic packaging and for its sustainable disposal. I hope that the Minister can provide a positive response and perhaps agree to meet me and the campaigners on this issue to find common ground and to strengthen the Bill on plastics. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We have two withdrawals from this group: the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, I take the opportunity given by my noble friend’s amendments to probe the Minister on government thinking about the relationship between the principles of polluter pays and extended producer responsibility. I do so by using an example that we touched on in the closing remarks in Committee on Monday.
About two years ago, not far from where I live, a well-known fast-food company opened a drive-through restaurant. Since then, the brightly coloured packaging from this company has festooned our lanes. The National Association of Local Councils says that this sort of littering and pollution, much of which is plastic, is a growing problem in rural areas.
Clearly the litterers are the polluters here; they are winding down their car windows and throwing the stuff out. Do the Government therefore think that this is an enforcement or educational matter, or that there is some extended producer responsibility here, given that the originator of the packaging being littered is the one profiting? I wanted to use this example to try to get some clarity from the Government about where they see the relative balance of responsibilities.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I start by repeating something I said in the first day of Committee. This is a hangover from Monday, but the batting order is not satisfactory, because I want to speak to Amendment 28 and none of its proposers has spoken yet, so I cannot follow them. However, I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, in her place and hope she can come in after the Minister, because few in this House know as much about the problem as she does.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, covered the problem comprehensively. I was going to raise the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, which is that we must take this opportunity not only to reduce the amount of plastic, but to curb the problem of plastic litter, which is spoiling the countryside in a way it never has before. This is particularly apparent with Covid and the pressures now on farmers, landowners and councils, because of the total disregard that a lot of people have for the countryside. They are happy just to dump their rubbish anywhere. This Bill must be used for that.
I would like to say a lot more about Amendment 28. I like that it does not attack all plastics, as they can be the right solution for the right good in the right place, but they are not great overall. We must find a way to reduce and recycle them better.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow my noble friend. Like him, I think it unfortunate that we have not heard from those who have tabled Amendment 28. These three amendments have much to commend them. I also pay tribute to the work of the Government and, in particular, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, who first took an interest in this in the Quality of Life group’s report, Blueprint for a Green Economy, which he co-authored with my noble friend Lord Deben. I am pleased to see that his messianic zeal continues to this day.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 28 and 30, and express my support for all amendments in this group. This is my first contribution on this ground-breaking Bill and I too welcome it. It is wonderful, in many ways, but there is also an opportunity for some tweaks here and there, which could make it a great deal more significant. I speak briefly in the hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, will indeed be able to speak; she has more knowledge in this area than I ever will, so my comments are limited.
I am sure that all Members of your Lordships’ House agree that plastic pollution in general is one of the greatest threats to our precious planet. I know that, between them, the four signatories will make this case very powerfully in general terms; my purpose is only to support their arguments strongly.
Amendment 28 is modest in the context of the enormity of the plastics problem. To take the example of just one plastic product, it is hard to get my head around the notion that, globally, personal care companies alone produce some 120 billion plastic sachets each year. Others have talked about putting them end to end, back and forth, to the moon 27 times. It is beyond one’s comprehension, but terrifying. These items are totally non-recyclable and, as the organisation A Plastic Planet tells us, there are many reusable and more environmentally friendly alternatives available. Surely the Bill needs to inject a degree of urgency into preventing the continuation of this situation. If there are alternatives, it is difficult for a simple-minded person like me to understand why we are being so careful or modest about this. Why cannot Ministers set a date by which no plastic sachets should be produced, for example? The same sort of eye-watering statistics apply to many other plastic products, including all forms of plastic packaging. They simply need to be replaced.
Yes, the amendment requires Ministers to set a target for the reduction of plastic use by 2030—and this is indeed most welcome—but it says nothing about the level of plastics use at which the target should be set. There could be a target of reducing use by 1%. I really hope that, before Report, we can work with Ministers to achieve an amendment that really would require the end of the use of single-use plastics by a specific date—or, at least, the end of the use of specified single-use plastic products by specific dates. Obviously, this has to be realistic—producers have to make plans—but, unless we make a very clear target for producing complete alternatives, they will not really know where they are. I have a feeling we can do a lot better. In the meantime, I do wholeheartedly support Amendment 28 for putting this crucial issue on Ministers’ agenda. I hope Ministers will, as I have said, be able to come up with something more robust—stronger—in time for Report.
Amendment 30 focuses on single-use plastic packaging. Again, the amendment is hugely important, although, in my view, modest. It requires Ministers, by regulations, to
“set a target for reduction in the production and import of conventional single use plastic packaging”.
But, again, it does not require a specific target to achieve a specified rate of reduction in the use of these products. Again, I wholeheartedly support the amendment for raising the vital issue and cannot see any reason at all why the Government would not accept this amendment—although, as I have said, I hope we can go further.
The Government have made a good start in this field and I want to applaud them—for the ban on plastics straws, stirrers and plastic-stem cotton buds, as well as the ban on microbeads. These are important steps forward, saving literally billions of these items finishing up in the oceans. But, of course, there are many other single-use plastic products. We now have face masks to add to the problem, which we find all over the pavements. What plans are afoot to deal with those?
Amendment 30 takes a more ambitious line indeed on plastic packaging than the Government’s planned tax on items that do not meet a minimum threshold of at least 30% recycled content from April 2022. Surely we should not accept 70% non-recyclable content in the future. Surely, again, we have to be more ambitious. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these modest proposals. I was impressed by the Minister in our recent briefing meeting; it seems that he has a clear commitment to move forward on these agendas. I would like to think that he will want to work with noble Lords in developing stronger amendments before Report.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, this is my first amendment, too, in the Environment Bill, and I also welcome it.
I was glad to hear the Minister state on the first day of Committee:
“The Government will periodically review targets and can set more, especially if that is what is required to deliver significant improvement to the natural environment in England.”—[Official Report, 21/6/21; cols. 93-94.]
I would ask the Minister to examine Amendment 28, to which I put my name, because it seeks a target for plastics pollution which would do just what he says: namely,
“deliver significant improvement to the natural environment”.
I echo the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about litter. I am especially concerned about microplastic pollution. It is a blight found in the highest mountains and the deepest oceans; it is choking our wildlife, creating gut obstructions in seabirds that cause them poor health and even death, and it is present in the food we eat and the air we breathe, posing a potential danger to human health from ingesting microplastics. There are fears that microplastics might inhibit the ability of our lungs to repair damage caused by Covid-19. I also support Amendment 30 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell.
The Bill, as it stands, focuses very well on the end-of-life solutions to plastics pollution. These are, of course, very welcome, but this amendment adds to the Bill’s provision by targeting the problem of plastics pollution holistically. The Clause 1 target for resource efficiency and waste reduction is also welcome, but it will make only a partial contribution to reducing plastic pollution.
The problem is that products can be efficiently designed but and still create plastic pollution. Lightweight polystyrene packaging, polythene packaging and lightweight plastic bottles do achieve a reduction in resource but, when they are discarded, they create microplastic pollution. Litter from plastic bottles is estimated to contribute 33% of plastic pollution entering our oceans. Likewise, fishing nets are seen as resource efficient when made of plastic, as they last longer and use fewer materials. However, when they break and are discarded, they become floating traps for marine wildlife. Microbeads in plastics make the product work better but constitute 8.8% of Europe’s microplastic pollution. The Government have described this country’s microbead ban as world beating, but it covers only rinse-off products such as shampoo and toothpaste, and it still allows microbeads in the majority of cosmetics.
A plastic pollution reduction target on the face of the Bill will ensure the enforcement of measures such as a ban on maritime waste. Subsection (1) introduces a target to reduce plastic pollution that will ensure that major types of plastic pollution are not overlooked. The inclusion of the wording about reducing
“the volume of all non-essential single-use products”
avoids incentivising substitutions of plastics for other single-use materials, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about. It works in tandem with my Amendment 139 to Schedule 9.
I hope that the Minister will see this amendment as a response to the Defra Minister’s reply to a similar amendment in the other place, in which she said that
“we actually want to see a more ambitious resources and waste target … which applies holistically to all materials, not just plastic.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/21; col. 261.]
This amendment will realise this ambition by mitigating against the resource efficiency target when it does not deal adequately with the scale of the present plastics crisis. Proposed new subsection (2) sets outs a specific date for the new target—by 31 December—to align with the Government’s own target in Amendment 22. However, the Government have pushed back twice on long-term targets during this Bill’s stages in the other place. So this date seems like a compromise leaving room for further negotiations during the target-setting process. Proposed new subsection (4) reinforces the objective that a reduction in single-use plastics should not incentivise substitutions with other single-use materials that would create an adverse impact on the environment.
I understand that Ministers are concerned that it would be difficult to measure and monitor plastic pollution. Surely the OEP will be able to work with experts to devise the best way to measure, monitor and enforce a target. After all, such targets have been generated for such complex issues as carbon emissions. The Government are also concerned about the international nature of plastics pollution. Rebecca Pow has said that plastic pollution is a “highly transboundary issue” which needs to be tackled at an international level as part of a UN global plastics treaty. This is, of course, right. However, if this Bill is to be world beating, I hope the Minister will agree that this country must show the way by setting up its own domestic targets for plastic pollution. I hope the Minister will look favourably on this amendment.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, as this is my first intervention at this stage in the Bill, I draw attention to my vice-presidency of the LGA and my professional interests, particularly in the construction sector, as well as my membership of the Country Land & Business Association. I warmly welcome all the amendments in this group, for the reasons that have already been given. I could not help a bit of a smile when I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, refer to a well-known roadside fast food operator because, following the lockdown, I knew within about 24 hours that it had reopened by the nature of what was in the roadside verges near my home.
We can all recognise the utility of plastics, as referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. For many automotive, construction and household products, they perform a valuable, life-extending and efficiency function in many things that we use on a daily basis. But I wish to add my voice to those who have a fundamental concern about single-use plastics in general, their clear pathways into discards as litter and microplastics, and the fact that many are not recyclable at all or not generally recyclable in this country.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I identify very much with his last comments on the litter all over our countryside, particularly after lockdown, and the way in which communities came together to use their spare time to at least ameliorate a certain amount of this problem.
I worry that some of our plastic litter is being exported. We think it may be reused but, in fact, it is just going into dumps overseas. We must avoid that in every way we can.
I speak in support of Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on this vexed issue. I support her in everything she said, and I also support Amendments 28 and 30. I take the point that we should be more ambitious, but we need to start somewhere. We need to get this issue on the face of the Bill; if it is in at this stage, it triggers certain actions that could follow at later stages.
Of all the issues coming before us today in this massively important Bill, I suspect that there is greater public support for drastically cutting back the use of plastic in all its guises than for most of the other, very worthy aims in the Bill. Of course, one aim should not compete with another in terms of priority.
We accept the use of plastic in many unnecessary ways. We do so without considering how that material is to be disposed of in a manner that is harmless to wildlife on land and in the oceans. We have been totally profligate in our mindless use of plastic, and we now see animals, fish and birds suffering from plastic entering their digestive systems. Surely we must systematically reduce the use of plastic and move in a coherent manner to lessen its impact. To the extent that plastics of certain types are compostable, well, all the better—but that is ameliorating the problem rather than necessarily solving it. We must have a radical root-and-branch approach.
This amendment makes a modest proposal for dealing with this issue by making the reduction in the use of unnecessary plastic a priority area in the establishment of environmental targets in the Bill. This provision could trigger another proposed clause which requires a measurable standard to be achieved and a target date for reaching such an objective. Is that not exactly what we need for a coherent plastic reduction programme? Even if it is not on the face of the Bill, should that not be our aim? If that is the case, what possible argument can there be against putting it on the face of the Bill? I urge the Minister not just to pay lip service to the need for a reduction in the use of plastic but to do something about it. I await his response with interest.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on her amendments, which I am afraid I did not sign. That was a complete oversight on my part. I think her introduction was excellent.
I suspect that not very far in the future, we will think of plastic as the new asbestos. When we first had asbestos, it was hailed as a wonder material. It is highly heat resistant and an excellent electrical insulator, and it has been used in construction, for fireproofing, and even for making clothing and furniture. In fact, archaeological evidence suggests that asbestos was used by humans quite a long time ago to strengthen ceramic pots, so it has been understood as a very valuable resource. Since the end of the 19th century, asbestos has been used in all sorts of buildings; any building constructed before the 1980s is likely to contain asbestos. Now, of course, the word “asbestos” is enough to stop people buying a property because it is so dangerous to human health when disturbed. I think we are going to see plastic as a dangerous material in the same way—probably more dangerous and more pervasive than asbestos.
Obviously, as other noble Lords have said, plastic has a lot of almost miracle properties, and the things that we can produce from plastic are integral to our way of life. However, its versatility and availability have led to exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said: we have used it mindlessly. We have made so much plastic that we are now in danger of being polluted by it ourselves. We have known for a long time that plastic takes hundreds of thousands of years to break down, but only recently we have understood how bad that is. Plastic only breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces; it does not actually ever go away. It just gets tiny and it gets everywhere, with quite damaging consequences.
We now see that microplastics are present almost everywhere, including in our own bodies. Plastics accumulate in the food that we eat, moving up the food chain until it reaches its highest concentration in our bodies and, most concerningly, in mothers’ breast milk. When microplastics get very small, they are referred to as nanoplastics. They are so small that they can cross cellular membranes and actually work their way into our individual cells. We are currently clueless about what that means for our health and the environment, but if it is anything like asbestos then a tiny amount can be incredibly damaging for our health.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about disposal. The noble Baroness said that it should be disposed of well and the noble Earl talked about safe disposal. There is no safe disposal. There is no way to make sure that it is well disposed of; that just does not happen. It is still there. We know that we have produced far too much plastic, and it is within our control to reduce the amount that is made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned masks. I am going to make my regular comment about the fact that—and I am going to try not to look at any noble Lords wearing them—the blue masks that some noble Lords are wearing today in your Lordships’ House are actually highly polluting. They are not paper but plasticised paper; they cannot be recycled; they end up in our seas and rivers; they kill animals; and obviously they are extremely ugly to see. I know it is not easy to replace them, and I would say that at least those noble Lords are wearing masks in the first place, but I have offered to replace such masks with material masks made in my little haberdasher’s down in Dorset rather than still seeing them as I look around the House.
The Bill absolutely has to set targets for reducing plastics because we have to start now to reduce the future burden. The problem is just going to get worse, and if we do not get it into the Bill then we probably will not deal with it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
As always, it is a great pleasure to follow my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I do not always agree with her, but she speaks a great deal of common sense—as well as a few other things. I am delighted to see her putting on a mask. She will be glad to know that I took my blue mask off—I am waiting for the one from the haberdasher’s.
The noble Baroness made a very good point about asbestos, but of course that is a specific substance. “Plastic” is a bit of a generic term that covers a great deal. We have to recognise that in its beginning it often brought hygiene where there was squalor and safe packaging where there was danger, but it has now got completely out of hand. No one could have watched programmes like “The Blue Planet” without being completely nauseated by some of the scenes we saw on our screens of animals choked or strangled to death. It causes an enormous problem even in our own countryside and in our towns and cities.
My noble friend Lord Caithness referred to litter. In many ways, litter is the curse of the age. I have been horrified when I have watched “Look North” on our local television station and seen that after the end of various phases of the lockdown people have gone out in their hundreds and thousands and desecrated, and defecated in, our countryside. I say to the Minister that it is crucial, as others have referred to, that we have targets and deadlines. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made a particular point of that and she is right. We keep coming back to the phrase “a landmark Bill” but if this is indeed going to be a landmark Bill then there have to be deadlines for elimination. Of course one has to give manufacturers a degree of notice but we cannot carry on as we are or we will smother ourselves in our own detritus—it is as simple and alarming as that.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief, particularly as I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, will be able to come in after the Minister, so let us leave it to the experts.
I add my thanks to my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville for her eloquent and comprehensive introduction of her amendment and the issue of plastics and single-use items. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I think that while there are many issues that we in this House will be touching on in the next few weeks that the public may not be quite so familiar with, plastics and single-use items is one that they understand and on which they will expect fast action. They will therefore, rightly or wrongly, judge the Government on how they address the issue, so we on these Benches welcome the amendments from my noble friend Lady Bakewell and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on the Labour Front Bench.
Other noble Peers have touched on the implications and impacts of plastics, so I will be brief and say only that I echo the comments of my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on the impacts of plastics on litter, and the comments by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on the appalling impacts on wildlife. I am not sure that I caught anyone saying—if I did not catch it and have not mentioned them, I apologise—that we need to reflect on the greenhouse gas emissions from the disposal of plastics, which are such a major contribution and which we have to tackle if we are going to meet our greenhouse gas obligations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, rightly identified a number of the steps that the Government have taken on the plastics issue—she referred to straws and microbeads—and no one would deny that they are welcome, but they are very low-hanging fruit. Given the scale of the challenge and the need for fast action, I thank that all of us in this Committee, from all sides, would agree that we need faster action from the Government.
These three amendments all share the same sentiments; they tackle the issue in slightly different ways. I hope that, from the debate, the Government have realised that the Committee wants them to set targets for plastics pollution and for addressing the scourge of single-use plastic items. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment today, I hope that he will listen carefully to the suggestion from my noble friend Lady Bakewell that he meets her and others, before we get to Report, to look at how we can come to a realistic amendment to address this issue, which is rightly of huge significance to the public and absolutely critical if we are to get the environment that we need in future.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 13 and 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and to Amendment 28 in my name and those of other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott—I am very pleased to hear that she will make a contribution shortly.
A number of your Lordships have spoken with passion about the scourge of plastic in our environment and the damage it causes to our wildlife and marine environment. That all results in huge waste mountains created in landfill. The environmental scarring that occurs happens at all sorts of levels: the plastic clogs our oceans and rivers; it blights our landscape; and it is in the food that we eat and the air that we breathe. We are yet to discover the full impact that living with plastic is having on our long-term health. I completely understand the analogy with asbestos that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made; because it is a relatively new product, we do not yet know exactly what it is doing to our health.
The public are increasingly aware of the environmental damage that plastic is causing, with 81% of British people now wanting the Government to introduce refillable products to end the plastic crisis, and more than two-thirds saying that the plastic crisis is getting worse. From this debate, I think we would all concur with that. And yet, we know that just 10 plastic products—including plastic bags, bottles, food containers and fishing gear—account for three-quarters of global ocean litter. So the problem is intense, but it is also very specific in terms of what we have to tackle.
Plastic bottles and beverage litter alone contribute 33% of plastic pollution in our oceans, yet we know that alternative drinks containers already exist. I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Scott, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and others, that plastic litter is the scourge of our urban and rural landscapes. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, made an important point that extended producer responsibility really should ensure that manufacturers take responsibility for the litter that results from their products. I echo what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said in praise of litter pickers: we have all done our bit, and we all have great admiration for the people who do it on a more regular basis, including those in my own locality who regularly on a Sunday go picking litter up from the beach.
Several years ago, Coca-Cola sent to my office here a large sack and some plastic gloves, and I was encouraged to go and do some beach-picking. I thought that it had rather missed the point really, because it should be the company’s responsibility to clean up the litter in the first place rather than expect me to do it. I still have the gloves, and they are very useful on the allotment, although they are not being used for quite what they were intended. My point is that extended producer responsibility is important. Companies such as Coca-Cola—I know that it has got better, and I hope that it would not still do something like that—and other drinks manufacturers are trying to cut down on the amount of plastic, but we still have a long way to go.
Incidentally, I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that the blue plastic masks are just adding a new layer and source of pollution. We all understand why it was expedient to introduce them at very short notice, but the Government have now had time to come up with a better solution than the regular use of plastic masks, which we are all still encouraged to wear.
We believe that the solution is within our grasp, if only we had the determination to restrict the production of new plastics, to capture all that waste plastic for reuse and to charge manufacturers the full disposal cost of any discarded plastic. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that we already have the experts who can measure and monitor our plastic output; it is not that difficult. We are in a position to capture the statistics and properly report on progress.
We need a concerted effort from the top to drive down the use of plastic and replace it with reusable alternatives. As a number of noble Lords have said, the Government have known this for some time, and they have engaged in the debate and taken some action. I am sure that the Minister will remind us of the steps already taken, for example on banning microbeads and increasing plastic bag charges. All of this is of course welcome, but it is dealing with a fraction of the problem. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, it is in effect picking the low-hanging fruit. Meanwhile, the Minister himself in the debate on single-use plastics on 19 April said:
“action is needed to curtail the use of single-use plastics and their release into the environment.”
He went on to say that it is
“the Government’s intention to clamp down on single-use plastic pollution and protect our environment for future generations.”—[Official Report, 19/4/21; col. GC 245.]
I do not doubt his commitment, but the real challenge is action, which seems to be lacking.
We were provoked to table our amendment by the endless delays in tackling the more fundamental challenges that remain. I have lost track of the number of consultations that have taken place or are in progress without a credible ultimate deadline for action. Our Amendment 28 addresses this need for a deadline. It follows the same format as the Government’s own wording in their “abundance of species” amendment, so we know that it meets the criteria of being acceptable to Government, flexible, legal and politically deliverable. It also mirrors the wording in Clause 2 on the setting of air quality targets, emphasising that it should be a short-term, rather than long-term, target.
Our plastic reduction targets cover plastics and other “non-essential single-use products”. The amendment is worded in that way to ensure that a ban on plastic does not incentivise the use of other single-use materials. This is at the heart of the problem, because these can also be damaging to the environment. One noble Lord mentioned paper bags, and there are other things which are a substitute, but not a sufficient one, when we can just use the same product again and again if we turn our minds to it. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that our proposal is also intended to cover wet wipes and ear buds.
Our amendment works in tandem with Amendment 139—which seeks to amend Schedule 9—in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, to which I have also added my name, and which we will debate later.
Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 28 sets the plastic reduction target of 31 December 2030, which, again, aligns with the Government’s own “abundance of species” target. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that this is a very modest proposal, and if the Minister is able to tell us today that the Government have an earlier deadline in mind, we would very much welcome hearing it. We believe that this is a credible deadline that would enable production and retail businesses to adapt to the new recyclable or biodegradable materials that they would have to use as substitutes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said that plastic bottles are rarely recycled into new plastic bottles, and she is absolutely right on that. But the annoying thing is that we have had the technology to do that for years—it already exists; it does not have to be created. Manufacturers just have to find that the cost of using virgin plastic is prohibitive compared to recycled plastics, and then they would switch. But at the moment, it is easier for them to use new oil and chemicals, rather than use the materials that are already in circulation. We can change that only if the Government use market interventions to make this happen, at least in the short term.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions, and I hope they were reassured by my comments on Monday regarding the Government’s ability to set targets on a wide range of areas through this Bill. I will elaborate further on their specific amendments, although I echo what the noble Baroness has just said: we will be discussing issues around plastic and waste on numerous occasions through the course of this Bill.
I would like to reiterate that the Bill gives us the power to set legally binding, long-term targets on any aspect of the natural environment. That includes waste reduction and resource efficiency. The Government share the concerns raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, in their amendments on the proliferation of single-use plastic items and the need for urgent action. The effect on the environment, particularly the marine environment as we heard in the very powerful opening speech, is both heart-breaking and, frankly, sickening.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also talked about the issue of what we refer to as consumer waste. If we want to get to a point where we have designed waste out of the system, on many levels we should stop referring to it as consumer waste and regard it as producer waste. Most people, when they go to a shop and buy something with excess packaging, do not want it. It is a producer decision, not a consumer decision. As a number of noble Lords have said, that is precisely why extended producer responsibility is so important. Extended logically to its natural conclusion, it will place the onus on the producer, and we will see less waste.
As we know, the Government committed in the resources and waste strategy to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste by 2042. Measures in this Bill, such as extended producer responsibility—including for packaging—deposit return schemes and charges for single-use plastics et cetera, will help us to achieve this. Work on implementing these measures has already begun.
I acknowledge the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and agree with her comments about asbestos. I think our plastic wastefulness will, I hope one day soon, come to define our throwaway, short-termist, dysfunctional and disrespectful approach to the natural world. She is also right about masks—a conversation we have had many times. I share her bugbear; these things are completely avoidable. We have had a year of needing them, and surely by now people have had an opportunity to sort out a longer-term solution of a reusable mask.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, also listed a number of single-use items. Again, I emphasise that we can extend the ban on single-use items to other products, and I am committed to doing so. There is also an argument for personal responsibility, a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. We have taken steps to increase the disincentives when it comes to littering. Fines are now up to £2,500 if conducted through a magistrates’ court. We have raised the maximum fixed penalty from £80 to £150 and have raised the minimum as well. We have given new powers to local authorities regarding litter thrown out of vehicle windows.
In the meantime, there is a role for consumers. Notwithstanding the comments that I made about producer responsibility, it is worth bearing in mind that we have an ability to send a message to producers. Companies selling tea bags that are plastic ought to feel the fury of the consumer. We should not be buying that stuff; I certainly do not buy tea bags made of plastic, and I will never do that, although I have to say that until a few months ago I was not aware it happened. I cannot believe that companies thought it was okay to create plastic tea bags; it is just astonishing.
There is an international dimension that noble Lords mentioned as well. Although this is not directly relevant to these amendments, we are showing international leadership. We have committed £80 million to a whole range of international programmes to tackle pollution. We co-founded the Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance, which is all about helping Commonwealth counties to develop policies to reduce things like single-use plastics and improve their treatment and management of plastic. More than half of Commonwealth countries have signed up and therefore made the commitment.
There is one last thing on the international point—although it is not the last thing we are doing. It is worth bearing in mind that the vast majority of waste in the ocean is ghost gear: discarded fishing gear. There is a staggering amount. That, too, is where the principle of extended producer responsibility will really come into its own, creating a situation where it is simply a bad financial decision for vessels to just discard their fishing gear overboard.
We have already made important progress in tackling plastics. We have introduced one of the world’s toughest bans on microbeads in rinse-off personal care products and we have brought in measures to restrict the supply of plastic straws, plastic drink stirrers, and plastic stemmed cotton buds. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked when the latter was going to happen. It has already happened; the ban was introduced in October 2020. She heaped praise on the noble Lord, Lord Deben, particularly for his work on the quality of life review. I agree with her, partly because I co-chaired that review with him and I am very pleased with most of what was in it, although it is a gigantic document.
For the long-term legally binding target on waste reduction and resource efficiency, we want to take a more holistic approach to reduce consumption, not just of plastic, but of all materials. This would increase resource productivity and reduce the volume of waste we generate overall, including plastic waste. Setting a legally binding target on plastic waste in isolation, as proposed by the amendment, may lead to unexpected or undesirable substitutions. For example, we could see more materials whose environmental performance is, in the round, no better than plastic which could, for example, lead to higher carbon emissions.
I look forward to discussing specific measures in the Bill throughout the process that we embarked on on Monday—this Committee. We will be talking about plastic and other waste issues a great deal, but for now I hope that what I have said has reassured noble Lords somewhat and I beg them not to press their amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have requests to speak after the Minister from three noble Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I thank noble Lords who made kind comments about my knowledge of plastic. I do not in any sense pretend to be an expert on this subject, but I do know quite a bit about food and where it connects with plastics.
I am very pleased to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I am sorry I did not get onto the speakers’ list. I assumed that I would be on it as my name was on the Marshalled List, but even when I rang up yesterday to ask to come on it, they said I was not allowed because those lists were fixed. I realise I am still a newcomer. I thank the Minister for his response, which is extremely encouraging, and I thank all noble Lords who have made so many incredibly good points. I am only going to try to make some points which I think can still be made.
I feel our targets are still too low and we could outlaw single-use plastic. Some 69 countries currently have either partially or totally banned its use, particularly in Africa. Single-use plastic is very bound up with the way that food is sold by supermarkets, and in a lot of cases with fruit and vegetables you end up buying more than you want. There is a very direct line—say, when you have a large amount of grapes in a box with a single-use lid, when you actually wanted half the amount of grapes because you happen to be a single person, so some of those grapes are wasted. This suits the supermarket, but it does not suit the consumer and, obviously, it does not suit the planet.
It seems to me that supermarkets are getting away with murder at the moment. They are selling us single-use bags for 10p and also bags for life. Frankly, I am embarrassed by how many bags for life I have because I hate buying the 10p ones, which seem worse—I probably have about 15 bags for life now, which is way too many. This means that the supermarkets made at least £100 out of me on bags because of my laziness—but at least I reuse them.
The Minister and several other noble Lords raised a point about how we export plastic for recycling. Turkey is big on this list: 40% of our plastic now goes there—Greenpeace has been running a campaign on this—and it ends up incinerated or in landfill. I was very interested to hear the Minister say that it is the Government who are taking action, because it is my understanding that, from 1 July, Turkey is banning our waste. I would be interested to find out what the truth is, in this debate or at some point in the next few days.
I will mention the one group of people that of course wants using plastic to go on. There are different types of plastic—I have good plastic, such as plastic cups and picnic plates that I have had for 20 years—and there needs to be really good public education to make us understand that one type of plastic is okay and another is not. We could look at a complete ban such plastic. I am sorry—I have completely lost my train of thought.
Masks have shown that, a year and a half in, the Government are not taking the plastic issue completely seriously. They are allowing these things to be made, and we could have stopped this.
My final point is that plastic is obviously made from oil. The oil companies have one last throw of the dice, and that is in making more plastic. ClientEarth is fighting a huge case at the moment over the big new petrochemical company that is being set up on the Belgian border, which is primarily there to make plastic and flood the world with more of it, as we move towards banning fossil fuels. Please do not let us let this happen. I think we should move to a total ban on single-use plastic. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, wisely said, this is an issue where the public are really on side with the Government and will be urging them on for measures that are as tough as they can manage.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments, and I echo those of many others. She is a person of great knowledge and expertise on this issue. I have a note on my phone to contact her tomorrow to talk about something that I assume is connected to what she was just saying—I very much look forward to that. I completely agree with her that we can go further on single-use plastics. We have the power to do so, and I am absolutely committed that we will. This is not a niche concern on my part, or even one that is limited to me; it is shared by all of my colleagues in Defra, without exception.
The noble Baroness said that supermarkets are “getting away with murder”, and that is certainly true of some of them. But it is worth acknowledging when they get it right; it is important that people recognise best practice. Since I am not constrained by BBC rules on impartiality, I can say that Iceland has done extraordinary things on plastic. So far, I have seen that it is delivering on its commitments—for example, getting rid of every single one of those plastic trays beneath its frozen food, and so much more besides. It is worth celebrating that—it shows us what can be done. If its best practice today becomes the norm for everyone tomorrow, we will see real progress.
On the issue of the OECD, Turkey is bringing in restrictions, but I am not sure that it is a full ban—that may be wrong, but it is my understanding. Nevertheless, we are committed to banning the export of waste to non-OECD countries, and obviously Turkey is an OECD country. We have the power within the legislation to extend that ban, should the case be made. Of course, we are looking very closely at the information that Greenpeace has collected in relation to very bad waste treatment in Turkey, but this is not something that I am able to comment on in detail at the moment because I do not know enough about it—I do not think that any of us do.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in his initial answer to the various amendments, the Minister said that it was the Government’s intention to set targets on a wide range of areas through this Bill. Therefore, by way of elucidation, could the Minister indicate whether it would be the intention of the Government, by way of the Bill or by accepting an amendment, to request the banning of sachets for cosmetic items and non-food products, such as household cleaning products? Many of these types of sachets end up clogging up our landfill sites.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, one of our priority areas for targets is waste, so we are committed to introducing at least one target, but, as I said, we can introduce targets on other issues as well. We are looking very closely at where targets are likely to have the best and biggest impact, and Defra is currently looking very closely at the issue that the noble Baroness has raised. I am not sure whether it was in the noble Baroness’s speech, but we heard from a few people, including in the opening speech, about the negative impacts of throw-away face wipes that contain plastic. We in the department are looking very closely at this as well; we are gathering information to see where we can have the biggest impact. I do not want to prejudge that process, but we are clearly committed to moving to a zero-waste economy, which will be reflected in the targets and is reflected in the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in his answer to the debate on this group of amendments, the Minister said that the Government are relying on extended producer responsibility to see a reduction in waste, particularly plastic waste; indeed, he said, “We will see less waste”. I was thinking about a company that produces some of our most expensive electronic goods and which does not have a particularly good environmental record—everyone will know which company I am talking about. If it produces a telephone or device that is worth £1,000 or more, the packaging cost would have to be very large to discourage it from making it look as fancy and as flash as you could possibly want.
Then there is the other end of the market—supermarkets, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, just mentioned. They are saving a lot of money by selling plastic-wrapped vegetables, which forces people to buy more. I did a little price comparison in Lidl in Sheffield, and the loose vegetables were roughly twice the price of the plastic-wrapped ones. That is certainly a reflection in part of the fact that they are cheaper for supermarkets to handle: they need fewer staff and plastic-packed goods can be more roughly handled. You would have to put a very major cost on that plastic to ensure that there is a truly significant deterrent effect. I ask the Minister to respond on his claim that “We will see less waste”—how can he be certain about that?
To pick up the other point, the Minister said that the plastic ban has a risk of encouraging the use of other equally, or similarly, damaging materials. I come back to our debate on day 1, when we talked about the need for a limit on, or reduction to, our resource use in total, and a target to see a total resource-use loss.
Finally, my noble friend has asked me to tell noble Lords—she has been having conversations on Twitter—that if you are now wearing a blue plastic face mask, you can wash these several times and they will survive several washes. Having given that important information, I will sit down.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that final comment. As I have said many times, extended producer responsibility provides us with the apparatus that would, if used correctly, lead to a dramatic reduction in waste. But of course there is an “if”: we have to set the incentives, or disincentives, at a level that will have the desired impact. This is not an exact science, so there will no doubt be trial and error.
The fundamental point is that, whatever the cost, it has to reflect at least the cost to society of the generation of that waste in the first place. The problem at the moment is that there are companies generating waste but leaving the cost of dealing with it to society. In effect, this is an indirect subsidy. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, this very much hinges upon getting those incentives right—of course, it is my intention, and the Government’s, that we will get those incentives right.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his encouraging response but I remain convinced, as are other noble Lords, that some form of plastics reduction target must be in the Bill if the Government are to show that they are serious about this subject.
The Minister said that 2042 was the target deadline, which is far too far away. The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Meacher, referred to the scourge of wet wipes and other personal products containing plastics. We have moved some way on this, but there is still a great deal to be done.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, especially about extending producer responsibility. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the movers of Amendment 28 to see if we can reach an accommodation on the way forward on this vital aspect of plastic pollution.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raised the issue of the disintegration of brown paper bags. The supermarket that I frequent sells substantial paper carriers. They are compostable and can withstand rainstorms—I have been caught in one with them. They can be used several times before being put to good use in the composter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to plastic litter, especially from fast-food outlets. This is a prime example of where producer responsibility could make a real difference.
It is important that the role of compostable materials be recognised in any target. The Government have a way to go in their thinking on this. I share the Minister’s disquiet at the use of plastic tea bags. We switched several years ago to using loose tea—along with our coffee grounds, we spread it on the garden. I recommend doing this. It is a very good dissuader of slugs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, spoke eloquently about food waste generated by consumers having to buy more than they really need because of the packaging. I support her comments and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. We must make certain that we have a total ban on plastics, especially those used for food wrapping.
I reiterate my request to meet the Minister, along with the movers of this amendment; I do not think I heard him agree to do so. I hope his office will contact me with a date. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, could come along as well. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)
My Lords, we come now to the group beginning with Amendment 15. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 15
Lord Lucas
“(c) the reasons why that particular target and that particular date have been chosen, and the evidence on which those choices have been based.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to enable people affected by the targets to understand how they have been arrived at.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 15. The targets the Government intend to set will impose substantial costs and obligations on us, one way or another. Any costs imposed on a business ends up with the consumer. These may well require substantial changes in our behaviour. I would like the Government to commit to empowering us, to taking us along with the process they have followed in arriving at those targets, and to telling us why they have chosen those targets and accompanying dates. I would also like them to set out in full and make accessible to us the evidence on which those targets are based.
If we empower people in this way, they become fellows—people who are with us in setting out to tackle the problem, rather than being compelled, often unwillingly, to go along with government diktats. The more we can persuade people, the more we can take them with us, the easier it will be and the further we can go. I would like a system which would clearly incentivise the production of evidence. Where it is weak—regarding the harm done by microplastics, for example—there should be a clear incentive for the Government to sponsor research and investigation to underpin any target they may wish to put in place.
We have a history of legislating in this area based on inadequate evidence. For instance, the original decision to ban tungsten lightbulbs in favour of other systems was based on the idea that the heat they create is wasted. In this country, this is only true during four months of the year; during the other eight months, the heat is extremely useful. The decision to allow only low-powered vacuum cleaners was based on extremely thin evidence and may well have resulted in people expending a lot more energy and time than would have been necessary, had they had higher-powered vacuum cleaners. If we are to use resources effectively in dealing with pollution and other problems, we absolutely must base it on evidence. This evidence, and our thinking, must be shared with the people we want to take along with that decision.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords I shall speak chiefly to Amendments 16 and 18 in my name. I also want briefly to support the sentiments behind Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. However, generally speaking, history shows us that, as more evidence is collected, regulations and restrictions are far too weak at the outset and need to be strengthened further. I question the two examples he gave but I will not disappear into the weeds of those details.
I also support Amendment 43 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to which my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has added her name. This partly relates to my amendments. Amendment 43 talks about a statutory duty to meet interim targets. My two amendments—particularly Amendment 16—say that there should be
“at least one interim target”.
We are talking about targets of 15 years or more.
I asked the House of Lords Library—it is an invaluable resource, and I thank it—to find out how many Secretaries of State in the last 100 years held that single post for more than 10 years. It came up with a list of two: Gordon Brown, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, both of whom were Chancellors. No other Secretary of State held that post for longer than 10 years.
This is a question of responsibility and of people taking action, and being able to demonstrate that they are taking action, over a relatively short period of time. I will not reopen Monday’s debate about our being in a climate, biodiversity and environmental crisis. We are in a crisis, and we need action quickly. Fifteen years is a very long time. If the target is that far away—a minimum of three Governments away and, based on current case studies, perhaps considerably more—it is very easy for it not to be addressed and for no real progress to be made. That is why I am suggesting at least one interim target in those 15 years.
That brings me to my second amendment, Amendment 18, which states that these long-term targets should be no longer than 20 years. In my reading of the Bill—I should be very interested if anyone can tell me I am wrong; I do not claim to be a lawyer—it says that targets will be at least 15 years away; there is no maximum target. The Bill—we are talking about what is written in it—could allow the Government to set a 50-year target for water pollution or biodiversity, which, of course, is no kind of target at all.
These amendments are small and modest, and I am not necessarily wedded to the numbers in them. They are an attempt to open up the debate about the fact that we cannot just say, “Right, here’s a 15-year target, and we can all sit back and worry in 12 years’ time where we have got to.” We need targets set with appropriate reporting towards them. I point out a situation where we have interim targets set. This is by the Committee on Climate Change. In its most recent reports, it has set out the fourth and fifth carbon budgets, which run from 2023 to 2027 and 2028 to 2032 respectively. We are not on track to meet either of those. That demonstrates the importance of setting statutory interim targets and committing to their delivery.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 43 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones, which is also supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I am also pleased to be speaking ahead of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in case he wants to comment on this amendment.
We support the principles of Amendments 15, 16 and 18. It is important that we understand how and why decisions have been taken and are able to ensure that actions and remedies are in place when required. Amendment 43 may be small, but it makes an important point in this legislation. By inserting the phrase “interim targets are met”, in effect it places a duty on the Secretary of State to meet those targets.
As we have heard, the Bill requires interim targets to be set on a five-yearly basis. In the environmental improvement plans, the Government are required to set out the steps they will take over that 15-year period to improve the natural environment. However, environmental improvement plans are not legally binding; they are simply policy documents. This is concerning, because targets are most effective when binding, making it more likely that early action is taken and is sustained by successive Governments.
Indeed, voluntary environmental targets have been badly missed on a number of occasions. I shall give some examples. The target set in 2010 to end the inclusion of peat in amateur garden products by 2020 was badly missed. The target set in 2011 for Defra to conserve 50% by area of England’s sites of special scientific interest by 2020 has been abandoned and replaced with a new target: to ensure that 38.7% of SSSIs are in favourable condition, which is only just higher than the current level.
In the Bill as it stands, an environmental improvement plan, which sets out the steps the Government intend to take to improve the natural environment, needs to be reviewed and, potentially, updated every five years and reported on every year by the Secretary of State. The OEP will also prepare an annual report on progress made towards improving the natural environment and meeting targets, including the interim targets, to which the Secretary of State must respond, addressing any recommendations.
The Government claim that this triple-lock mechanism will be sufficient to drive short-term progress, but this is not the same as legal accountability. Interim targets should be legally binding to guarantee that they will be delivered, and it is vital to have a robust legal framework in place to hold the Government and public authorities to account, not just in the long term but in the short term. As things stand, the Government could, in theory, set a long-term legally binding target for 2037, as suggested in the legislation, but then avoid having to actually do anything about meeting it until 2036.
It is important that the Secretary of State is given a duty to meet the targets, because that then means the Government will have to introduce mechanisms to ensure that they are met. I am sure the Minister will agree that we need to take interim targets seriously, so we must ensure that they are credible, achievable, workable and play a full part in the process of meeting the long-term targets that are set. But there is a lack of focus, drive and certainty. Legally binding interim targets in the Bill would give a sense of direction and be something against which the Government could be held to account.
It is also worth pointing out that environmental targets are interdependent. Because of the complex interdependencies in the natural world, missing a target in one priority area may make it harder to meet one in another. A target to improve freshwater biodiversity relies on meeting water quality targets. Early and sustained action is needed across all priority areas to ensure that long-term targets are met, so interim targets need to be strengthened to avoid the risk of failure.
Politics and government have a notorious reputation for looking only to the short term, yet real environmental improvement requires a long-term focus. The Climate Change Act has demonstrated the difference the existence of statutory requirements can make, strengthening the hand of civil servants, who can tell reluctant Ministers that it is the law to meet emissions targets in the near term.
This is not an issue just for Defra. If we are to meet environmental targets, other departments have to play their part. For example, meeting targets on air quality requires action from the DfT, BEIS, local government and others. Other departments will have their own priorities, so may well need the encouragement of legally binding targets to actually take any necessary action.
To finish, we must not forget about business. The Aldersgate Group, which is a business alliance championing a competitive and environmentally sustainable economy, has said:
“To deliver much needed investment in nature restoration, businesses require legally binding interim targets in the Environment Bill to drive rapid policy action”.
It goes on to say that an amendment calling for legally binding interim targets
“will reinforce the credibility of the Bill’s long-term targets and deliver a much clearer policy and regulatory framework which businesses can invest against.”
Our amendment would hugely strengthen the outcomes of the Bill, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, that it has been extremely useful that she has spoken to her amendment before we all comment on it. I congratulate her on the way she did it and support a lot of what she said.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for sparing the time to have a meeting with me before we started Committee. At that meeting, I said to him that one of my main focuses was going to be how this works in practice on the ground—how it will be implemented in reality, rather than in theory. That is what I want to start to explore with this amendment, in support of my noble friend Lord Lucas. He rightly asked why the targets have been set and how.
We all want better biodiversity—it is on that area that I shall focus in the short time for which I shall speak—but we must have a sensible and practical target for it. If my noble friend issues a target that he wants lapwing and curlew numbers to be increased by 50%, we must look at some hard evidence and facts. Here, I call in aid the work of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust. It has been researching this area for more than 20 years, combining a productive farm at Loddington in Leicestershire with benefits for wildlife. I urge my noble friend the Minister to visit that farm as soon as practicable, and certainly before Report, because he will be fascinated by the research that the trust has done.
The trust has done research into lapwing. It did a pilot study with Peak District farmers. It was backed up by Natural England. The farmers did all the right things: the grass was the right length, the vegetation was absolutely right. They got full marks, they got a lot of funding, but there was absolutely no increase in lapwing; in fact, there was a decrease. That was because other factors, in particular, predation by animals, had not been taken into account. An awful lot of money has been wasted on projects similar to this.
I back that up with the curlew project in Shropshire that it was involved with. For two years, it monitored and looked after sites, but no chicks survived. Mostly, that was due to egg predation by badgers and foxes, which has caused real problems; indeed, it got to the stage where nests were electric-fenced off to protect them. Three nests hatched but, once the chicks had got out from under the electric fence, there was no stopping the predation. Therefore, I thoroughly support the aims of my noble friend Lord Lucas’s proposal and ask my noble friend the Minister: how will these targets work in practice regarding biodiversity? Given the examples I have just mentioned—and I have a lot more to come out during later amendments—how will this work on the ground for the benefit of wildlife?
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish briefly to speak on the two principal targets of these amendments—first about reasons and secondly the targets themselves. I warmly support Amendment 15. First, experience throughout my life has shown that if you are required to give reasons, you make better decisions. I do not believe that this will be burdensome because the civil servants advising the Minister will have to set out why particular targets are chosen. Secondly, I support the view that evidence should be provided, because that enables the cogency of the reasons to be examined and their transparency becomes obvious to all. Thirdly, setting out reasons and the evidence will provide a firm basis for certainty about the targets themselves. This is a small but very important amendment and I do not believe that it will add to the burdens of our very hard-pressed Civil Service because this is the kind of thing that it does internally. Why not follow transparency and make it public?
As regards targets, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, may well be right in her view in Amendment 18 that there should be a restriction on the length of the long-term target because there does not appear to be one in the Bill at the moment. That is why interim targets are so important. As is accepted, it is the interim target that the current Government are likely to concentrate on, not the more distant target—if it is more distant than 15 or 20 years away, no one will concentrate on it at all. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has so eloquently explained, there is so much evidence that targets are missed. In dealing with targets in ordinary day-to-day life, it is accepted that unless there is something behind a target to give teeth to it and impose a clear duty, then it can easily be ignored.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has explained, the Government say that the triple lock will work. I do not accept that that is tough enough. Why not acknowledge a duty? The Government accept that there is a duty in respect of long-term targets, why not therefore a duty in respect of the interim targets? We all know that if you are under a duty—both legally and morally—you will seek to discharge that duty. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s explanation as to why the Government simply will not accept a duty.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 43, which places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to meet any interim targets. I am merely a pale shadow compared to the previous speaker who put it very eloquently. I share exactly the same position as him and, indeed, the position of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Parminter, my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, in putting forward this amendment. It is important that interim targets are just as legally binding on the Government as any other targets.
Interim targets have a huge benefit. They keep up the momentum. They give certainty to businesses and, indeed, several business groups have already called for legally binding interim targets. They would also give certainty to local government and the public. The process of setting interim targets under Clause 3(2) means that they can be met, so there is no impediment to the Government accepting that meeting interim targets should be a legal requirement if they have already determined that the targets are able to be met in the process of setting them. It will also have an added benefit that the office for environmental protection will be able to take enforcement action if the Government do not meet interim targets, which I believe it could not do if the targets are not legally binding.
We only have to look at climate change efforts in the past to see how statutory interim targets can really drive change. The Climate Change Act introduced statutory interim targets and they do drive change, as opposed to the non-statutory early programmes which, quite frankly, wallowed and did not get cross-government buy-in in any way. Ministers and Governments come and go, but legally binding interim targets march on and will provide certainty for all. I hope the Minister can accept this amendment.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment 43 on the need for binding interim targets. I also support Amendments 16 and 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and, in many ways, support Amendment 15 about the need for evidence, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The Government’s position on interim targets, as presented by the Minister in another place, Rebecca Pow, appears to be that legally binding targets would not be appropriate because of the unpredictability of the environment. In other words, events may make the targets hard to achieve. However, by this logic, the Government should not set themselves any targets at all, as unpredictable events will surely intervene.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Young of Old Scone, all referred to the Climate Change Act as showing us the value of legally binding interim targets. As we have already heard, the Climate Change Committee advises on the five-year carbon budgets that are—I underline this—the cost-effective road map to net zero. One important point that the Climate Change Committee makes is that you cannot back-end all the actions because it will cost you more. You have to take early steps to save later on. So far, the Government have accepted the first six carbon budgets, taking us through to the mid-2030s, so they are legally binding commitments. These budgets not only provide us with transparency about whether the Government are on track but also a clear indication of where progress has been good and where it has not. That is why we know that the Government, in spite of good progress in some areas, are not currently on track to meet their longer-term target of net zero by 2050.
I see no compelling reason why we should not do the same for nature’s recovery. I admit that in some ways it is more complicated than cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The path to net-zero emissions by 2050 can be measured in a single, common currency—carbon dioxide equivalents—and we have clearly defined ways of decarbonising our economy, whether it is through renewable energy, better insulation of homes or electric vehicles and so on. For nature’s recovery, there is as yet no single, common currency nor are there the well-defined building blocks for achieving long-term targets.
However, the Government will have to work out the answers to these questions if they are to meet their longer-term targets, so why not start right away and meet legally binding interim targets? Statutory interim targets would enable all of us to see how the targets are being calculated—which relates back to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—what progress is being made and what needs to change. You can see what happens without binding interim targets by looking at progress on climate adaptation. In contrast to the Climate Change Committee’s advice on mitigation—cutting our greenhouse gas footprint—its advice through the Adaptation Committee on building resilience for the inevitable future climate change that we will experience is not translated into binding targets. I should note in parentheses that I served for eight years as the first chair of the Adaptation Committee, as a member of the Climate Change Committee itself.
Last week, the Adaptation Committee reported on its latest climate change risk assessment. It said:
“Alarmingly, this new evidence shows that the gap between the level of risk that we face and the level of adaptation underway has widened. Adaptation action has failed to keep pace with the worsening reality of climate risk.”
That is what happens if you do not have binding interim targets, and I fear that without legally binding interim targets we will find exactly the same failures by the Government with regard to the commitments in this Bill.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I always feel rather humbled when I follow such eminent noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
I added my name to Amendment 43 and support the general thrust of these amendments with regard to targets and interim targets. If we are not careful, targets just become aspirations. Without being too flippant, I have a target to lose a number of pounds—perhaps stones—in weight, but, without a statutory requirement to do so within a particular period, I am afraid that the time slips by and I find a good excuse, whether it is lockdown, the weather, all sorts, not to do it now but to do it next month. If we are serious about this, it is important to have interim targets that are statutory. I will not go on, except to echo the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Caithness in very highly recommending to my noble friend the Minister a visit the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust’s Allerton project in Loddington, which has done a lot of research.
My noble friend is absolutely right that you cannot just magic-up these things without detailed research. There are some uncomfortable truths. He mentioned curlews, for example, and he is talking about predation. There is a possible problem that by increasing woodland we are providing more cover for predators, so, where that is near habitat that might be good for curlews and redshanks, we are actually providing more refuge. These things are complicated, but we must have the interim targets on a statutory basis, otherwise they can just get lost in the sands of time.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank those who have participated so far in this short debate on targets. Like other noble Lords, on these Benches we support the principle of evidence-based targets that was made powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his opening remarks, and we also support the principle of the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
As other noble Lords have already indicated, I have put my name to Amendment 43, which would put a duty on the Secretary of State to meet legally binding interim targets. We think that this is an important step forward. I do not intend to say much on the arguments, given that they have been set out so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, who made the case particularly coherently, reminding us that there are businesses out there which are asking for this. I know that the Government do not always want to listen to those of us who come from other parts of civil society, or from other groups, but they do tend to wish to listen to businesses. Therefore, the noble Baroness’s argument about responsible businesses asking for a duty for the Minister to meet legally binding interim targets was a powerful one.
Equally, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, made the case well that this step will be important to help the OEP do its job. We will come on to a lot of debates about the OEP, including on its overarching remit and function, but, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, we must always be thinking about how this will be translated on the ground, not just in terms of how it will affect the biodiversity of species but in how it is being delivered on the ground by this new organisation that will be set up to be the government watchdog. Obviously we only have an interim OEP at the moment, but I would have thought that this is something that the Government would really want, to help it to do the job that the Government have said that they want it to do and which all of us in this Chamber want to help it to do when hopefully it is set up permanently, later this year.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, dismantled the arguments put by the Minister in the other place as to why the Government were not prepared to accept this proposal. Other Peers have made clear and convincing arguments about why this is an important step and that there is a parallel that we know already works: the Climate Change Act. So, in supporting these amendments, I say to the Minister that he will have to do rather better than he did in his remarks at Second Reading, where he seemed merely to echo the comments of the Minister down the other end. The contentions from people around this Chamber is that this is an important step which is absolutely critical to help the OEP do its job and which businesses want. If we want to deliver on the ground, this needs to go ahead. Therefore, I look forward to his remarks and hope that they will be, to put it delicately, a little more convincing than they were at Second Reading.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions and welcome their engagement with this area of the Bill.
Turning first to Amendment 43, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and other noble Lords, to consider the potential effect of this amendment and how it could undermine the long-term nature of the targets framework, which we have purposely designed to look beyond the political cycle of any one Government. No one disputes that there is a logic in having long-term targets. Long-term targets will provide much-needed certainty to businesses and society, enabling us to invest confidently in the innovation required to achieve our ambitions. However, at the same time, we need some flexibility to adapt the interim targets, while keeping the long-term fixed targets, so that we can reflect on what is and what is not working.
With huge respect, I am not sure that the characterisation by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, of the arguments of my colleague, Rebecca Pow, is completely fair. It is not so much about the unpredictability of nature. There may be times when we will want to take actions that are more ambitious but which might not bear fruit in a few years. We must be able to avoid rushed policy-making just to score a quick win, which we would have to do if there were shorter-term legal targets.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I say that there is always a natural temptation for any Government on a five-yearly target-setting process to set eye-catching short-term measures in their manifesto, but everything that we know about the complexity of these environmental targets shows that they transcend any one Administration, or five-year period. We are, after all, talking about living, non-linear systems, and there will be plenty of measures the effects of which will take many years to bear out. For example, in response to my noble friend Lord Caithness, for certain habitats, such as peat bog, native woodland and elements of the marine environment, significant change is unlikely to occur within a five-year period. We would not want to deprioritise key areas of the environment with longer recovery times in order to meet those five-year targets.
There are actions we can take on air quality, particularly those requiring new infrastructure, which may temporarily increase PM2.5 concentrations but nevertheless have significant long-term benefits. For example, building significant cycling and walking infrastructure would deliver long-term benefits through the modal shift from polluting modes of transport such as motor cars, but the construction work to deliver that infrastructure would increase PM2.5 concentrations in the short term, as well as congestion while people get used to a different flow of traffic. All the evidence backs both those contentions.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful for the support that I have received from my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
I am also mostly happy with what my noble friend the Minister has said. It sounds like a good standard Civil Service practice, but I very much hope that, when the time comes, he will go beyond just publishing a summary of the evidence. This ought to be something people can engage with in detail. They ought to be able to see exactly what has been said, to read the underlying research papers, to go in depth into the evidence that has been collected and, with the help of organisations with expertise in these matters, be able to criticise on a level basis the targets that have been set and suggest improvements, with good reasons. That will come if the Government are fully open about the basis on which they have reached their targets. However, my noble friend will not be surprised that I am greatly encouraged by what he has said, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 17. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 17
Lord Lucas
“(5A) Regulations under this section must make provision about undertaking research into the reasons why a target is not being met, regionally or nationally.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to make sure that the reasons why targets are not being met is understood and evidenced so that remedies can be accurately and efficiently targeted.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
When the Government come to review the performance against targets, I very much hope that they will commit to undertake detailed research into the reasons why the targets have not been met, not only nationally but regionally, because for most of them the underlying reasons will be significant at a local level but perhaps not so nationally.
To take the example of air pollution in Eastbourne, where I live, we often record quite high figures, but no one has the slightest idea why. There does not seem to be that much traffic; we do not seem to be in a place where you would expect fumes to be trapped; there is not a lot of wood-burning going on. We end up ascribing things to container ships in the channel. However, all this is soluble if we do a bit of research. Every bit of this pollution has a chemical signature. With some money put into it, we would know quite rapidly what lay at the root of the problems we experienced and could therefore accurately understand what we should be doing over the next planned period to reduce it.
Without that sort of research, we are operating blind. We are operating on a set of national suppositions as to where this pollution comes from—diesel engines, wood-burning stoves, whatever—none of which has any obvious application locally. However, it is locally that the efforts must be made to reduce it. In this amendment, I ask the Minister to put us in a position to take effective action locally to drive through the achievement of his targets. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the amendment in my name suggests that the Government should be talking to other bits of government when creating policy. Its wording might go back to some earlier bits of this clause—nearly one and half days into this, we are not half way through the first clause, but that is quite normal for the start of a Bill. I am thinking here about some of the targets on recreation and enjoyment of the countryside. If I do not like it, I should have stood up earlier and said, “Move it”, but we are where we are.
The Department of Health has a considerable investment in, and has spent a lot of time, making sure that people take exercise. The countryside is an incredibly good potential facility for getting more people to take exercise in a pleasant manner. They will not do it if the environment they are in is unpleasant, dangerous or difficult to reach. We can go on in this way for quite a long time. Will these two departments work together coherently? We may discover from the Minister that “They should possibly consult, that is definitely a good idea”, but in reality they will not, because we have two people defending their own little bailiwicks—“This is where we have authority; this is where you have authority—get your tanks off my lawn.” They might throw a few expletives in there as well, because that is the normal relationship. People like to be in control of what they are doing.
This is an attempt to make sure that two bits of government that should be working together are doing so. It might be the case that we go back and put in a couple more amendments about the new office for health promotion—by naming it I might be expanding this slightly—but if we are to make sure that activity can take place outside, we must know what is going on.
On the other hand, if you are suggesting that everybody should go out and march up and down hills, you have to know how much damage you will do to the environment in certain circumstances and whether that should not happen for environmental reasons. We have talked about mountain bikes ripping up paths, and will talk about it again. We will talk about where walkers are and where they should not be. All these things should be discussed sensibly in government, with somebody having some duty to make sure there is some form of coherent whole coming out of this.
I could expand at considerable length about certain well-meaning groups in the countryside finding themselves totally at the throats of other well-meaning groups in the countryside. They all want similar things but none are prepared to compromise—“And, by the way, we normally fight, don’t we?”. Okay, I will say it: the canoeists and the anglers. If we are going through this, we need some form of guidance from government to make sure they will work together. I suggest that giving some idea of how this will happen in future would not hurt the Bill in any way.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I have one amendment in this grouping, Amendment 34. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lord Teverson. It is quite a tightly worded, small amendment in some regards and aims to require the Secretary of State to seek the advice of the OEP on whom to consult before setting targets. As it stands at the moment, the Secretary of State gets to set the targets and choose the advisers the Government consult on what those targets might be. That seems to be not a very rational approach and not a very solid process.
I suspect that in summing up, the Minister will say, “Well, under Clause 29 of the Bill, we can ask the office for environmental protection for advice on such matters”, and of course that is reasonable—but it is only that they can ask. If we look at the parallel body, the Climate Change Committee, although I know it is not an exact parallel, we see that the Government have to seek the advice at the start of the target-setting process.
It seems to me that the OEP should be involved right at the beginning of the process of setting the targets for the future of our environment and should therefore be asked to have a say in who the Government should consult—the best experts who can provide the best current advice, from which the Government can then cull a view on what those targets might be. If it does not do that, it seems to me that the Government have undue discretion. I therefore urge the Government to accept this small but important point of process.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer with forestry and renewable energy interests, chairman of the Fleet District Salmon Fishery Board and a director of the Galloway Fisheries Trust.
I will speak to Amendments 36, 38, 45 and 50 in my name in this rather wide group. They all relate to the same issue: that the Bill does not take account of any negative impacts, risks or costs that may arise, inadvertently or otherwise, as a result of the environmental targets set under Clause 1. I noted what the Minister, who is not in his place at the moment, said on the last group about impact assessments for targets, which was very welcome, but there is nothing in the Bill with respect to that. This is important, because we do not always get it right. Most environmental actions involve some form of trade-off or cost, whether environmental, social or economic. That is not to say that we should not take the actions, but surely it cannot be controversial to say that we should ensure that the costs or damage that might result are not disproportionate to the benefits achieved.
On 10 June, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services—not renowned for being unenvironmental in their outlook—jointly sponsored a workshop report, Biodiversity and Climate Change. I believe that the Minister was at that workshop. The report points out that actions taken to deal with climate change can have negative impacts on biodiversity—and the other way around, although that is less common.
The report gives examples of such negative trade-offs. For example, it says:
“Afforestation, which involves planting trees in ecosystems that have not historically been forests, and reforestation with monocultures, especially with exotic tree species, can contribute to climate change mitigation but are often detrimental to biodiversity”.
That is a subject very close to my heart. Living in south-west Scotland, as I do, I see every day the damage that can be done. I am a member of the Fleet catchment steering group, which is working to try to reverse the damage to watercourses and peat-land caused by Sitka spruce plantations from the 1960s.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow that last contribution, because important points arise in the context of having to balance one risk against another. There will be trade-offs, and we have to establish the priorities. Clearly, some of the global priorities must take precedence, but that may not be the view in every country. Therefore, it is an immensely difficult challenge to legislate in a meaningful way to meet these issues.
I will address Amendments 41A and 41B, standing in my name, shortly, but first I wish to speak to Amendment 17. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in moving this amendment. As someone who, prior to entering Parliament, was a financial controller in the manufacturing industry, I know full well how easy it is to establish targets and then, with 1,001 plausible excuses, find ways of explaining away any failure to meet them. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, given his background in accountancy, may well share my view.
A target is of no earthly use to man or beast, or to the environment or government, unless there is a means of assessing whether it has been met and, if not, a systematic and detailed analysis of the reasons why and a pinpointing of personal responsibility for allowing that failure to occur. If there is reason to believe that there may be different levels of performance from region to region, and if responsibility is likewise distributed on a regional basis, then a regional review of performance against target is absolutely appropriate. Hopefully, such a systematic approach will lead to identifying the factors that led to failure; determination of the necessary remedies, as rightly stated in the explanatory statement to Amendment 17; a reallocation of resources if necessary; and a better performance in future, with a higher likelihood of hitting targets.
This is all fundamental to any system of management by objectives and is basic in the world of industry. But I sometimes wonder whether the necessary culture and discipline exist in governmental sectors to apply such an approach systematically and rigorously to their responsibilities. It is to the Government’s credit that they are willing to apply a target-driven approach to these issues in the Bill, but that approach will not deliver unless there is a commitment to follow through with remedial action. Amendment 17 tests the seriousness of the Government’s intention to see their targets lead to real change, and I therefore support it.
Amendment 41A seeks to clarify the applicability or otherwise of regulations made under Clauses 1 and 2 to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The amendment states quite simply that any of these regulations shall not apply to the three devolved nations without the prior consent of their respective Parliaments. Environmental matters are overwhelmingly devolved, and if aspects of Westminster policy apply in any of the devolved territories, it is both sensible and courteous to solicit the agreement of the devolved Governments. If the Government wish to legislate in any of the three territories under the umbrella of this Bill, will the Minister give examples of such topics? Surely, he accepts that it would be both sensible and courteous to secure prior agreement, rather than foisting policies on them without agreement.
I realise that Clause 138, the “Extent” Clause, states that Chapter 1 applies to England and Wales but not Scotland and Northern Ireland—that this goes beyond the normal issue of England and Wales jurisdiction. Indeed, Clause 1(9) implies that regulations may be introduced through this clause that will apply to Wales. Can the Minister explain why there is this difference in approach to the Bill’s applicability to the three devolved nations? Can he give an example of where he foresees legislating for Wales under the provisions of Chapter 1? If so, what steps does he foresee being taken to avoid acrimonious disputes arising in relation to the devolved powers?
Amendment 41B relates specifically to the vexed question of the control of water resources in Wales. I will not rehearse the difficult history relating to water abstraction and the drowning of valleys, of which the Minister and the Committee will be well aware. For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister please accept this amendment or bring forward his own to the same end, so there will be no doubt that control over water resources and attendant water policies in Wales lies firmly and unambiguously with Senedd Cymru? I shall be grateful for his response.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Lucas in moving the amendment. I also listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. I hope the Minister will read his speech with care, because what he said was hugely important to the proper functioning of our aims.
I turn Amendment 48, in my name, which would amend Clause 6, entitled “Environmental targets: review. I wish to amend subsection (3), which relates to the “significant improvement test.” The clause says the test ticks the boxes if it
“would significantly improve the natural environment in England.”
I do not think “improvement” is good enough. It is not sufficient, as it provides no condition or basis by which to judge the improvement. I take it for granted that my noble friend does not want to encourage a “trash and improve” system, but that is what is going to happen unless this amendment is accepted. An approach like that would be detrimental to biodiversity and the natural environment. Therefore, I have proposed what I think is a much more sensible and appropriate wording. Instead of “improve the natural environment,” I want to insert
“improve the maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the natural environment.”
There are many places where the natural environment is in very good condition at the moment. No significant improvement test will be met when it is in good condition now. But if it is maintained in an excellent and pristine condition, it should meet the significant improvement test.
I hope my noble friend will give more consideration to this amendment than he gave to my comments on the last amendment.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who is dedicated to these issues. I want to speak to Amendment 34, which I put my name to. First, I offer my support to my noble friend Lord Addington, who constantly fights against silo management within government and makes sure that the health aspect is always included in these debates. I also want to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, whose comments I found particularly interesting. As he so eloquently said, the recent meeting between the secretariats of the United Nations climate change organisation and the biodiversity secretariats was a landmark one from which very important lessons can be learned.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
First, I wish your Lordships a happy Brexit day. I am sure that, like me, you all have happy memories of that time five years ago.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
There are a couple in. Indeed, one of the reasons why so many millions voted to leave the EU—not Europe—inspired by the democratic spirit, was to escape top-down, immovable regulations imposed from on high. What grated was that any challenge to subsequent policies was met with a shrug: “There is no alternative—they are the EU rules”, given an extra moral force when associated with international agreements. In that context I support the very sensible amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, maybe with a different reasoning, but I thought he put forward an excellent explanation of his thoughts.
These amendments all contain the spirit of flexibility and call for us to consider, as well as environmental concerns, what the social and economic costs of meeting targets in the Bill might be, to ensure that they are not disproportionate to the alleged benefits. The amendments ask us to take into consideration the possibility not just that circumstances might change but that evidence might mean a rethink, and that would mean a different cost-benefit analysis. Cost-benefit analyses are essential in a democracy to give both politicians and, more importantly, voters a choice of priorities—a sense that there is always an alternative. I therefore want to address targets, not so much missing them or whether they should be long-term or interim, but rather the dangers of making them overbinding.
It is important to ensure that citizens know what is being legislated for in their name, that the social and economic costs and trade-offs of environmental targets are not removed from public debate with a “There is no alternative; it’s binding and in the law” dismissal. Make no mistake: targets in one area regularly have a cost elsewhere. For example, the net-zero target is regularly bandied about as an aspiration we all agree on reaching at any costs, but when Andrew Neil asked the Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, on GB News last week to break down those costs and put figures on them, that was not so comfortable, and there is no transparency when there are no figures. What is clear is that net zero as a target will have a cost, not only for the Treasury—potentially at the expense of other spending priorities such as social care or job creation—but it will land exorbitant costs on householders in terms of making their homes net-zero compliant, such as the compulsory demand to replace gas boilers. I have noticed when I have raised this issue in the House that the regular reply is: “We need to take the public with us. We need to educate the public so that they understand why they need to change their behaviour and why we need to reach net zero”; in other words, reaching the target is treated as a given—a fait accompli. I note that this means the target usurps choice, so I want to reflect a little on choice.
If you say to the public, “You should support this net-zero target because it’s necessary to save the planet from climate catastrophe”, of course it is a no-brainer. However, if you say, “Do you support the net-zero target with its trade-offs, which could mean reducing living standards?”, or if you say, “We’ll abolish every petrol or diesel car and discourage driving in general, but if you insist on driving we’ll make it an expensive electric car”—and, by the way, yesterday I googled electric cars and the cheapest I could find was £18,500, and the most popular UK electric, Tesla, is an eye-watering £42,000, which for most people would be quite a challenge—or if you describe in detail the impacts on individual lives of decarbonising the economy, there may be less enthusiasm for the target once the trade-offs are known. People have a right to know.
With this Environment Bill, if we tell the public that it is about reducing fly-tipping and toxic pollution, stopping sewage being dumped in rivers, reducing flooding or protecting wildlife in the country, I am sure there will be lots of nods of approval, including from me. But if you explain that legal targets throughout the Bill could mean regulatory barriers to economic bounce-back, holding back industrialisation, and creating material limits to much-needed housebuilding and economic development, there might be a different response.
I said at Second Reading that a tension is already being posited between this Bill and the planning Bill, or planning reforms. I fear that the result of the Chesham and Amersham by-election may fuel this, with an unholy alliance of shire nimbyism and green activism. I am very much on the side of relaxing planning regulations and releasing land for new building, infrastructure and housing and, yes, even some building on the green belt. That is not because I want to concrete over the countryside or because I am opposed to protection of green spaces per se but because the green belt is being treated as sacrosanct or untouchable, yet is 13% of England’s total land and is much larger than the 7% of developed land. So it at least needs to be looked at again.
For me, the social priorities are solving homelessness, tackling the problem of young people excluded from the housing ladder, and the distorted and ever-growing costs for renters. But that is all just my opinion. Many people here do not support it, and that may not be a popular set of opinions outside of here. However, it is precisely these sorts of arguments, weighing up the costs and benefits and the trade-offs of policies, that we need to have in the public sphere. I fear that immovable and overbinding targets in law can only obscure transparency and rule debate on the implications of this Environment Bill off limits.
My final thought is that targets can too easily become the end, not the means to an end. During the 15 months of the pandemic we have seen targets taking an almost Soviet-style command and control form, with daily reports of numbers tested and Nightingale hospitals built—even if not used. Too easily, targets can be bean-counting exercises: the impression of activity but often a cover for the lack of transparency over detail.
I therefore hope that these amendments are adopted and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, does not mind me backing him. I am sure we will not agree on many things but I thought they were very important. These amendments could at least remind the Government to conduct cost-benefit analyses of actions associated with the legislation, and they are an important acknowledgement of the importance of social and economic challenges, as well as solving the practical problems in relation to the environment. It is also an antidote to the ubiquitous demand here, in every amendment that I have heard, that there should be ever more binding targets, because I fear that these could undermine democratic accountability.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in following the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, I should briefly offer a defence of targets—particularly the target of ensuring that everyone in the UK has a warm, comfortable and affordable-to-heat home. I hope that no one would disagree with the target of ending our utterly disgraceful excess winter deaths that come largely as a result of the poor quality of our housing stock. I also wish to defend the targets that we are talking about here in terms of our natural environment, on which our entire economy and lives depend.
I will be fairly brief. I want to speak in favour of Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, that would seem to be an easy, obvious amendment for the Government to accept. As the noble Baroness said, their ability to ask the office for environmental protection for guidance on the targets is simply not good enough and does not reflect the provisions of the Climate Change Act. We are very much creating a parallel here between action on climate and action on biodiversity. To mirror those two things would seem to be an obvious, simple and not difficult step.
On Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I would go broader than consulting the Department of Health and Social Care. The noble Lord in his introduction spoke particularly about recreation and the value of the natural environment to recreation. When we think about the health of human beings, the health of the natural environment is related in much deeper ways. I should point noble Lords to an interesting United Nations scheme called HUMI—the Healthy Urban Microbiome Initiative—which addresses a fast-growing and developing area of science: understanding the human microbiome and how it is related to our physical and mental health, and how what is happening around us in the natural world is utterly integral to a healthy microbiome.
I also wish to speak in favour of Amendments 41A and 41B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Again, we are in what could be described as no-brainer territory. We surely should not be imposing anything in terms of environmental regulation on the devolved nations without their “prior consent”—words that are important. This matter also raises a subject that we have not broadly discussed and might like to think about further. As the noble Lord said, rivers and waters do not suddenly get to a national border, stop and turn around, saying “Oh, I’m Welsh water and am staying in Wales”. That is also true of birds, insects, mammals and the whole ecosystem. A question to the Minister, either for today or a future date, is on how the Bill, this Act-to-be, will fit within the common framework and co-ordinating efforts of the nations of these islands. How will that work? I think also of many of our debates on the internal market Bill, now an Act.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will be brief. It is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
When I first read this series of amendments, I wondered whether they were really necessary. However, the more I reflect, the more I have become concerned and I now believe that these amendments, or something like them, are required. The Government will set targets as permitted within the Bill and we will debate that matter again later. However, it will be difficult to determine the unintended consequences of setting targets, which can distort behaviour, as we know. We have seen this in the NHS and other sectors in which the Government have intervened and set targets.
I understand the need to have a clear sense of direction and the discipline of knowing what we are driving to achieve within a given period. However, let us be clear, as far as possible, on the need to be aware of the costs involved and the consequences of fixing targets. Even the best-researched impact assessments with a range of assumptions can be wrong. I therefore encourage the Minister to take this issue seriously and establish systems with which to monitor the potential negative consequences as well as the benefits.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the amendment, Amendment 17, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. As he explained, it aims to ensure that the Government commission the relevant research so that they understand what they are doing when they aim to meet environmental targets.
If we take biodiversity targets as an example, it is one thing to set a target of halting the reduction in biodiversity but it is quite another to figure out how to achieve the target. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, entertained us a few minutes ago with stories of lapwings and curlews, and the research carried out by what used to be called the Game Conservancy Trust but, I believe, now operates under a different name. If noble Lords will forgive me for a short digression, I will complement the noble Earl’s story about lapwings and curlews with the narrative of the large blue butterfly.
That butterfly was extinct in this country by 1979, despite over 50 years of effort to halt its decline. Today it thrives in 33 different sites in south-west England. This is one of the classic cases of how restoring a species and increasing its abundance depended on detailed research. The secrets of success lay in the complex life history of this species, the caterpillars of which are taken into ants’ nests and tended and protected by a particular species of red ant, called Myrmica sabuleti. In return, the caterpillars secrete a nutritious liquid for the ants to feed on—an example of a mutualistic relationship. Professor Jeremy Thomas, then at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, discovered that the ant species is sensitive to temperature, which, in turn, depends on the length of the grass in the ants’ habitats. Changes in agricultural practice, combined with the decline in rabbit populations due to myxomatosis, had resulted in a small increase in grass length sufficient to cause the ants to disappear and, hence, the butterflies to die out. As a result of his research, slight changes in agricultural practice allowed us to maintain the grass at the right height and successfully restore butterfly populations.
Unfortunately, that conservation success story is the exception rather than the rule. As Professor Bill Sutherland of Cambridge University has documented, many, if not most, government-led initiatives to enhance biodiversity and restore nature have failed because they were based on hunch rather than proper scientific evidence. This includes the CAP Pillar 2 environment schemes. I know that from my own experience. My research group at Oxford was funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, as it was in those days, for many years to work out how to alter arable farming practice to support winter populations of farmland bird species. Although we discovered simple and effective remedies, they were never implemented.
Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of evidence on which to base the targets. However, in closing, my question for the Minister is: who will commission and pay for the necessary research to underpin the ambitions of the Bill and ensure that we do not blunder blindly, as we have done all too often in the past? The major research funding body in this country is UK Research and Innovation, whose website I checked this morning. Although the environment is one of eight priority themes, if one looks within that theme, no mention is made of biodiversity, habitats or conservation. Furthermore, UKRI is facing a £539 million cut in its funding this coming year, which will mean that all its research programmes are likely to be reduced. If not UKRI, who is going to fund the research that we will need if the Bill is to achieve its high ambitions?
Baroness Boycott (CB)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I loved that story about the blue butterfly, because I have been to one of those sites, beside a railway line, outside Somerton, so I know about that brilliant ant. The noble Lord is absolutely right and I would also like to know the answer to the question he asks the Minister: who is going to fund this? After all, we all know that the Aichi targets have been more or less a total failure and nobody knows quite why. I also support the proposals on health from the noble Lord, Lord Addington; it could not be more important.
Primarily, I want to support the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and her Amendment 34. The Secretary of State has to seek advice from the OEP. Over the years, we have seen how advice can be handed in by cronies or the local person you know on the end of the telephone. Think of some of the really bad things that have happened: advice about how particulates in the air do not matter to health, advice that smoking is fine, or advice that fossil fuels will not cause damage. We have to make sure that when, say, you want to put an endless chicken farm on the bank of the River Wye, you get advice from someone who has been passed and guaranteed by a body such as the OEP. Of course the Minister does not have to take this advice but, if this amendment is passed, he will at least have to explain why he took the advice that he did and, if it is found wanting, he can be challenged.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I am going to speak about something a bit different and refer back to Amendment 41A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, with which I am very much in sympathy.
As the noble Lord pointed out, the amendment has to be read in the light of Clause 138, which defines the extent of the Bill. We are told in that clause that Chapter 1 of the Bill, of which Clauses 1 and 2 form part, applies to England and Wales only, except for Clause 19, which deals with statements about Bills. At first sight, therefore, the Secretary of State would not have power under these clauses to make regulations that would be applicable to Scotland or Northern Ireland, to which the amendment refers. That must be so, in so far as regulations might seek to make directions as to what may or may not be done there. So it might be said that the amendment is directed to something that in those parts of the United Kingdom could not happen.
However, these targets relate to the natural environment itself, which is not capable of being divided up or contained in that way. Its effect, for good or ill, spreads across borders. Rivers flow, winds blow, and birds and animals move about, irrespective of whether national borders are being crossed. Measures taken in one part of the country may affect what happens in another, because that is the way the environment works. Just as no man is an island, because we all depend on each other in one way or another, so it is too with the environment which we enjoy in the various parts of the United Kingdom.
In its report on this Bill, which has just been published, the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, stated that
“Close co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved administrations … will be important in improving environmental protection across the UK.”
That makes obvious sense, for the reasons I have just been giving, and, it could be said, is really what this amendment is about.
I would prefer it if the words
“if they are, or may be, applicable in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland”
were expanded, so that they said “if they have effects which are, or may be, applicable” to them. That is what this amendment is really talking about. The message it conveys to the Secretary of State is that targets that he may set for the natural environment in England and Wales may affect other parts of the UK too. That is something to which he should have regard; it is not just sensible, but a matter of courtesy. I also agree with the suggestion in the noble Lord’s amendment that, where appropriate, consents should be obtained.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments about targets. Without ambitious targets being set in the Environment Bill, the Government will not achieve their goal of increasing biodiversity, tackling pollution and climate change, and moving the country forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right to want to ensure that we fully understand and evidence the reasons why we are taking targets and why they are not being met, so that remedial action can be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others have supported this. However, unless targets are set and strategies set to reach them, we will not move forward in the way the Minister hopes for from this Bill, and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity will be missed.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, gave us an excellent example of conservation success based on scientific evidence. My noble friend Lord Addington is right that the health of the population, taking exercise and the state of the environment are inextricably linked. Improving the environment improves the sense of well-being of each of us, and therefore improves our health, both mental and physical.
My noble friends Lady Parminter and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, supported by other Lords, made a very strong case for the Secretary of State to obtain the advice of the OEP about consultation on the regulations in Clause 1—although my noble friend Lord Teverson would prefer that the advice come from the Climate Change Committee. The OEP is a vital body that will need considerable strengthening to be effective and deliver. It has expertise provided by the excellent chair, Dame Glenys Stacey, and her newly appointed non-executive members, but it needs legal independence and authority to operative effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, quite rightly reminds the Minister that the Government should not make decisions that are applicable in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without the consent of the devolved Administrations. This is particularly important when it comes to water.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pressed for the inclusion of the maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the natural environment in the targets. Again, this is vital if we are to return to our biodiversity of former years. Some areas are in very good condition, but many others are not.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, made a powerful argument, especially around trade-offs, but I regret that I remain to be convinced. Setting ambitious targets and having realistic strategies to meet them is what the Environment Bill is all about. While the cost of meeting targets may appear high, in some cases the economic cost to the planet of not meeting our biodiversity and environmental protection targets is incalculable. The diversity of species in plant, animal and insect life has for too long been a question of cost. The cost of the loss of that diversity has now reached epic proportions and must be halted and reversed, otherwise the cost to humanity as a whole, as David Attenborough has reminded us, will be utterly devastating. To my mind, the case for a cost-benefit analysis has been made but, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, demonstrated, there is no indication of how the measures in the Bill will be funded. I look forward to the Minister’s response to these comments and the questions posed.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 34, to which I have added my name, and all the other amendments that were so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, explained, Amendment 34 addresses the specific question of where the Secretary of State will get his advice from before setting any environmental targets. As the wording stands, it is for the Secretary of State to determine who is independent and who has relevant expertise. As we have already begun to identify, this concentrates considerable power in the hands of the Secretary of State, who will, under this wording, effectively determine not only what targets are set but who will advise him on what targets are appropriate. Our amendment would make the simple but important change to require the Secretary of State to seek advice from the OEP on who these experts might be. It seeks to add an extra layer of independence into the target-framing process.
It is also worth noting that there is no requirement in the Bill, at the moment, to seek any independent advice on the setting of interim targets. Compare this with the requirements for the Climate Change Committee; it sets the targets and it decides which independent experts to draw upon. It is a much more robust and independent process, which is why there is considerable confidence and respect for its final recommendations.
I turn to the other amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, makes a good point about the evidence and research and the fact that, if targets are not being met, we need to be sensitive about the remedies that can be introduced. I welcome that approach, but I was concerned to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that UKRI does not even have any details of funding for biodiversity activities on its website, which again raises the rather urgent question of where that research is going to come from. We agree that the target-setting and evaluation process should have enough flexibility over the course of the term to be adapted and amended if the details of the research change.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I hope it will reassure them to know that targets will be set through a robust and evidence-led process. I have already spoken about our published targets policy paper, which provides an overview of how we intend to develop and bring forward targets by October 2022. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the process will seek independent expert advice and provide a role for stakeholders, other government departments and the public, and it includes scrutiny from Parliament and the OEP.
In relation to Amendment 19 in particular, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the process also involves regular discussions with other government departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care. For example, we are working closely with Public Health England and the DHSC and its expert committee to ensure that our process of developing air quality targets is informed by the latest health evidence. Defra also intends to work closely with the new UK Health Security Agency and the office for health promotion, as soon as they assume their full functions.
On Amendment 34 from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, there is a concern that it could be difficult for the OEP to act impartially when investigating complaints regarding target-setting if the OEP advised on the experts used to set those targets. I want to provide assurance on the substantial role of the OEP in relation to long-term targets. Each year, the OEP will comment on the progress reported in the EIP annual report. That provides the opportunity for the OEP to flag up early on where it believes there is a risk that the Government may not meet their legally binding long-term targets. It may make recommendations as to how progress could be improved, to which the Government would then have to respond.
If the Government have missed a target, they must, within 12 months of confirming that they missed it, publish and lay before Parliament a remedial plan, which is covered in Clause 5. The OEP could highlight in a report on the implementation of environmental law whether the steps set out in the remedial plan would be sufficient to ensure that the target was then achieved. I hope that will also reassure my noble friend Lord Lucas that his Amendment 17 is not needed. The OEP will also have the power to bring legal proceedings if the Government breach their environmental law duties, including their duty to achieve long-term targets.
With respect to Amendments 36, 45 and 50 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, while the Bill does not specify particular matters that must be considered when setting targets, as part of sound policy-making the Government will look to identify and consider a wide range of matters. These are likely to include environmental, economic, social and fiscal factors, as well as international commitments. When we consult on the proposed targets in early 2022, we will provide an impact assessment that will consider the environmental and socioeconomic considerations associated with each target. We think the target-setting stage is the most appropriate time to consider the costs and benefits of individual targets, rather than when conducting the significant improvement tests. That is because the significant improvement test considers targets collectively, which allows for a more holistic assessment of improvements across the natural environment.
The Government are developing their plans for implementing the significant improvement test. My noble friend Lord Caithness has provided some useful ideas for how improvement might be understood for the purposes of that test. However, his proposed Amendment 48 would take away important flexibility, and I therefore cannot accept it.
In response to one of the points that my noble friend made, I shall briefly explain how the significant improvement test works. At least every five years a Government will look to assess whether meeting the legally binding targets set under the Bill’s framework, alongside any other statutory environmental targets, would significantly improve the natural environment in England. The Government will then be required to report to Parliament on their conclusions and, if they consider that the test is not met, set out how they plan to use their new target-setting powers to subsequently close that gap. In practice, that will most likely involve plans either to modify existing targets or to make them more ambitious, or even set new ones.
It seems appropriate to provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility to consider how significant improvement should be understood in relation to the natural environment, because the natural environment is complex and interconnected and requires a considerably more complicated approach than would be expected, for example, simply in relation to carbon. Aspects of the natural environment such as water quality could respond slowly, even to ambitious interventions. Furthermore, our understanding of environmental change will likely evolve over time, as new data sets become available and the evidence base improves. I add that we take “significantly” to mean that only a marginal or fractional improvement of the whole natural environment, or on the other hand dramatic improvement in only a few narrow areas of the environment, would not be acceptable.
My noble friend mentioned at the end of his speech that he felt he had asked a question, presumably on interim targets, that I had not addressed, in which case I apologise. I have gone through the notes and cannot see any gaps, so I am afraid I am going to have to rely on him. If he wants me to follow up on that, I am happy do so by telephone or in writing, but I might need a bit of guidance from him, so that I know that I am responding to the appropriate point that he made. I apologise for missing that question.
Moving on to Amendment 38 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, government can only lower or revoke a target if satisfied either that meeting the existing target does not result in a significant benefit compared to not meeting it or meeting a lower target, or that the costs of meeting the existing target would be disproportionate to the benefits due to a change in circumstance. I also note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on that point. She made the perfectly valid point that, if we are to embark on something as profound as achieving net zero by 2050, it is important that people are aware of what the consequences and implications are. But that is not just about the costs of meeting net zero; it would need to include the opportunities as well. It is hard to imagine an economic transition of the sort and scale we are talking about without numerous opportunities arising at the same time. For example, we are already seeing that investment in new renewables globally greatly exceeds investment in fossil fuel infrastructure in terms of new capacity. That has been true year on year for quite a few years.
In truth, the market for low-carbon technologies greatly exceeds any of the predictions we have had in recent years. For example, solar prices have dropped by 80% since the banking crisis, which I do not think anyone predicted. We would also need to factor in the costs of not achieving net zero by 2050 into any such analysis, although this is much more complicated. If any of the predictions on climate change are accurate, the costs of not achieving net zero by 2050 at the latest are severe, to put it mildly. But I do not dispute the central argument that the noble Baroness makes, which is that we need to have that discussion and that it needs to be an honest one—warts and all.
To go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the long-term targets may be amended or revoked only by secondary legislation subject to affirmative procedure, which means that Parliament would, of course, have a vote. This opens up the process to parliamentary approval and creates a strong check on any future Government, while still providing for some flexibility for government to respond to changing circumstances and evidence.
On Amendments 41A and 41B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I reassure him that the Bill’s environmental targets clauses extend to England and Wales only, and this is set out in Clause 138. I will write to him to provide more assurances, and I will copy in the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, both of whom also raised this issue. But, in addition, Clause 1(9) prevents the Secretary of State making any provision in any targets regulations, relating to water or otherwise, which would be within the legislative competence of the Senedd Cymru. We are committed to ongoing co-operation with the devolved Administrations on environmental matters, and the dialogue and exchange between my department and theirs has been thorough and will continue to be so.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked about funding for research, and his question was supported—or perhaps repeated—by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I shall answer it in two ways. The first is to talk about the expert panel we are creating to advise on target setting. There are already a number of well-established advisory groups in place for things such as air quality target development—for instance, the Air Quality Expert Group and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. But we have set up new groups of independent experts, where they did not previously exist, for priority policy areas we have outlined in the Bill to advise on developing evidence for the targets we are obliged to introduce.
These expert groups are providing guidance on evidence processes bespoke to individual targets, and their advice might include appropriate analytical methods, datasets, the evidence to be used, et cetera. They are advising Defra on how to produce the best available evidence, and the terms of reference for these groups are available on GOV.UK. In addition to that, as with any department embarking on important initiatives and projects, we will be bidding greedily at the next spending review to help secure the funds we will need to deliver these ambitious targets. We need to make the case and the Treasury will then respond. It is very hard to predict how that will go, but we will of course do our best.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I call the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, may I press the Minister a bit further on the local nature of pollution, particularly air and water? To pick another example, phosphate in rivers can be a problem, but in the southern Hampshire rivers it is a particular problem because of the sensitivity of the estuarine ecologies to excess phosphate, whereas it might not be such a problem in another ecology. In that circumstance, it becomes crucial to know where the phosphate is coming from; how much comes from agriculture and sewage; which particular bits of land it comes off; and what practices are available to reduce it and are effective in reducing it in those circumstances. That needs a local level of focus and research, and I did not hear anything in his answer—and indeed there was a good deal to worry about in what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said—which gave me a clue about where that evidence can come from.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. In addition to the answer I gave the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, where new skills are needed—and, as the noble Lord says, new skills will be needed—we are committing, and we have committed throughout the Bill, to support local authorities, delivery partners and other relevant stakeholders in properly developing or, if necessary, acquiring those skills. There is no doubt that there is a gap, but our commitment is that, with government support, we will ensure that it is filled.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for the assurance that he is working well with Ministers in the devolved nations. Indeed, in Wales we now have a climate change Minister. Could he clarify, in the event that one of the devolved nations sets a target or policy which does not align completely with one coming from central government—I expect that the local one for Wales may be more stringent than the one coming from Westminster, given the concerns over the environment in Wales—which legislature will take precedence? In the event of legal action being brought against, for example, the Welsh Government for having tighter controls which someone in industry perhaps does not wish to comply with, what will be the position on compensation for legal fees for the Welsh Government?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. This is relevant where the contaminant or the issue that we are talking about crosses the border. Sorry, that is a clumsy answer. Where the issue crosses the border—and an example was put to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead—that is where the complication arises. So, if the problem, if there is a problem, is contained one country or another, or one region or another, I think the question that the noble Baroness has asked would be moot. Where the pollution or the problem crosses the border, my understanding is that the targets that are set in this Bill, by this Parliament, are the targets that would prevail. I will have to write to her to confirm that. She raises an important point and I want to make sure that the answer I give is correct, so I will get back to her and I will publish the answer in the Library.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the support I have received from my noble friend Lord Caithness, and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Krebs. I remain concerned. Perhaps it is inevitable, in the structure of government, that it can find the funds to create a target and do that well, but to promise money for a few years down the road to see if that has actually turned out well, and why it has not, is a much harder thing for Governments to do. However, I accept my noble friend’s assurances.
I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on costs and how we need to look at them and not just the benefits—again, not just initially, but on how it works out. What is happening? What effects are the target having? What costs actually turn out to be real? It can be really difficult to predict what negative effects a policy will have, because people find all sorts of interesting ways of adapting to it. A lot of the things one fears do not, in the event, happen, and other things do happen that one had not expected. It is very important to have a process where you revisit initial assumptions and really question how the process is going.
I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was saying. It really echoes an amendment I was chasing yesterday, on connecting people with nature. If you do not give, in the structure of what you are doing, a real incentive—a focus on being connected, one department to another, together with the people—those things get neglected because we have set out other priorities. I hope this is a general area that we will return to on Report, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 20. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 20
“(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—(a) be less than or equal to 10µg/m3,(b) so far as practicable, follow World Health Organisation guidelines, and(c) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target will be at least as strict as the 2005 WHO guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, In moving Amendment 20 I shall also speak to Amendment 49, both in the name of my noble friend Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I express support for my noble friend Lord Whitty’s Amendment 21, and Amendment 29 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I shall also speak briefly to Amendment 156 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Amendment 20 sets parameters in the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target will be at least as strict as the 2005 WHO guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest. Amendment 49
“strengthens the significant improvement test outlined … in Clause 6 by requiring explicit consideration of the extent to which air quality targets under section 1 and the PM2.5 air quality target under section 2 are compatible with WHO guidelines.”
It also requires the Secretary of State to outline,
“in the event of divergence … why they believe this is in the public interest.”
Air pollution has been breaching legal limits across the UK since 2010 and is recognised by the Government to be the single largest environmental risk to health in the UK. It is linked to cancer, asthma, strokes and heart disease and, in the UK, contributes to the early deaths of an estimated 40,000 people. Toxic air also drives health inequalities. Government analysis confirms air quality tends to be poorest in the poorest communities, and that those communities are also more likely to have health conditions that make them more vulnerable to the effects of polluted air. This Bill gives us the opportunity to address this crisis of pollution and set the UK on the pathway to become a global leader in environmental protection, but without ensuring the PM2.5 targets as in our amendment we will waste this opportunity.
The Government should be ambitious in what they set out to achieve, as it is possible to make sufficient improvements in urban areas to achieve the WHO target. The Mayor of London, for example, has produced evidence to show that London can achieve WHO guidelines, even in the hardest areas to tackle. Recent monitoring data shows that parts of the city are already meeting this standard, demonstrating that it could be achieved across London, and in cities across the country by 2030. Without this vital provision, not only will action be unacceptably delayed but it will be possible to remove or even to water down targets should they prove challenging to meet, which would fundamentally undermine the whole purpose of target setting. Due to the Government’s constant delay in action to meet existing legal limits for air quality—I remind noble Lords that this led to the Government losing a number of court cases—greater urgency and ambition is now needed for the protection of human health.
Amendment 156, in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, addresses air pollution and public health and we strongly support this amendment. The coroner’s conclusion that exposure to excessive air pollution contributed to the death of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah in 2013 has underlined the need for all levels of government to do much more to tackle the deadly scourge of air pollution. In April this year, the need for legally binding targets based on WHO guidelines was raised by the coroner as an area of concern in his Prevention of Future Deaths report and is even more urgent given the emerging evidence linking air pollution with the most severe impacts of Covid-19. In response to this report the Government have said they will launch a consultation on new targets for PM2.5 and other pollutants next year, with the aim—I repeat: the aim—of setting new targets in legislation by October 2022, and will also develop a more sophisticated population exposure reduction target.
Only this week, medical leaders are urging the Government to cut levels of air pollution to below WHO limits in response to Ella’s death. Leaders of the BMA, more than 20 nursing colleges, the Lancet and the British Medical Journal have written to the Prime Minister to urge the Government
“to use this bill to make a legally binding commitment to reducing fine particulate pollution … in the UK to below the maximum level recommended by the WHO by 2030.”
This Bill clearly provides the Government with the opportunity to implement the coroner’s recommendations through our amendments, and through those in the name of other noble Lords. What response have the Government made to this letter?
As the UK moves to a post-pandemic, green recovery, action taken through the Environment Bill to tackle air pollution is crucial to ensure a healthy, resilient population. I beg to move Amendment 20.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I very much welcome the appearance of Clause 2 in this Bill, but it would be seriously sharpened up and given impact by the adoption of Amendment 20 by my noble friend Lady Hayman. I support that amendment and Amendment 156 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy.
My Amendment 21 is slightly different. It is, in essence, a probing amendment. It starts to deal not with the setting of targets, but the way in which those targets could be delivered. It is arguable that the amendment should come somewhat later in the Bill, but Clause 2 specifically deals with PM2.5 and I thought it was relevant here. I will not press the amendment with its current wording, but it is intended to provoke a discussion and, hopefully at later stage, a form of words to address the practicalities of delivering an effective air quality strategy for the targets to be set under Clause 2, particularly in relation to PM2.5. Indeed, it should extend to ultrafine particles, which were not previously covered by EU regulations.
The focus on PM2.5 as the cause of the most harmful lung and pulmonary diseases is important. My noble friend has underlined the implications of the recent coroner’s recommendations following the tragic death of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah in south London. The target needs to be ambitious, much more challenging than current standards in the EU and elsewhere, and to reflect the WHO targets, as my noble friend said. For it to be delivered, we need to focus on the key role of local authorities and others and ensure that they are fully effective. That requires resources, in terms of both money and powers. It also requires their efforts to be brought within a coherent national strategy, as well as a system of parliamentary reporting on progress all the time—particularly on the interim targets.
However, the targets will not work unless we have a proper system of monitoring toxic and noxious emissions and very small particulates. We also need a strategy for the specification of increased quality of air quality monitoring. Currently, most monitors measure nitrous oxides and derive from those measurements an estimate of particulate exposure, mainly from road traffic. Ideally, we need to be able to measure the particulates directly and it is important that we have a clear quality specification of the technical parameters of those monitors. We also need a clearer strategy for the placement of monitors: by the roadside, away from the roadside, at schools—since children are the most susceptible to lifelong lung malfunction from diseases induced by particulate ingestion—around construction sites, around self-standing generators and on some industrial premises.
Most importantly, we need a system of communication. There is no use in even extensive monitoring unless we both inform the public and follow up with analysis where the targets are not going to be met and where there are exceedances or near exceedances by location and with particular forms of action that are needed. Communication to the public is therefore key; we need to link the monitoring system to automatic warnings to the population in the streets, at bus stops, outside schools and colleges and so on. We also need to ensure that local authorities, particularly highways authorities including Highways England and Transport for London, have the legal responsibility for establishing the network of monitors, collating information from them and informing the public of the levels of poison gas and particulates including, in particular, PM2.5.
I recognise that Amendment 21 as worded envisages a regulation on local authorities, but it also requires regulations elsewhere in terms of transport vehicles and machinery specifications. I accept that there must be a better way to reflect the need for those specifics in the Bill. I am looking to the Minister to come forward before the completion of this Bill with a way of ensuring that local authorities and others are both required and resourced to set up a comprehensive system of monitoring and communication to the public, and that there is a clear follow up where limits are exceeded and targets not met. That is what the amendment is about.
I should declare my interests as president of Environmental Protection UK, once known as the National Society for Clean Air, which has focused for decades on this issue. I ask the Minister to come forward before the end of this Bill with a better version of this.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am delighted to see all these amendments and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Kennedy, for bringing them forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, gave an excellent introduction. I just have one slight problem with it: while the current Mayor of London is doing a lot on air pollution, he is also building a road that will negate virtually everything he is doing and has done. The Silvertown tunnel should be stopped immediately with not another penny spent on it. We all have to understand that building new roads is a mistake anywhere in the country, but especially here in London, when we should be concentrating on better, cleaner methods of transport.
I have worked the issue of air pollution on since 2001. The mayor at the time, Ken Livingstone, made a very good stab from a standing start at reducing air pollution, even though at the time it was just a warning flag that we were about to break EU limits. He did what he could in terms of the congestion charge and encouraging cycling, even though he was not a cyclist himself. Sadly, as soon as the mayoralty was taken over by the current Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, things went a little bit skew-whiff. He did not get the whole issue of air pollution and that is a big problem because we know that, if you do not have targets for reducing something, it is likely to not get done. If we are going to clean up our toxic air, this Bill has to set binding targets.
The sources of air pollution are widespread: industry, transport, buildings and agriculture are all major contributors. We have to understand how each of those can be cleaned up and improved, not just for all of us who breathe it in in the cities, but for farmers who also experience a huge amount of pollution in their daily lives.
Air pollution has been found to cause death after a coroner ruled it was a cause of death for Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. I pay tribute to Ella’s mother Rosamund, who campaigned and fought for so many years to reach this verdict. Ella is the first person to ever have air pollution as a cause of death and it is now official that Ella’s painfully cruel death was unnecessary, preventable and should never happen again to any child or adult. If the Minister is in any doubt about putting targets on air pollution into this Bill, I urge him to meet Rosamund, who fought a fantastic campaign virtually alone when she was suffering immeasurable grief from losing her eldest child. I think he would be convinced and would take it back to the department to insist that we put targets on air pollution into this Bill.
The coroner in Ella’s case said that
“there is no safe level for Particulate Matter”
in air and recommended a reduction in the national pollution limits to bring them into line with World Health Organization guidelines, which is exactly what my Amendment 29 would do. It would hook air pollution targets to the latest WHO guidelines and require the targets to be updated as the science develops. I believe this is the only safe way to proceed and the only way to be true to Ella’s legacy, so that no more children will die from choking on toxic air.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I support the intention behind all the amendments in this group today. I agree with the contributions of my noble friends Lady Hayman and Lord Whitty, and with virtually everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said. However, I will restrict my remarks to Amendment 156 in my name in this group.
The amendment seeks to put Ella’s law into the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned, on 16 December last year, the coroner in the case found that the death in 2013 of nine year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah, who had a severe case of asthma, was caused by “excessive air pollution”. Ella lived in Lewisham, in south London, very near to where I live. The fact that this poor child suffered a terrible death from breathing in toxic particles should be a matter of concern for us all. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, did, I want to pay tribute to Rosamund, Ella’s mother, for her tireless campaigning over seven years to get the verdict on 16 December last year. Ella is the first person in the UK to have had air pollution listed as a cause of death. We all know that thousands of people die every year due to respiratory failure, but Ella’s doctors, and others, were clear that the filthy air she was breathing was suffocating her and contributed to her death, and that is now recorded on the death certificate.
Amendment 156 in my name seeks to place duties on the Secretary of State in the Bill to ensure that the health of members of the public is put centre stage. I hope that the Minister and all Members of the House will support that. The amendment may not be perfect, but it sets out clear targets for the Secretary of State for particulate matter, at WHO levels, and a plan to achieve compliance, along with the monitoring of air quality, the publishing of live data and providing information to the public. It also seeks to ensure proper education, training and guidance for healthcare professionals.
I am hoping for a very positive response from the Minister today. I want to hear him say very clearly to the House that he is prepared to meet me, my noble friend Lady Hayman, Ella’s mother Rosamund and members of the Ella’s law campaign to see if we can get an agreement to put this in the Bill before we come back to this issue on Report. I assure the Minister that we will come back to this issue on Report, and I hope to be able to do that on the basis of co-operation and agreement. I look forward to the Minister confirming, at the end of this debate, that he is prepared to meet me and the other people I have listed.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to support this group of amendments, because this is the point where general environmental and climate change benefits directly coincide with health benefits. It is therefore plain common sense to give them total priority.
Reducing emissions of NOx, CO2 and PM2.5 are vital targets. I read this week that research by Imperial College London has revealed that, in London and other cities, there is still lead in our atmosphere—in the air. Lead was banned from petrol 20 years ago, so we need to bear in mind how long it takes to produce a long-term solution to these problems.
The problem with the Bill as it stands is that, although it commits to targets, they are too vague and much too far in the future. The Environmental Audit Committee drew attention to what it called the “needlessly long timeframe”. The details of the target will not be in place until the end of next year, when it could be in place as soon as the Bill passes through both Houses, and there will be no requirement to meet the target until at least 2037. That is so distant as to absolve the current Government, and the one after that, of any sense of responsibility and incentive to take the difficult decisions required. Even the aviation industry, which has the greatest technical challenges in dealing with emissions, is urging the Government to set shorter-term interim targets. It argues that only shorter-term targets will incentivise investment in nascent clean technologies.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will not be taking part in the debate, so I will move straight on to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have found this a fascinating debate. I put my name to Amendment 49, but I support the general approach of all these amendments. Clearly, air pollution is a key issue for the Government. I hope that, when we look at this, we do so in the round.
I cannot agree with the some of the statements, I am afraid. I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, say that we have to ban all roads and we must not build any more. That assumes that those towns and cities that are being heavily polluted because the roads go through the town centre should have to put up with that. Similarly, she referred to the Silvertown tunnel. The argument for that is that the current Blackwall tunnel constantly gets blocked and the traffic queues cause more air pollution. There have been many occasions during this debate when people have said that we need to look at the evidence—we do.
More generally, I regard the investment that the Government are making in more cycle lanes as fundamentally important, as is encouraging young people to cycle or walk to school. The irony of it is that those children who think—or whose parents think—that they are safely protected in their SUVs are actually breathing in more pollution than if they were out walking or cycling. Of course, if they were doing those activities, they would also be getting the benefit of exercise. I welcome the targets; they are important. How we achieve them, through monitoring, et cetera, is important.
I too read that article on leaded petrol, which remains in the city 20 years on. Above that article, and perhaps even more interesting in some ways, was one on smart traffic lights smoothing the way to reducing emissions by a quarter. It said:
“A new generation of smart traffic lights could be introduced after a government-backed trial showed that eliminating unnecessary stops at junctions can cut emissions by a quarter.”
That stresses the importance of ensuring that we do not forget that innovation will play an important part in reducing these emissions. I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will take into account—I am sure that he will—a holistic analysis, if you like, of what the Government are doing.
There may well be more cars on the road because people are a bit reluctant to travel on public transport at the moment. As someone who cycles every day and has had an electric car for a few years—I am lucky to be able to afford one—I like to think that I play my part. We are seeing changes in attitude. There are many young people these days who are not bothering to learn to drive or do not own their own car—they hire or share—so we should not be too pessimistic about the situation. It is serious, which is why I put my name down—I felt that this was a necessary probing amendment.
I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will give us that holistic analysis of how the Government intend to meet these targets and how they feel that they can respond to the very real and present impact of particle pollution, whether it is nitrous oxide or carbon emissions.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I added my name to Amendments 20 and 49, but I support the general thrust of all the amendments in this group. I am old enough to remember that, when I was a very young boy in 1962, my father had to wear a mask—we have got used to them these days—because of the smog in London. It was not the Great Smog, which was a few years earlier, but it was a serious incident of air pollution that killed a significant number of people. At that time, it showed up that, although the Clean Air Act had been brought in in 1956, there were serious gaps in it: it dealt with emissions of smoke but not sulphur dioxide. If we are not careful, there is a danger that we will think that we have solved this problem and things are getting better—there are indications of that, but we are far from perfect.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I have been raising this for a long time: I remember having an Adjournment Debate in the other place in 2003 on air quality in London. That was based not just on my concern for the welfare of my fellow Uxbridge citizens but on my own experience of how I could feel the ill effects of increased pollution. Where we live in west London, there is Heathrow and the major roads, and we often seem to exceed the legal limits.
We have already mentioned one thing that convinced me that we have to go further: Ella’s campaign. A few years ago, I was fortunate enough to meet Rosamund, Ella’s mother, and I have not met a more courageous and forceful advocate for this. Despite the obviously terrible tragedy that she endured, she was able to be extremely convincing in all the arguments; she did not have to rely on the personal issue. We owe it not just to Ella but to all the other young people. As has been mentioned, it is very often those who live in less well-off areas.
There are difficult decisions. Of course, sometimes, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, has just said, there are occasions when traffic congestion could be eased, and smart traffic lights could provide one of those. The only trouble that I have with building more roads is that they inevitably get filled up. I remember that, when the M25 was first built—little sections of it—it was a joy because no one was on it, but it filled up quite quickly and sometimes is the largest car park in London, as I think many noble Lords will agree.
This is a really serious issue, and the Government must take forward the view that we must have ambitious targets. We should accept the WHO targets. This is something that I feel very strongly about.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I think the last time I spoke after him was to congratulate him on his maiden speech. He brings, of course, great focus and authority to this debate. I welcome this group of amendments generally and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the other noble Lords who have tabled the amendments on bringing forward the issue of targets and particularly the PM2.5 measure.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I accept the importance of these targets while pointing to other types of air pollutant of possibly equal toxicity and potential for harm. I am informed about this because over the years I have had many emails in my parliamentary mailbox with personal accounts from those whose health is significantly and adversely affected by air pollution, particularly by being near to major road systems.
Fundamentally, all these targets have to drive a culture change. I think of my three London-resident children who during the pandemic reported how air quality in the metropolis had improved and, sadly, how it has once again deteriorated as things return to what we might call normal. While I commend municipalities bringing in ultra-low emission zones for urban centres, I think that permitting owners of polluting vehicles to pay for the privilege gives the wrong message.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to a range of non-vehicular polluting activities, including those from construction with which I am familiar. Not so many months ago I witnessed a group of contractors engaged with public pavement repairs using a petrol disc cutter to trim concrete slabs. This was taking place in a busy London shopping street. I will not bore noble Lords with a detailed description of the noise, uncontained dust and odours that were released into the air, but it could just have easily have been welding, sanding, atomising sprays, evaporating solvents or material handling that was releasing pollution into urban air. I also observe that far too many food premises emit odours and fumes at unacceptable levels. One I know well in a major Surrey town blasts motorists as they wait at traffic lights with the outpourings of its extractor system. I suppose one might say that that was a form of poetic justice.
Only recently I learned that the metropolitan Clean Air Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred, permits the burning of firewood in homes. I thought that had been banned a long time ago. The Prime Minister’s comments about insisting on seasoned firewood are very welcome, but the wood also needs to be dry, kept dry and not be full of resins, as are some softwoods. As somebody who uses a wood burning appliance—but not in an urban area, noble Lords will be glad to hear—I question how good the understanding is of these factors concerning supplies of firewood and the knowledge of consumers. Urban atmosphere is, after all, a vital common good for health and well-being, tourism, productivity and, in turn, commerce.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, is right that we cannot simply all take a hairshirt approach and that the laws of unintended consequences beset us as we try to move from one mode of transport, perhaps, to the other. He rightly referred to the role of innovation. However, to repeat my earlier comment, most of all we need collective cultural change, better information and regulation that drives such responses as we wish to see come out of this Bill.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for tabling Amendment 20 which triggers other important amendments in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for introducing this group of amendments in such a knowledgeable way and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her very pertinent contribution on transport-related pollution.
I spoke about the problems of air quality at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, spoke about the London smog in the 1950s. I was a student at Manchester University in early 1960s and I recall bus conductors having to walk in front of their buses because the smog was too thick for the driver to see the front of the vehicle. This problem, which has come very much more to my attention during the Covid lockdown, has come for the converse reason. I have found myself constrained to the finest possible surroundings in Gwynedd, two miles from Caernarfon Bay and the Menai Strait and some six miles from Snowdon. I did not visit London for fifteen months until yesterday. That is the longest period since I was a toddler for me to be confined to the delights of rural Wales.
Of course, it has been enjoyable despite the tragic backdrop. One of the unexpected benefits has been the very noticeable, even tangible, improvements in my health, in particular my lung and chest functioning. I have even been able to get back on my bike. It is only now that I have come to realise how detrimental to my health is the poor air quality in Cardiff and London. I have increasing sympathy for industrial workers—coal miners, slate quarrymen, cotton workers and many others —whose exposure to industrial diseases is exacerbated by poor-quality air that they struggle to breathe.
Since speaking at Second Reading, I have received a volume of information, drawing detailed attention to the research work that has been undertaken on the impact of polluted air on human health. I am grateful to everyone who has contacted me. I have not yet been able to read all that material; I hope to do so between now and Report and, indeed, to study more generally the information available on these matters. In this time of Covid, we are surely obliged to ensure that this Bill addresses this issue. For now, I thank colleagues who have drafted these amendments, which I support wholeheartedly. I am sure the Minister will want to see some strengthening of the Bill on this matter which must be affecting millions of our fellow citizens and even our children, as the tragic case of Ella has taught us. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am just popping up, as one does in Committee, to add my support to Amendment 20 and to most of the other amendments in this group. I do not have much to add to what the proposers and subsequent speakers with their great expertise have said. I support the ambitions behind this group. I am not quite sure whether—or for that matter why—the Government might set their sights on a target more damaging to health than the WHO recommendation, but I believe that we should insist on having challenging targets.
I have read that between 2010 and 2017 there were reckoned to have been more than 30,000 premature deaths per annum in the UK due to air pollution, many of them stemming from excess PM2.5 particulates. In the EU, the figure was reckoned to be 390,000 premature deaths per annum. It occurred to me that if these deaths were being caused by a respiratory viral infection from Wuhan, I suspect that we might have to be in permanent lockdown. However, this pollution has built up gradually and somehow we have become complacent about it.
There are many different sources of PM2.5 particulates and if we tackle them all in a measured way with the right research and a variety of regulations and encouragement, it should be possible to make a big difference. After all, we have managed to achieve a big reduction in nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide—NOx and SOx as they are called—in recent decades without impinging too much on anyone’s quality of life while actually enhancing everyone’s quality of life. I am confident that we can build on that success with the right research, encouragement and regulation and, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, public information.
I realise that a target of 10 micrograms per cubic metre is going to be hard to achieve by 2030 and even measuring it is, I believe—and as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, confirmed in his excellent speech—not a simple matter. For the safety and health of our children alone I believe we must be ambitious on this issue, so I strongly support these amendments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to two amendments in this group, Amendments 20 and 49. These amendments deal with the same fundamental problem—the impact of air pollution on health. I declare my interests as I chaired the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee inquiry into allergies. I am a Bevan commissioner in Wales. Sadly, I also have family who are exposed to very high levels of pollution because of schooling.
The dignified campaign of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah’s mother, following her daughter’s tragic death, has shown us why health must be at the centre of air pollution strategies. These amendments are widely called for from across paediatric and child health, chest medicine and related disciplines, and by the Royal College of Physicians, the British Lung Foundation, Asthma UK and others.
Simply meeting limit values is not enough because there is no safe level of pollution exposure. Research in the last five years has shown that air pollutants reach every organ of the body with deleterious effects, ranging from damage to the foetus’s developing lungs in the womb, and the heart and brain, right through to damage to the adult body, causing accelerated ageing of organs throughout life. Very small particles—less than 2.5 micrometers—from anthropogenic sources are a particular problem. They stay suspended in the air for prolonged periods and have a propensity to penetrate deep into parts of the lung where gas exchange occurs. Ultra-fine particles are especially problematic because, in many ways, they behave like a gas. These particles damage the end organ in the lung, the alveoli or distant air sacs where essential lung function occurs.
The UK has the worst death rate from asthma in Europe and is one of the countries with the highest incidence overall. Exposure to air pollution is likely to be a key driver in this disorder, which takes lives and costs the NHS dear. As particles become smaller, their relative surface area increases, which means that chemicals carried on the surface also increase. They are then released into cells and, internally, within parts of cells such as the mitochondria where energy is produced, and they are the source of damaging oxidant chemicals.
The WHO guideline values for particulates are health based. They must be the basis of the minimum targets set, recognising that, in July this year, these will be further revised downwards. Large epidemiological studies have shown that there is no safe level of pollutant exposure and therefore no safe threshold. We have a huge problem. Eight thousand schools are in places which exceed air quality limits. Some 25% of all car journeys are school runs. One in four hospitals and one in three GP surgeries is in an area where air pollution is above the WHO limit for fine particulate matter. Twenty years ago, the Government’s own Air Quality Expert Group recommended,
“Impact analysis of policies or specific developments, whether for industry, transport, housing etc., should take account of the interlinkages of emissions of air quality and climate change pollutants.”
To the shame of us all, this has not occurred.
Simplistic thresholds are not good enough for health. Health will not improve unless the chemical characteristics and sources of particles are tackled. Those from anthropogenic sources, such as diesel engines, and road and brake wear are likely to be far more toxic than particulates originating from geological or natural sources.
Daellenbach and colleagues’ recent research, published in Nature last November, points strongly to this type of man-produced particulates being most closely associated with adverse health outcomes. This type of particle is closely associated with tissue damage. They derive principally from traffic—from diesel, brake wear and tyre friction on the road surface, as well as from domestic biomass burning, such as log burners. Simply eliminating diesel engines will not be enough, unless braking systems, road surfaces and activities that generate particulates are tackled. It is worth noting that, during Covid, there have been reports of such air pollution actually worsening in some areas, due to the large number of small lorries and trucks involved in domestic deliveries.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a sufferer from asthma. I add my congratulations and thanks to Rosamund Kissi-Debrah on her effective and courageous campaign for clean air. She, and anyone who knows anything about health promotion, knows that we should not rely on the Department of Health and Social Care alone to achieve it. It is the responsibility of the whole Government. Defra and the Department for Transport play particularly important roles.
Anyone who knows anything about ill health will also know that prevention is better and cheaper than cure. As my noble friend Lady Randerson pointed out, this group of amendments is about the prevention of ill health. My comments are from this standpoint. As my noble friend also pointed out, the beauty of the amendments in this group is that they bring together two vital issues for our country—the promotion of human health and the health of the planet. The prevention of global warming protects the future of our species. The practical measures needed to reduce PM2.5, which will prevent sickness, will also contribute to saving the planet.
As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, mentioned, these amendments also provide an opportunity for our innovators and industry to show what they can do to achieve the target by giving us a clean, green and more healthy recovery.
Amendment 20 requires an ambitious target, equivalent to that of the World Health Organization, for reducing air pollution, and it futureproofs the Bill. Amendment 49 puts pressure on the Secretary of State to do it quickly. We on these Benches support the spirit of Amendment 49, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, Amendment 29, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and Amendment 156, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, which summarises a lot of our objectives, as well as Amendments 20 and 49, to which I have put my name.
In this debate we have heard about the massive number of people whose health and development are seriously affected by polluted air, particularly by toxic microparticles of PM2.5 and smaller. We have heard that the Government currently meet their own average target of limiting this fine particulate matter to no more than 20 micrograms per cubic metre of air. However, this limit is too high and is an overall figure; local levels are much higher. We need much more granular measurement and enforcement. I welcome the Government’s commitment to adopting a new exposure reduction target, as this would drive further improvements in areas that already meet WHO guidelines, but this must go along with an ambitious target on ambient concentrations.
We have seen from Defra’s own technical analysis and from work by King’s College London that this is feasible and can be achieved, but it requires political leadership and funding. We have heard from the WHO and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, that no level of these microparticles is safe for human health, and that the legal limits in other countries are much lower than ours. We have also heard that the current limit recommended by the World Health Organization is 10 micrograms per cubic metre—half the UK limit—but that this is predicted to be reduced soon. Its guidelines also urge countries to reduce their own levels as quickly as possible. That is what we want our Government to do. The Government plan to set a new target by 2023. It must be an ambitious one. The Government should mandate themselves to keeping within that target and lay down a road map, with dates, as to how it will be done. Accepting these amendments would do that.
This Bill addresses many important issues but this one is by far the most far-reaching for our health, particularly that of our young children. Because these microparticles are so small, they can cross the placental blood barrier and enter a developing foetus, interfering with the development of the brain. If anything else did that, it would be banned by any right-thinking Government. This harm is hidden, so we do not know its human or economic cost. The dangers of rising levels of these particles have crept up on us, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said, but they can be stopped.
The Government like to claim that they are the “best in the world” at all sorts of things. Here is an opportunity to really achieve that position on damaging air pollution. If, by supporting this group of amendments, we can persuade the Government to take a more ambitious approach to reducing air pollution, we can save lives, save years of good health, save money for the NHS, stimulate the green economy and help save the planet. As they say, “What’s not to like?”
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this important subject. I start by saying, as a number of noble Lords have, that the death of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah was an absolute tragedy. I pay tribute to her family and friends, particularly her mother, who have all campaigned so tirelessly on this issue and continue to do so.
Turning to Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the Government recognise the importance of reducing concentrations of PM2.5 and the impact this has on our health. That is why we have included in the Bill the requirement to set a target specifically on PM2.5 concentrations. The Government are following an evidence-based process to inform this and the long-term air quality target. I reassure my noble friend Lord Randall, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that it will be ambitious. However, at this stage the full mix of policies and measures required to meet the current WHO guideline level of 10 micrograms per cubic metre is not yet fully understood, and nor is the impact these measures would have on people’s lives. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, mentioned the mayor’s study. I am pleased to say that the workings of that study were published last week. Officials are going through them and taking them into account. The letter on this issue recently sent to the Prime Minister by the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, the BMA and a collaboration of medical colleges will also be taken into account.
Until the Government complete the work and consult the public about the type of restrictions that would need to be placed upon us, particularly in large cities, it would not be appropriate for us to write this limit into law. The target is not being ruled out but, as I said at Second Reading, there is work to do. For example, meeting 10 micrograms in London and other cities is likely to require policies such as a total ban of solid fuel burning in cities and reducing traffic kilometres across our cities by as much as 50%. It is not right for us to set a target at the stroke of a pen that would impact millions of people and thousands of businesses without first being clear with people and understanding what would be needed. The Government have committed to setting out detailed evidence, including for public consultation, early next year, ahead of setting this target in secondary legislation, which will come before this House for a debate and a vote.
Turning to Amendment 29, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Amendment 49, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 156, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, the Government are working with a broad range of experts to ensure that air quality targets are based on the best available science, including the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, the UK’s air quality expert group, and a wide range of sector experts. We will ensure that our process is informed by the latest health evidence, including World Health Organization air quality guidelines. Given the breadth of potential targets that could be set under this framework, the WHO guidelines might not be relevant to all targets. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to require the Government to take account of the guidelines when setting or amending all targets. Nor would it be appropriate to require the Government to prepare explanatory statements pertaining to the guidelines for all targets, or to require all targets to be reviewed when the new WHO guidelines are issued.
However, we have baked a review mechanism into the target monitoring and review process. At least every five years, the Government must consider whether further policies are needed to achieve the interim and long-term targets they have set under the Bill. This will mean considering new evidence, including in the context of air quality target updates to World Health Organization guidelines.
Turning to Amendment 156, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the Government already make air pollution information available through a range of channels, but we are committed to improving the quality of that information first, to ensure that we have clear messaging and strong platforms to host this information. We will be doing this through comprehensive reviews of UK AIR, and the daily air quality index, and dedicating a significant part of the £8 million air quality grant to improving public awareness in local communities of the risks of pollution. This will also help health professionals in advising patients when poor air quality is forecast. We are also looking at working with relevant health charities on longer-term campaigns aimed specifically at vulnerable groups.
Moving to Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I reassure noble Lords that the Government recognise that in setting new air quality targets, it is important to have in place suitable means to monitor progress and to demonstrate whether the targets have been met. To answer noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, there is an established network of air quality monitoring in the UK, and work is ongoing to understand what additional monitoring would be required to underpin the new air quality targets. As stated in our clean air strategy, we are committed to ensuring continued investment to update and improve this infrastructure, in order to ensure that appropriate assessment is possible and that progress can be tracked. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also made that point.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I have received requests to speak from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Government Whips’ Office and the usual channels for sorting out the inadvertent omission of my name from the speakers’ list for this group. I am grateful to them and for being allowed to speak after the Minister. I support all the amendments in this group but, in the interests of time, will limit my remarks to Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for tabling his amendment because it gives me an opportunity to raise an issue I campaigned on during my time as the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Wimbledon, when the residents there raised concerns about a proposed planning application to build new homes on a small piece of land on an industrial estate bounded by railway lines. Sole access to it was from the corner of a busy, right-angled bend near Raynes Park railway station, where traffic lights meant that stationary vehicles often idled there and local geography restricted air movement. It was in a designated air quality management area. It transpired that a monitor that had been monitoring air quality there had disappeared. From digging through Merton Council’s report on air quality in designated AQMAs, I found that the last recorded reading showed appalling air quality that breached the EU guidelines substantially, particularly with respect to particulates and fine particulates. No one could say what had happened to the monitor or why it had been moved. It prompted me to start an alliterative campaign called Merton’s Missing Monitors.
I raise this because it is all well and good that a local authority must prepare an action plan to improve air quality in a designated AQMA, as laid out in Schedule 11, but unless air quality monitors are in place to measure improvement the whole exercise is rendered pretty useless. I totally agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about, as well as having monitors, the importance of the siting and methodology that is used for measuring the air quality.
In fact, the whole interface between central government, regional authorities and local authorities on the issue of air pollution is riddled with tensions. Can the Minister say who currently bears ultimate responsibility for cleaning up our air and who will have it after the Bill becomes law? Can he also tell us what the process is for allocating resources between the three levels of Government? Could he comment on whether local authorities have the funds or the skills they need to carry out the action plans?
I would like to raise one other issue, which is the source of fine particulates—PM2.5—from vehicle traffic that was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. The sources of particulates that arise from the friction between rubber on tyres and road surfaces and from dust resuspension will remain unmitigated even as the EV revolution reduces exhaust emissions over time. Local authorities currently have the power to introduce 20 mph speed limits, which help reduce fine particulates from non-exhaust vehicle sources, both because of the slower speeds and because of the fact that driving at slower speeds involves less braking and accelerating abrasion. But experience has shown that an ad hoc approach by local authorities to designating 20 mph limits gives a patchwork of limits and causes confusion to motorists. Has any thought been given to a default local speed limit of 20 mph, and then allowing local authorities to increase the speed limit on certain roads—that is, to reverse the status quo? It would, of course, have the added benefit of reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads.
I should clarify that I am speaking about 20 mph speed limits, not 20 mph zones, which are characterised by traffic-calming measures such as speed bumps and chicanes—all unpopular with motorists and ambulances. Areas with 20 mph limits are designed with only painted road markings and roadside notification if you are driving too fast. They are popular where they have been introduced. I should also add that 20 mph limits are supported by Public Health England, for obvious reasons, and the UN General Assembly.
This measure would reduce air pollution, help our fight against climate change by making easier a modal shift in transport towards more walking and cycling, and reduce KSIs. Before I end, I should put on the record that I was the founding member of 20’s Plenty for Merton. I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I tried to explain our approach to air quality monitoring in response to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, but the noble Baroness has taken up the issue as well. There is a network of monitoring across the UK. It is not complete or perfect, but we keep it permanently under review and have committed increased investment both to fill in the gaps and to upgrade and update the infrastructure, just to make sure that the network is doing what it is supposed to.
The noble Baroness asked where the responsibility lies. While the responsibility for meeting the national target that we will set as a consequence of the Bill, the PM2.5 target, will clearly be with national government, there is a huge role for local authorities when it comes to delivering those reductions. This will happen only as a result of partnerships. There are things that local authorities can do to tackle air pollution, but there are things that they cannot do and areas in which they rely on national government. For example, the initiative on cars—the transition to electric vehicles—can be helped by local authorities via charging networks, but fundamentally it will result from national policy.
The noble Baroness mentioned idling. Ultimately, that will have to be enforced by local authorities. I was involved in campaigns of that sort, specifically on idling, as the Member of Parliament for Richmond Park. It was extraordinary how many people would unthinkingly leave their engines on at a level crossing that would sometimes be down for nearly 10 minutes. Once they were politely asked to turn their engines off, they always did—not surprisingly—and we found that behaviour improved dramatically over just a few months. The local authority became better at issuing fines for repeat offenders. That was not the objective—no one wanted to see an increase in fines—but it was effective as a deterrent.
It is a complicated answer because ultimately, if we are to get where we need to go, it will be through collaboration between local, regional and national government.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response to this important debate. When I spoke to my Amendment 156, I made a request to him to meet me, my noble friend Lady Hayman, Ella’s mother, Rosamund, and members of the Ella’s law campaign. He did not address that when he spoke, so I ask him again: will he please agree to meet us before we get to Report?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I apologise for not addressing that. Yes, I am very happy to meet. We will be in touch after the debate.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been a really important and interesting debate, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
My noble friend Lord Whitty made some important points about monitoring and the need for proper support and resources for local authorities. We benefited from the extensive knowledge and experience of campaigning on this issue of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and other noble Lords supported the fact that we really should have challenging targets if we are genuinely to tackle air pollution and the damage it causes. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, rightly pointed out the UK’s appalling death rate from asthma and its links to poor air quality. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, powerfully explained even further the hidden damage caused in her detailed contribution.
I also commend my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark for his contribution, and for his support for Ella’s family. I join him, and echo his recognition—shared by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Walmsley, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the Minister—of the huge achievement of Ella’s mother, Rosamund. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, we recognise her “dignified campaign” in this area.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 22. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 22
“Environmental targets: species abundance
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations set a target (the “species abundance target”) in respect of a matter relating to the abundance of species.(2) The specified date for the species abundance target must be 31 December 2030.(3) Accordingly, the species abundance target is not a long-term target and the duty in subsection (1) is in addition to (and does not discharge) the duty in section 1(2) to set a long-term target in relation to biodiversity.(4) Before making regulations under subsection (1) which set or amend a target the Secretary of State must be satisfied that meeting the target, or the amended target, would further the objective of halting a decline in the abundance of species.(5) Section 1(4) to (9) applies to the species abundance target and to regulations under this section as it applies to targets set under section 1 and to regulations under that section.(6) In this Part “the species abundance target” means the target set under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to set a species abundance target, to be met by 31 December 2030. There are amendments throughout the Bill to ensure that the species abundance target is subject to the same regime as targets set under Clause 1.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I rise to move government Amendment 22, and to speak to the government amendments in my name grouped with it. These amendments will require the Secretary of State to set a new, historic, legally binding target for species abundance for 2030, aiming to halt the decline of nature. It is a core part of the Government’s commitment to leave the environment in a better state than we found it.
We hope that this measure will be the net zero equivalent for nature, spurring action of the scale required to address the biodiversity crisis. As noble Lords know, nature has been in decline for decades, and tackling that long-term decline will be challenging. But through this new target we are committing ourselves to that objective. A domestic 2030 species target will not only benefit species; the actions necessary to achieve it will also help drive wider environmental improvements —for example, to the habitats in which they live, and on which they depend.
The details of the target will be set in secondary legislation, brought forward by the end of October 2022, alongside our wider priority area targets. The 2030 species target will be subject to the same requirements as the long-term legally binding targets set under the Bill. Our focus now must be on the detailed work to develop a fully evidenced target. I met stakeholders on this issue just last week. We are developing the scientific and economic evidence to underpin this target, and will consult on all our proposed targets early next year. I look forward to hearing the contributions of noble Lords on this important amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment 23 (to Amendment 22)
Lord Chidgey
“(1A) In the range of species which contribute to the target, at least one must be a species that is significant to chalk streams and its abundance an indicator of the health of its ecosystem.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensures that at least one of the species which contributes to the target should act as a proxy for being able to assess the health and abundance of species within chalk streams, which in turn will act as a clear indicator of the overall health of chalk streams.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, allow me first to declare my interests—first, as vice-chair of the All-Party Chalk Streams Group, and as a past chairman of the town council of Alresford, in Hampshire, and a Winchester city councillor at the same time. Alresford lies in the headwaters of the River Itchen, astride the Alre, and it has been around a while—since Bishop de Lucy constructed a causeway taking the road out of Alresford to Basingstoke. Behind it, he constructed a massive freshwater lake, which in the day was teeming with fish of all descriptions. Winchester, of course, lies further down the Itchen, and is a major city of our nation.
Sadly, the eminence of the water pursuits and the value of the river have declined very seriously over the years. This is the primary reason why Amendment 23 in my name, together with Amendments 22, 24, 25 and 26, covers different aspects of the importance of species abundance in our rivers and streams. In this regard, the inclusion of a target-setting framework is a welcome part of the Bill. Putting targets into law brings certainty and clarity, to the benefit of all.
Depletion of species is not a new problem. It is a problem for Governments around the world, which, generally speaking, they have failed to reverse. The UK, however, has failed more than most. We are at the bottom of the league for G7 nations, based on the biodiversity intactness index. The latest State of Nature report showed that around one in seven species is threatened with extinction and more than 40% of species have declined since 1970, according to Greener UK.
Government Amendment 22 is thought to place a very weak duty in the Bill; it does not provide a legally binding commitment to halt the decline in species abundance, which the cross-party Amendment 24 addresses.
My Amendment 23, however, recognises the very great importance of species abundance in our chalk streams and chalk rivers in the south and south-east of England, which are a vital source of clean water, serving the needs of many millions of people across the region. It aims to ensure that at least one of the species which contribute to the species abundance target should act as a proxy for being able to assess the health and abundance of species in chalk streams, which in turn will act as a clear indicator of the overall health of chalk streams.
It is understood that the target proposed in the new clause will be constructed from a range of indicator species, which, taken together, can give an assessment of the level of increase in abundance. It is felt that at least one of these species should act as a proxy for being able to assess the health and abundance of species in chalk streams, which in turn will act as a clear indicator of the overall health of chalk streams.
To achieve the necessary improvements in abundance, action will be required to tackle issues around flow and abstraction, water quality and the need for habitat restoration. In the context of this amendment, it may be helpful to mention some of the indicator species the Government may wish to consider, all of which are good proxies for the overall health of chalk streams. These include the distribution and abundance of: blue-winged olive flies, brook water crowfoot and, naturally, brown trout. In addition, the distribution and abundance of gammarus, a shrimp-like invertebrate measured by riverbed kick samples in chalk streams, are a clear indicator of the overall health of a river.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to what seems to me a fairly simple request. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 24 in my name, and I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for joining me in supporting it. I apologise to noble Lords for a lengthier contribution than I normally aspire to, but for me and many thousands of others this is a crucial issue.
Like others, I have been pressing for a state of nature target to be inserted into this Bill for some time. Indeed, a current petition has well over 200,000 signatures. I was therefore delighted to hear my honourable friend George Eustice’s recent speech at Delamere Forest, when he said:
“Nature is going to be key pillar of our work as host of the UN Climate Change Conference COP26. We were the first major economy in the world to set a net zero emissions target in law. To meet that target we must protect and restore nature, with nature-based solutions forming a key part of our approach to tackling climate change.”
He went on to say something we all know:
“The UK is sadly one of the most nature depleted countries in the world.”
He said:
“We want not only to stem the tide of this loss, but to turn it around and leave the environment in a better state than we found it. I want us to put a renewed emphasis on nature’s recovery. And, that is why today we will be amending the Environment Bill to require an additional legally binding target for species abundance for 2030, aiming to halt the decline of nature. This is a huge step forward, and a world leading measure in the year of COP15 and COP26. We hope that this will be the Net Zero equivalent for nature, spurring action of the scale required to address the biodiversity crisis.”
My noble friend the Minister has just echoed those words.
After that speech there were many virtual cheers, not only from conservation and environmental NGOs but from those thousands of our fellow citizens who care deeply about this issue, myself very much included. Indeed, I am sure that many Conservative MPs were equally delighted to be able to report back to their concerned constituents that this Government, my Government, were taking the steps required to start the decline of our nature.
At the recent G7 summit, part of the communiqué stated:
“We therefore confirm our strong determination to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030, building on the G7 Metz Charter on Biodiversity and the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature as appropriate.”
However, I have to say, very regretfully, that when these much-heralded government amendments were laid they were disappointing—really disappointing. I take no pleasure in saying that so much expectation was dashed to the ground so quickly. I suspect that my noble friend the Minister shares some of that disappointment —I will not press him on that—and that somewhere, the original aspiration and maybe even an earlier draft of these government amendments were squashed. I cannot think where. It cannot be the Treasury, as it commissioned that excellent piece of work, the Dasgupta review, which laid out clearly the economic case for restoring nature. It is all a bit of a mystery to me. Perhaps my cynicism is misplaced and my noble friend will be able to assure me that our simple amendment now has the green light. That would save us all a lot of time.
Why is this state of nature target needed? As I said, the Government have accepted the need to halt the decline of nature. I have already said that this has been managed in the G7 nature compact, the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature and the Dasgupta review. The Government have stated their intention to
“halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.”
Previous global agreements to halt nature’s decline failed because global goals have not been matched by domestic implementation. The UN Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 showed that the world had failed to meet any of its targets to halt biodiversity loss set under the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Environment Bill is of course largely framework legislation, without a definite environmental objective. Adding a meaningful state of nature target would help upgrade the Bill to landmark legislation, setting a clear direction for environmental improvement.
The Government’s proposal for a species abundance target just does not lock in a level of ambition to halt species decline by 2030. Instead, it merely requires the target to “further” the objective of halting nature’s decline. This means that there would be no fixed date at all for achieving the ultimate objective of stopping biodiversity loss. Under the Government’s proposed approach, the level of ambition for the species abundance target would be set by statutory instrument, along with other targets, in October 2022 at the earliest. Setting half a target of this kind undermines the very purpose of a statutory target. It does not provide a fixed point of accountability, give certainty to investors or create a clear requirement for all government departments to achieve a clear goal.
The Government may argue that it would be appropriate to wait to set the target following consultation. However, I believe that there are three problems with this approach. There is no guarantee of ambition: the final target could fall far short of an objective to halt species decline by 2030 and there would be no statutory obligation to set that target for a later date. This would also show a regrettable failure of leadership. Part of the reason for setting a state of nature target is to inspire action in other countries, but the Government’s approach would mean the target being set after the COP 15 Convention on Biological Diversity talks.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and to commend him, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on Amendment 24, to which the Green group would have certainly given its support, had there been space on the paper for it.
I will, however, go back briefly to Amendment 23 from the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, because it is crucial that we acknowledge the importance of chalk streams. It is something I have in the past done a great deal of work on, with concern about the arrival of what has been called unconventional oil and gas extraction and its potential impact on them. I will admit that seeing the noble Lord’s amendment also made me want to revisit amendments that I tabled to the then Agriculture Bill on meadows and hedgerows. They are all things we need to include when we are talking about the species abundance target more broadly.
However, what I mostly want to address is new subsection (4) in the Government’s amendment and the proposed amendments to that subsection. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has already set out extremely clearly, this simply does not live up to the promises that the Government made on the species abundance target: the words we heard from the Secretary of State in what was billed as a landmark speech.
Amendment 24 would leave out the word “further”. The Government’s amendment states that they will “further the objective”, and Amendment 24 says “meet” the objective, which is a considerable improvement. However, I have tabled Amendment 26, which would go further. I apologise to noble Lords, because I realise, looking at it, that in the Explanatory Statement I did not really get on top of the complexities of explaining it. The key difference in this context is that I say, rather than to “further” or to “meet” a target, “delivering an improvement”. We have the Government saying, “We’re going to try to at least not get worse”; Amendment 24 says, “We’re going to at least meet a target for species abundance”; and I say, “We have to see an improvement.” That is what would be written into the Bill.
I shall go back, as did the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to the speech of George Eustice in Delamere Forest. I have a couple of quotes from it. It used the phrase “building back greener”. I put the stress on the “er” in that: an improvement. He said that
“restoring nature is going to be crucial”—
we are restoring, we are improving. He said:
“We want to not only stem the tide of this loss but to turn it around and to leave the environment in a better state.”
I would say that to deliver on what the Government say they want to achieve, they need the words “delivering an improvement”, or words very similar to those, in the Bill to commit to seeing an improvement.
I shall give just a short reflection on what that means, and I shall go to the RSPB:
“More than 40 million birds have disappeared from UK skies”
since 1970. What the Government are offering is, “We’re going to try and stop losing more”; Amendment 24 says, “We guarantee to at least stay where we are”; my amendment says, “We’re going to bring at least some of those 40 million birds back.” That is what it is aiming to do.
We can reflect on a phrase which has been very much popularised by George Monbiot, the Guardian columnist and writer: “shifting baseline syndrome”. Older Members of your Lordships’ House may well say, “Well, nature just doesn’t look like it used to when I was a child”—but their grandparents would have said exactly the same thing. We have had a long-term, centuries-long collapse, and if you could get someone in a time machine from 200 years ago and put them into our countryside now, they just would not recognise it, with its total lack of wildlife.
It is also worth looking at the Government’s reaction. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred to the Dasgupta review. The Government have, of course, already put out a formal response to that in which they talk about a “nature-positive future”, which I suggest implies that there has to be an improvement: if you are going to do something positive, you are increasing it. That explains why I have worded Amendment 26 in this way, in terms of delivering improvement.
I want briefly to address the rest of Amendments 26 and 27 on the issue of species abundance. I have talked to some of the NGOs that have been instrumental in the petition that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred to—250,000 people had signed it the last time I looked to say that they want an improved species abundance target—I will be very happy if the Minister can correct me, but no one has actually defined what a species abundance target means. We go back to our debate on Monday about what biodiversity means: whether it is biodiversity of genes in a large population which has a large diversity of genes, one hopes; whether it is species; whether it is the fact that to have abundant species, you need a rich ecological environment. All those things fit together. Amendments 26 and 27 are my attempt to get the Minister to reflect now, or if not now, later, and explain to us what the Government really mean by a species abundance target.
What I have suggested, in trying to address those different aspects of biodiversity, is to look at the mass of wild species—we are talking about bioabundance. Keeping a few handfuls of tiny populations of every species going is not enough; we need to have lots of the popular species, lots of all species and also population numbers of red and amber list species, trying to address those rarer species on which a lot of the attention in terms of extinction is focused. I am sure all noble Lords have received many representations about Amendment 24, which is certainly a great improvement on government Amendment 22, but I ask your Lordships’ House, as we go forward to the next stage, to think about some wording in the Bill that guarantees building in improvement, not just ensuring no decline.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She and her colleague from the Green Party can certainly never be accused of falling down on the job. They are persistent; I do not always agree with them, but I salute them for keeping their cause going.
I was greatly impressed by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge’s speech but I must say to my noble friend, whose personal credentials I do not question for a moment, that his amendments this evening are disappointing, to put it mildly. The speech of the Secretary of State, George Eustice, to which reference has already been made, excited expectations. The amendments that my noble friend has tabled do not—if they will fulfil those expectations, there is a great difference between promise and performance. It is not just the road to hell that is paved with good intentions; in this context, the road to extinction is paved with good intentions. It is not a question of my noble friend’s intentions but of the performance that I think will follow.
I suggest that on Report my noble friend should toughen this up. I ask him to convene a meeting of those are speaking in this debate and others to see whether we can come to a consensus and amendments that will really reflect what I believe is his genuine intention, and what is certainly the desire of a large majority of your Lordships’ House. I urge him to do that, because I do not want this to become a politically contentious Bill; it is one that ought to command the allegiance of people in all parts of the country and in all political parties. I salute the Government for bringing it forward, but say to them, please do not fall down on this. It is crucial that in 10 years’ time, looking back upon 2030, people do not say, “There was a great opportunity that was badly missed.”
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the earlier speakers that this part of the Bill needs to be strengthened. I should say to my noble friend Lord Goldsmith with regard to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, why just chalk streams? I know how vital they are but any river will tell you about the environment of that area and its quality within the river.
I have a little bit of good news for my noble friend on the Front Bench. I recently spent three days in Dorset and, driving back, I had to wash the windscreen of my car to get rid of the bugs. It is the first time in many years when I have had to do that. If bugs are getting on to windscreens, it means that something is turning around slowly in nature. It is a good start and I hope that we will all be doing what I had to do on a much more regular basis. I agree that it is desperately boring to do, but it is far better to be bored doing it than not to have nature.
Virtually all land in the UK is managed. There is very little, if any, truly wild land left. When we are considering biodiversity, we must not forget that the land also has to produce food for the population. I again ask my noble friend on the Front Bench the question I asked at Second Reading, or possibly on the first day of Committee—I cannot remember. Does he agree with the figure that 21% of our agricultural land has to be taken out of agriculture and put into bioenergy fuels and trees? If that is the case, it means a 10% increase in the productivity of all the other agricultural land. That will mean a lot of intensification but it can be done if we do that cleverly with supporting biodiversity.
Here I want to talk about something that has almost become a dirty word: management—land management and biodiversity management. We could improve the biodiversity in this country very quickly if we followed the simple rules of getting the right habitat, the right species protection, proper winter feeding and control of predators. That is the four-legged chair on which biodiversity depends. I know that the Agriculture Act will address some of that but it will not necessarily address winter feed and certainly not predator control. The winter feed situation has been hugely compromised by the increasingly efficient agricultural machinery that farmers use and the height at which crops can be cut, leaving little for wildlife.
I mentioned foxes and badgers earlier. It was in that context that I felt that my noble friend the Minister had not answered my questions. What will the Government do to ensure that there is proper predator control carried out in a humane way? I am not talking about the extinction of species but getting a balance. If we are going to get back lapwing, curlew and waders, predators will have to be controlled. It is not just a question of foxes and badgers but deer. They have ruined hedgerows for ground-nesting birds and nightjars, and decimated some trees. In an increasingly urban southern half of England, deer control is becoming a major problem to undertake but if we do not do so we will affect wildlife in a hugely different way. It is not just a matter of our actions as human beings but of nature working within nature.
I know there are certain things over which we have no control, such as climate change. It is bound to affect our biodiversity in ways we do not know. As the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, will know, warmer winters and cooler summers are affecting salmon migration and its appearance in rivers. It is to be hoped that we will do something about that in long term, but it is not a short-term problem that we can solve. Nor can we solve the problem the north winds this spring have caused the bat population—that is not strictly within our hands. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, talked about the blue butterfly, which is weather-dependent. We have seen a huge increase in the red admiral thanks to a slightly warmer climate, but the other side of that equation is that we have lost a whole lot of butterflies because of the change in the climate. I wonder whether the blue butterfly that the noble Lord mentioned will suffer in the future.
In this debate, on getting an abundance target and improving biodiversity, I hope my noble friend will tell us about the practical problems that organisations are trying to solve. These organisations, such as the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust and the Nature Friendly Farming Network, are doing huge amounts. They will need some more help and some more drive from the Government as well. Rather than just setting targets, it is the practicalities on the ground that matter.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Caithness. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing forward government Amendment 22 and all the amendments in this group. I hope he is not too disheartened by the reaction around the Committee this afternoon. Really, the Government have taken the bull by the horns.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on his industriousness in all the positions he holds. No wonder we do not see too much of him here in the Chamber, but I congratulate him on all his work, at every level of democracy, which he outlined today. I am delighted that he talked about the plight of chalk streams, which I was heavily involved in at one stage in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, highlighted—indeed, it is a theme of the briefing I was delighted to receive from the Green Alliance—that this is not a problem unique to this country. My noble friend the Minister outlined this when he moved and spoke to the amendments before us this evening. It is not so much that this is a new problem as that we need new solutions to be adopted, but I urge my noble friend to be slightly cautious if we go out on our own limb, as it were, and set very ambitious targets. Is it not the case that we are not the only Government who did not achieve the 20 Aichi biodiversity targets agreed in Japan in 2010? Surely, if we are concerned about being a global leader and about biodiversity in the wider world, he should use his good offices and those of his colleagues in government to ensure that other Governments follow our lead. I was slightly disappointed that my noble friend Lord Randall did not touch on that aspect and took, perhaps, a uniquely domestic approach in the words he used.
My noble friend has set an ambitious target in the amendments in this group. How achievable is meeting those targets by 2030? Obviously, it is something we have signed up to internationally, so I would be interested to know how realistic and achievable those targets are. It is welcome that they will be subject—as I understood him to say—to the same legally binding targets elsewhere in the Bill. Will he use the species abundance provisions set out in these amendments to ensure that there will be timely and regular reviews of all the species, however the Government is going to define them? I am wondering whether we have actually defined these anywhere in the Bill, and I would be grateful if my noble friend would point to where those definitions are.
We all have our favourite species. Mine is the red squirrel, and one of the joys of visiting Denmark each summer is seeing how widespread it still is in parts of Scandinavia and elsewhere. I believe that hedgehogs are under increasing threat; I frequently lift one up and move it from the drive so that it does not make its way on to the main road, where I know that, a few days later, I will see that it is no more. Will my noble friend use this opportunity to look at all our favourite species—I would argue for red squirrels and hedgehogs—and make sure that, where they have been threatened but are now in abundance, we take cognisance of that? I think particularly of the protections that we gave to badgers in 1968. Should these now be reviewed, in 2021, along with those for all species of bats and newts?
I was taken by the arguments made by noble friend Lord Caithness about achieving a balance. He is absolutely correct, and I support him in this, that we should recognise predators such as deer. I hope that the green lobby will bear with me and that I do not get attacked like I did when I said this before: we have to recognise that TB is spread through predators such as badgers and deer and protect our herds of domestic cattle from that. I hope my noble friend the Minister will take cognisance of that balance. This may be in one of the amendments and I have missed it, but I would welcome his commitment to a review of each species, perhaps every five years, being considered. However, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I restate my interests: I chair the Cawood group, which carries out analytical testing of soil, water, waste et cetera; and I am a trustee of Clinton Devon Estates, which is involved in ELMS trials and testing. I fully support the Bill and am enthusiastic about its potential. As has been stated numerous times, it needs to sit in sync with the Agriculture Act and I will comment on that later. I absolutely understand the need for the suite of amendments tabled by the Minister, beginning with Amendment 22.
There is clearly a need to have appropriate targets; otherwise there is a serious risk of not being able to measure success. As I said earlier in the debate, it is important to have a clear sense of direction to motivate all involved in delivery. I listened carefully to the Minister’s response, in an earlier debate, on why soil quality is not included as a target in the Bill. I have to say that it was not very convincing. If the determinants are still a work in progress, the Government should commit to introducing soil when these have been resolved. The setting of targets is, potentially, one of the most controversial parts of the Bill, as is clear from interest in the topic and comments so far. I will issue a cautionary note, so far as the farming sector is concerned. My old farming business participated in stewardship schemes for about 30 years before I retired two years ago; it was one of the first to enrol in stewardship management. We did halt decline in some species and saw a revival in others.
Modern agricultural practices encouraged by the common agricultural policy and, to be clear, by successive Governments in the UK, to produce cheap food—particularly the move from spring to autumn cropping during the 1970s and 1980s—have had an influence on species loss. Farmers have been following government policies and have been subsidised to produce cheap food for the past 70 years, which is why the Government have an obligation to adequately support family farms through the transition period, as outlined in the Agriculture Act, over the next seven years. The Government also need to incentivise those same farmers to deliver measures within the ELMS to address species loss and help deliver the targets that will be set as a consequence of the Bill. This is where the two pieces of legislation need to be absolutely compatible. I stress again that the Government have an obligation and these family farms are vital to the management of the countryside. They are crucial in delivering economic and social sustainability, as well as environmental sustainability and the outcomes that the Government hope to achieve through the Bill.
I am sure that the Minister will reassure the House that the Government intend to support farmers through the ELMS, but everything depends on the values attached to public goods, including the measures required to deliver biodiversity gain, which are as yet unknown. Establishing the value needs careful consideration. Even though farmers have been pilloried in the past by the environmental lobby as the culprits for ruining the environment in the pursuit of cheap food, in my experience, the vast majority of farmers care deeply about their environmental responsibilities and want to see well-functioning ecosystems.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there was much wrangling over the “state of nature” amendment in the other place. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Randall, also drew the attention of the House to the public petition on this issue, which has now reached almost 200,000 signatures. It is clearly an important issue. I welcomed the Government’s intention to come forward with their own amendment on it but it is a bit of a disappointment. It fails to deliver the Government’s own commitment to reverse, not just halt, the decline of biodiversity by 2030. Other noble Lords outlined the basis of that, but I will simply recap: the Government promised targets that were equivalent to net zero for biodiversity, but these amendments simply do not deliver that.
All this is rather strange because the Prime Minister has played a leading global role in the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature and, most recently, the G7’s nature compact. Both those initiatives aim to halt declines by 2030. This welcome ambition needs to be firmly secured in the legislation and in this element of the targets. If we do not set an ambitious target in the Bill, we will look rather foolish at COP 15 and COP 26.
Government Amendment 22 has some wonderful weasel words in it. It talks of furthering
“the objective of halting a decline in the abundance of species.”
We need an unequivocal statement. The Climate Change Act has the 2050 net-zero target; we need something equally clear and unequivocal for biodiversity. That is one element but the other is that it needs to be a target that refers to not just halting decline but starting to reverse it. In his letter of 8 June, following Second Reading, the Minister said the Government would not set the final target until after COP 15, when global targets are going to be set. In keeping with global Britain, the UK should be leading, not following—not waiting for the global conference but setting the pace and ambition.
After all, for many years we have been fiddling while Rome burns. The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, talked about 70 years’ worth of agricultural impact on biodiversity, regrettably. When I was chief executive of RSPB in the mid-1990s, NGOs drove—and the Government eventually endorsed—the Biodiversity Action Plan, which aimed to halt and reverse declines in species and habitats. It was a very worthwhile and inclusive initiative but, by 2020, government commitment to that excellent process had evaporated and it was left without any resources. Let that be an object lesson on the commitment, energy, resource and, in today’s case, the statutory backing required if we are to reverse biodiversity decline. We cannot afford to fail this time, as the rate of species decline and habitat loss increases, irrespective of the noble Lord collecting insects on his windscreen.
A chilling statement was made about species decline and extinction, and I do not think it overdramatic to say that every extinction foreshadows our own. It is that important. I support Amendment 24 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Randall and Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which
“would set a clear requirement for a target to halt the decline in the abundance of species by 2030.”
I also support Amendment 25, in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which talks of not just halting the decline, but ensuring the abundance of species then increases.
I also commend Amendment 202, in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. It restates the need for a target to not just halt but reverse biodiversity decline. More importantly, it lays out the parameters of a target to be more rounded than simply species abundance—a true “State of nature target”. It adds to abundance and distribution of species
“the extent and condition of priority habitats”.
I too would like to see habitats as part of the target.
My colleagues in the green NGOs advise me that we should grab a species target while the going is good, and that a well-designed target in species abundance could, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said, serve as a proxy for the overall state of the natural environment. I want the Government to be more ambitious and adopt a habitat component to the target, as well. Species and habitats are mutually dependent. Without habitats, species are a bit like the old Morecambe and Wise joke about Eric’s piano playing; all the notes are there, but not necessarily in the right order. The habitats bring the assemblages of species together.
I hope the Minister will consider embracing the spirit of these amendments. As the Minister knows and regularly tells the House, the Government have launched a large range of initiatives which have the potential, if properly delivered and co-ordinated, to halt and reverse the decline of biodiversity. The Government should have the courage of their convictions and establish a much more ambitious and robust state-of-nature target.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, I rise to consider, as a number of other noble Lords have, the definition of species abundance, and to ask what such targets might mean for land management, particularly at a local level. I echo and endorse the excellent earlier comments of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and others, on Amendments 36 and 45, noting the unintended consequence of worthy targets. I remind noble Lords of my interests as listed in the register.
I particularly want to speak about the Exminster marshes, a SSSI Ramsar and RSPB nature reserve, traditionally famed and farmed for its early spring lamb—the earliest in England and a staple at Easter Sunday lunches before subjugation of New Zealand’s native ecosystems allowed us to have lamb year-round. The Exminster marshes are now renowned for overwintering wildfowl and waders, as well as ground-nesting birds and much else. I knew the marshes well as a child, which was not yet so long ago, and there is now nothing like the diversity of bird species there was when it was traditionally farmed, even if the abundance of certain species may have increased dramatically.
Since the RSPB acquired part of the marshes, the increase in birdlife has, for the most part, been seen in the non-native Canada goose, traditionally well controlled. Likewise, there has been an increase in the abundance of foxes, badgers and other marauding mammals, as noted by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which has caused the RSPB to surround its field with electric fences to protect the few nesting peewits that remain. In the surrounding hills, the quantities of wild deer are now so high that young tree plantations all fail and Kenton’s allotments are surrounded by deer-proof fencing that makes them look like a prison camp. Meanwhile, the mitigation cost for one pair of cirl bunting on those same south Devon hills is set at £75,000—yet I have never even seen a cirl bunting.
Species abundance, as many noble Lords have commented, is very complex, and interventions to improve it can have dramatic and unforeseen consequences. Indeed, I have heard the Minister’s brother extolling the virtues of rewilding when launching the Devon environment fund last year. He spoke with particular passion on the introduction of carnivorous wild cats to Dartmoor. I hope he consults with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, if he ever considers such a target, as the Dartmoor hill ponies would likely object to becoming their prey.
The Minister has already said there will be consultation and impact assessments completed before any targets are introduced, but could he please expand on the extent of that consultation? In various places in the Bill, notably in relation to local nature recovery, species conservation and protected site strategies, there are explicit consultation requirements set out. But nowhere do I see an obligation to consult with local land managers—the very people who will be most impacted by the targets and are most responsible for achieving them. Land use is a particularly local issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, has explained. Each of our landscapes has been developed by local communities over centuries, for particular purposes sympathetic to that specific landscape and those who live and work within it. Centralised target setting, or target setting by national agencies alongside local planners, will not be sufficient.
I also note that the date for meeting the proposed species abundance target is December 2030. While I applaud the Government’s desire to set ambitious nature targets and be seen to be taking action now, I would note that this is only a year or two after the end of the agricultural transition period prescribed by the Agriculture Act. Therefore, at exactly the same time as farmers and land managers are wrestling with the largest upheaval in agriculture regulation in generations, they will be required also to meet as yet ill-defined species abundance targets about which they will not be consulted.
If we are not very careful, we will have dead ponies, no trees and wetlands full of Canada geese—until the badgers get their eggs, too. That is not nature recovery.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I rise—metaphorically—to support Amendment 25. My support of this amendment is similar to my support of the target for the PM2.5 particulates in the last grouping. In essence, I believe that we have to be ambitious, so I also support Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. But, first, I thank the Minister —he seems to be getting a slightly hard time tonight—for coming up with his Amendment 22 in the first place. However, as others have said, I realise that there are no serious commitments within it as yet—but it is a start and we all hope that we can draw out some firmer detail as a result of this debate.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 24, along with the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I also support Amendments 25, 26, 27 and 202.
I was going to speak in some detail to Amendment 24 but the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, did such a brilliant job of introducing it that I do not need to repeat anything he said—he said it far better than I could. What I want to say is this: just over 20 years ago I wrote an article entitled “The second Silent Spring?” Those who follow the environmental literature will know that in the 1960s Rachel Carson wrote a book called Silent Spring, which was really the beginning of the environmental movement. She showed how pesticides, particularly DDT, were causing irreparable damage to wildlife. My article analysed how intensive farming practices have silenced the birds in our landscapes. We now understand that reasonably well; as I mentioned in an earlier debate, we have some good evidence on which to change farming practice.
Without Amendment 24—indeed, without going further than Amendment 24, as suggested in the other amendments in this group—I will be able to write an article in 10 years’ time, in the early 2030s, called “The third Silent Spring”, which will talk about how government inaction has left us without nature recovery.
Why is it urgent to act now? I will mention a few reasons; they have already been described in earlier debates. The Minister himself pointed out this afternoon that you cannot conjure up habitats overnight. If you need a habitat such as ancient woodland, lowland heath or marshland, you need years to restore those habitats. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, the species we are concerned about preserving and increasing depend on the habitats they live in.
Secondly, if the cause of decline has been pollution, it will take years for pollution to disappear from the environment and for us to find alternative insecticides or herbicides that are less damaging to wildlife.
Thirdly, as we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, among others, some species are already affected by the impacts of climate change. In the latest climate change risk assessment, published last week, risks to biodiversity and habitat from climate change are listed as one of the eight priority risks for action in the next two years. It estimates that more than a third of species are at risk of adverse effects of climate change. Unless we take action now to improve the condition of those species, they will disappear.
My final point in explaining why action is urgent now is that some species will be adversely affected by chance extreme events. For instance, the population of Dartford warblers in Surrey declined by 88% in 2009 because of a cold snap in the February, in spite of the creation of special protected areas of lowland heath. That emphasises that if we are to build resilience to future chance events, we have to act now and not dither and delay. A legally binding target will oblige the Government to come clean about what they mean by Amendment 22 and how they will deliver it, and will prevent further dither and delay while some species decline and disappear.
I have two more points. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, among others, asked what the amendment actually means by a “species abundance target”. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that not all species are created equal. For instance, would it be counted as a success if the Government’s policies achieved a target of increasing the abundance of clothes moths, hair lice or food poisoning bacteria such as salmonella? Some people may think those are important species to increase the abundance of, but when people think of halting species’ decline or restoring nature they are surely thinking of a wider range of species—and probably none of those three species.
Amendments 26 and 27 try to provide a more precise characterisation. We have heard a number of suggestions. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, suggested, for example, that species at risk of decline or extinction be a possible starting point. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, suggested the species in the NGO State of Nature report. Another obvious alternative would be to include the 943 species and 56 habitats covered under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.
I hope the Minister can shed a bit of light in his response on what sort of group of species will be included in the target. I also hope the target will be strengthened, as the amendment suggests. Can he also suggest how the expert group he referred to will combine these different species into a single metric? This will involve some weighting of their relative importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, mentioned a few minutes ago.
I have one final point. The Government should be explicit about how potential trade-offs, which my noble friend Lord Vaux of Harrowden referred to earlier, might be managed. Restoring a habitat for one priority species may result in loss of habitat for another. Species A may need more marsh habitat, while species B may need dry meadows. The supply of land in this country is very limited, so choices may well have to be made. I hope the Minister will tell us a bit about how this might be done.
In summary, while government Amendment 22 looks at first sight to be a fantastic commitment, the more you look at it, the more questions it raises. I very much hope, as other noble Lords have said, that the Government will take it away and revise it, to meet the concerns that have been raised about its current form.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the Committee will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I much appreciated and enjoyed the previous speeches and I think we have made a very good case for the amendments that propose to set targets. I speak in support of Amendment 202 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which I believe is the most comprehensive of all the amendments as it takes in the vast scope of what we are collectively trying to do. Like many people, I applaud the Government for both the ELMS and the steps they have taken to start to even think about trying to quantify biodiversity and to set targets.
Biodiversity is, as we all know, fantastically difficult; its loss is as much of a threat to mankind as climate change, but it has only a fraction of the public profile. It is incredibly difficult because it is not a thing you can quantify like electricity or transport. It is complicated and messy but, at the end of the day, it is the thing we all care about. I have just a couple of points to make, as many others I wanted to make have already been raised.
The first is the food system which, despite the excellent recent contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is neglected across the Environment Bill. It is factually established that food contributes 30% to climate change. It is and has been the driver of biodiversity loss. While the noble Lord, Lord Curry, is absolutely right that no farmer wants a farm that is devoid of wildlife, if you go into certain areas of Norfolk or parts of England with really industrial farming, it is like being in a factory; it is not like being in the countryside.
It worries me that, throughout the Environment Bill, the question of what to do with food is being left at the door of the food strategy. I am an adviser on the food strategy and have seen a lot of what will come on 15 July. I assure the Committee that it is absolutely fantastic and has a huge section on the relationship between climate, biodiversity and the food system. But it still worries me that we do not have more on that in the body of the Bill.
I also support Amendment 202 because it makes the point that everyone must be responsible for this. I have talked about it before in this House, but the Knepp rewilding estate in Sussex is, at this moment, at threat of having 3,500 houses plonked on its perimeter. It is ironic because, just recently, Natural England—the Government’s own body—designated Knepp a national nature reserve. The Government have said in the 25-year environment plan that:
“New development will happen in the right places, delivering maximum economic benefit while taking into account the need to avoid environmental damage.”
Many noble Lords have made the point that we cannot just settle with what we have, we must increase it if we are to turn the tide and increase the amount of biodiversity. Knepp has done some extraordinary things: it has 2% of the country’s nightingales, an extraordinary quantity of purple emperor butterflies and has reintroduced storks, not to mention that you can go there and understand how the interaction of the grazer, browser and habitat really work.
It seems absolutely illogical that planning permission should be given to that estate. However, as Isabella Tree has said, it is a question of the odds, and the level is “build, build, build”. She said:
“As usual nature is shouldered out of the ring.”
For its local plan, Horsham District Council is expected to meet a staggering target of 1,200 new houses every year from 2019 until 2036. That is within one small council. Obviously we must have homes, but can we not have a little more thought?
It is worrying that we do not have enough joined-up thinking, because if we do not have that, all the gains that we make will come back and bite us. The great brilliance of the Dasgupta review is that it has looked across the board at the economic value of nature. If we undermine it at this early stage, in the year of the CBD and the COP, taking one of our “national treasures” of rewilding and wildlife, and, in effect, destroying the corridors around it that enable the animals to keep moving would be a deep irony.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, who is now in his place, for his introduction of the Government’s amendment on the state of nature target. As other noble Lords have said, expectations were high but a word that has been used in response in this Chamber by Members from right across the House is that there has been a level of “disappointment” in the resulting amendment.
I shall speak on Amendment 24, which I co-signed, and was ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, but I want to give a nod to my noble friend Lord Chidgey and his championing tonight of chalk streams, and on many occasions. He is right to raise the issue and I am sure that when a target eventually appears, it will look to address the need to protect the creatures in our rivers and habitats. We are right to raise the issue tonight.
I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Jones, for proposing targets that look not just to halt the decline but to improve the quality or our species. They made important points on which I hope the Government will reflect.
I was struck by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, when he said that the road to extinction was paved with good intentions. That is what we are talking about. We are already seeing extinctions of British species and while we do not quibble with the Government’s, indeed the Minister’s, intention to put our wildlife on a stronger footing for the future, we have to make sure that the footing is the strongest possible. It is clear that the state of nature target proposed in Amendment 22 is not that.
As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, gave a brilliant exposition of what our amendment seeks to do and I am not going to tire the patience of the Committee by repeating it. I shall add just one point about why the target is important and it relates to the upcoming CBD conference in October. As the Minister will know, the committee that I chair, the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee, is looking at the outcomes that we want to see from the CBD and what the Government need to do. I am grateful for the evidence that he gave to the committee last week.
Yesterday, we took evidence from a panel of four witnesses, ranging from the green groups to business representatives and economic experts. We had witnesses from the World Economic Forum, the RSPB, Unilever and the International Institute for Sustainable Development. We asked them what they wanted the Government to do to help ensure that we get the best possible outcome at the CBD in October. They were in agreement—the economists, the business representative, the green groups and the international sustainable development experts—that they wanted to see the Government leading from the front with a strong, legally binding target in domestic legislation in order to drive up other people’s and other countries’ ambition.
We know that this is important because of the climate change situation. This is a bottom-up target, not a top-down target, with countries coming together, being inspired by each other and levelling up, respecting the sovereign authority of individual countries working collectively. We need a strong domestic target in this piece of legislation which says to other countries “Come with us on this journey; come with global Britain and let’s leave the world in a better place.” The strongest possible target needs to be in the Bill. That is why Amendment 24 is critical, and why the Government need to act on it.
In conclusion, I pay tribute, as other noble Lords have done, to the work of the many Green charities, both large and small, right around the country which have mobilised the voice of people who are passionately concerned about species and want something done. These charities have done a great job and a service to our democracy in mobilising that support. The Government now need to listen, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and all noble Lords who have spoken so passionately and eloquently in this debate. I have added my name to Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. As other noble Lords have said, he made such a compelling case that we do not need to repeat all his arguments. I will comment also on Amendments 25 and 202, standing in my name.
As I said at Second Reading, what set out to be a landmark Bill two years ago now seems to be behind the curve in content and ambition. Nowhere is this more obvious than in this debate. The truth is that the Government are running to catch up on this issue—and they still have some way to go.
Noble Lords have given a number of stark examples of the crisis we face in biodiversity decline. Reference has been made to the RSPB report, which describes a lost decade in the UK in which 41% of our species are declining and 10% are threatened with extinction. They include red squirrels—a particular passion of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—water voles, ghost orchids and meadow clary. A third of wild bees and hoverflies have now been lost. A total of 97% of our wildflower meadows have gone since the 1930s. This crisis is caused by agricultural practices, pollution, urbanisation, habitat loss and climate change. It needs action now.
At the same time, globally, WWF’s Living Planet Report shows that we are losing forests and habitats at an alarming rate, with a species decline of 68%. The UK is adding to this problem through its huge consumer appetite for commodities, which is adding to global deforestation.
Meanwhile, despite all previous government commitments and targets, biodiversity decline has deteriorated further. As has been said, the Government have missed 17 out of the 20 agreed UN biodiversity targets. The Government’s progress report on the 25-year environment plan shows an alarming number of downward arrows for issues such as species abundance and the distribution of priority species. These are important for conserving biodiversity. It seems that all the trends are going in the wrong direction. Something has to change, and it has to change now.
So we are debating today the government amendment on their species abundance target. Of course, we begin by welcoming the target date of 31 December 2030. But, beyond that, it leaves much to be desired.
I will follow up on the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, at Second Reading, and which he raised again today. He asked for a definition of “species abundance”, which the Government now seem to favour. He and other noble Lords have raised this issue. I share that query, so can the Minister give a precise reason why this phrase was used? Will there be a clear definition of what it means in regulations or guidance? By what means can we be assured that proper metrics will be produced and that there will be proper measurement? Can you measure a phrase such as “species abundance”?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, and my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for tabling these amendments. Before I respond to them, I must again apologise for not being in my seat at the start of the debate. I do not think I missed more than a few moments of my noble friend’s contribution, and I have been kept up to speed.
Noble Lords have highlighted the importance of setting targets for nature, and of course I share their view, as do my colleagues, on the importance of setting ambitious goals for biodiversity and addressing species decline. The facts speak for themselves, and numerous noble Lords have cited some of the bleaker facts. We know that we are in a period of extinctions that is almost unprecedented; it has been described as the sixth extinction experience. We are told by IPBES that about 1 million species face possible extinction—including, according to Kew Gardens, two of every five plant species. We are losing about 30 football fields’ worth of forest every single minute, and the devastation on land is mirrored by what is happening in the seas. No one can argue that this is not an emergency and a crisis.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that there is no disagreement about the nature of the crisis that we are facing, or that, logically, given everything that we know, this is the biggest concern we face as a species. It is hard to imagine anything that comes close. Interventions cannot be made, or targets set, in isolation so, as far as possible, we are trying, as I have explained on previous groupings, to take a system-based approach to setting the targets. We consider the targets collectively, and understand their interdependencies and how they work together, and this approach will mean that we can set targets greater than the sum of their parts.
The 2030 target for species abundance will therefore sit alongside numerous other legally binding targets in, and developed under, the Bill’s framework. The proposed objectives for these wider targets include improving the condition of our protected sites and restoring and improving the quality of habitats, all of which would improve the “state of nature”. I have spoken already about the importance of ensuring that our targets are based on sound evidence. That is no less the case for this target. Biodiversity is inherently complex and assessing the impact of policies and interventions aimed at recovering our biodiversity demands nothing less than a rigorous, evidence-based process, and that is the approach that this Government are taking.
I reassure the my noble Friend Lady McIntosh, that the significant improvement test—I am not sure which it is—applies to this target as well, which means that every five years the target, like other targets, will be reviewed. That test will assess—and it will be reported to Parliament—whether meeting legally binding targets alongside any other statutory and environmental targets would significantly improve the natural environment in England. The test will capture the breadth and amount of improvement to the whole of England’s natural environment and our new 2030 target will, of course, be captured by this test. The detail of the target, including the metric by which we will measure success, will be set following that evidence-led process. That will include seeking independent expert advice and there will be roles for stakeholders, Parliament and the public. It is really a very wide cross-section of society.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who both made powerful speeches, as an individual with a commitment to these issues but also as part of a team that share that commitment, I am committed to using absolutely every lever I can and whatever political capital I have to make sure that we deliver the strongest possible target at the second stage, one that genuinely can be said, even by people who are sceptical, to match the full scale of the crisis that all of us today in various ways have acknowledged.
Finally—not finally overall but finally in relation to that point—there is a strong case for ensuring that we do not jump the gun with this target, and that we align it as much as we can with our international commitments under the new global framework for biodiversity. We hope and expect that to be agreed at the CBD’s 15th Conference of the Parties, if things go to plan, just before we host COP here. I think we are probably working harder than any other country to deliver the maximum possible ambition at that COP. We have been engaging in diplomacy on an almost unprecedented scale, trying to get countries to step up and make similar commitments to those that we have been making.
The noble Friend Lord Caithness, asked whether it was correct that 21% of our land would have to shift from agriculture to bioenergy and trees. That is a figure —it is not a made-up figure, but it is not a government policy. The simple truth is that nature enhancement, biodiversity recovery and agriculture are not mutually exclusive. Yes, it is the case that unsustainable agriculture, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, pointed out, incentivised through the destructive common agriculture policy, is responsible for much of the denuding of nature that we have seen over recent decades. It is not the case that agriculture is necessarily unsustainable. There are plenty of examples of farms where food is produced and nature is enhanced. Our job is to reconcile the two, and I hope the new system of environmental land management will do that.
Secondly, there is a lot of marginal land which is not much use to agriculture but which could be regenerated, such as land either side of our waterways—not all of it is marginal but much of it is—where we are creating an incentive to plant or naturally regenerate, whatever is most appropriate, to try to create a nature corridor linking up the entire country. That will not take food out of production. There are also highly unproductive areas that are grazed—overgrazed in some cases—by sheep, where the landowner or the small farmer will have a direct incentive through the new ELM scheme to earn money by delivering public goods, by doing things that the market does not currently recognise. There is huge potential there.
In response to my noble friend, our national parks, as many people have noted, do not have the kind of species abundance that we would like. The New Forest, for example, is one of the most beautiful environments on earth but it is massively overgrazed. There are things that we need to do in order to change the incentives. If the incentive today is that you pay £400 or thereabouts for a head of cattle if they are grazed in the New Forest, then of course there are going to be lots of cattle in the New Forest overgrazing. The same is true of ponies, whose numbers have soared to unsustainable levels.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for using this vehicle to make a contribution; I had intended to put my name to these amendments. As I explained to the EU Environment Sub-Committee, ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, my knowledge of farming was gained mainly from listening to “The Archers”, watching “Countryfile” and growing a bit of fruit and veg in my garden. However, those programmes educated me considerably, and as I look around the Chamber and on the screens, I see that most of our committee seem to be present in this debate.
I do not dispute the genuine concern of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. However, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I feel that the indefatigability of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Jones, cannot be denied; it is the hyperbole and, sometimes, the extrapolation and the certitude that give me concern. As someone once said, “Think you in your bowels you could be mistaken?”
Malthus predicted the end of the world through population explosion, which proved wrong. The Chinese experience to control their population is now taking an about-turn. Never underestimate the ability of the human species to react—not always in the right ways. During the pandemic, surely the vaccine development has shown what we can do globally when we work collaboratively. Innovation will play an important part in combating species extinction.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for reminding us of that seminal work by Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, and his warning of a third silent spring. Before I come back to that, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, accused me of optimism: damned with faint praise, in this debate. Actually, I wanted him to give a holistic analysis of the steps the Government were taking to combat air pollution—which, fortunately, he did.
To return to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and his warning of a third silent spring—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Can the noble Lord, Lord Young, please get to his question for elucidation?
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
I will do in a minute. I just want to make this point. Surely the fact is that we have changed farming considerably: 30,000 miles of hedgerow are not being destroyed, fertilisers are being more accurately applied and there is no tilling.
The Minister has answered most of my concerns. My question is: does he feel confident that the totality of the Government’s approach, whether it is ELMS or the other policies, will indeed enable us to set what he said will be evidence-based targets?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I certainly do. I am brimming with confidence, but we have more to do.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that I was unable to be present at Second Reading. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, for counselling us to take care on these amendments.
I have two questions on the new target in Amendment 22, with a view to informing discussion on Report. First, it seems that we should be concerned about the loss of species and biodiversity in the aggregate and not in any specific catchment. A balance must be struck. The EU-based regulations, which this Bill replaces, made it possible for planning proposals, for a hospital or for homes, for example, to be questioned under planning law in lengthy and expensive inquiries and even turned down if there was a species issue. If there were a loss of some bats or toads or orchids in a certain area, a proposal could be blocked, even if the species was abundant elsewhere in the UK or in a neighbouring catchment. Obviously, that can slow down important and beneficial investment of the kind promised in our manifesto—and the accompanying planting of trees, new flora and so on. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure me on this issue of specific catchments versus overall targets?
Secondly, picking up on something that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, has been saying, it is important to have an eye to cost benefit. Will there be an impact assessment or cost-benefit analysis of the plans the Minister is making for the targets or sub-targets? I would argue that this could be very helpful to him in reaching conclusions on the targets that are set in any regulations, and on the arrangements for enforcing them.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
On the second point, yes, when it comes to the individual steps that would be taken by the Government to achieve those targets, they will be fully costed. That applies across the board, whether they are Defra steps or MHCLG.
On the first point, we want a sensible approach. We are choosing species for the targets because, as I said earlier, if we choose the correct indicator species that tells a story about the health of the wider environment. This is slightly different to the point that my noble friend was making, but we also want to move away from a “computer says no” planning approach which is not based on common sense. That is why there are powers in the Bill allowing us to tweak and reform the habitats directive, for example, but I assure the House that the absolute intention there is that whatever changes are made to speed the process up, the outcome for the environment will be at least as good as it currently is under those rules. The whole purpose is to deal with the problems that she has just identified.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
May I remind noble Lords that questions after the Minister are short questions for elucidation.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister suggested that my proposed amendments and my approach were perhaps too ambitious, and that bending the curve was very difficult. He also said that interventions cannot be made in isolation, but does he agree that over decades and centuries, we have made many interventions that could be stopped?
I refer specifically to the issue of predators. The noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and the Minister, referred to the problem of predators and the impact on populations of waders, for example. Until at least 2019, one of the interventions being made was the release of 4 million captive reared pheasants and 9 million red-legged partridges, which, inevitably, is essentially laying out a feast for predators. Stopping that intervention would have an immediate and strong impact; indeed, Wild Justice has already had such an impact.
Again, there is also No Mow May, a hashtag that many may be aware of. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who referred to all the insects hitting the windscreen. We are seeing big changes happening already, so did—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Could the noble Baroness get to her question of elucidation?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Is the Minister taking sufficient account of the fact that some interventions that are causing damage now could be stopped, and that other things like No Mow May could be introduced very simply?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Of course, there are interventions which are taking us in the wrong direction and could be stopped. That is my point about subsidies. It is a classic example: we spend billions of pounds incentivising destruction, and we could spend the same amount of money incentivising renewal. That is what we are trying to do internationally. In principle, I agree with the noble Baroness: dealing with damaging interventions should absolutely be part of this.
On her first point about bending the curve, it is difficult —although that was not the point I was making. My point is that the curve needs to be bent, and it will not happen today or tomorrow. There will be a point between now and the next eight years or so when, I hope, we will have bent the curve. Until we have done that, there will be more continued decline. That is the nature of the journey we are on; it is an unfortunate and tragic thing. But we are trying to bend that curve. That means accepting and acknowledging that, in the meantime, the curve continues to go down until it has been bent. We just need to bend it as quickly as possible.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate on Amendment 23. First, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that whether she sees me or not in the House, much of my parliamentary work takes place with developing democracies, mainly in Africa. That is a long shout from here and tends to be out of the gaze of Westminster.
I thank the Minister for his comments. I am a little unsure and uncertain about how committed the Government are to recognising the importance of indicator species in chalk streams. Some people say that England’s chalk streams are the equivalent of the Okavango Delta—if you know what that is, you will know how important it is. Nevertheless, we will no doubt return to this on Report, so for now I would like to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
(c) the species abundance target,”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
(c) the species abundance target set under section (Environmental targets: species abundance) is met.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 52. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 7: Environmental improvement plans
Amendment 52
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(4) An environmental improvement plan must include, as a minimum—(a) measures which, taken together, are likely to achieve any targets set under section 1 or 2 and will ensure that the next interim targets included in the plan are met,(b) measures that each relevant central government department must carry out,(c) measures to protect sensitive and vulnerable population groups (including children, older people, people with chronic illnesses and outdoor and transport workers) from the health impacts of pollution,(d) a timetable for adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, and the authorities responsible for their delivery,(e) an analysis of the options considered and their estimated impact on delivering progress against the relevant targets, and(f) measures to minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of pollution on human health and the environment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment strengthens environmental improvement plans by introducing a number of minimum requirements, including (but not limited to) ensuring a link between proposed measures and targets established under this Bill.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 52 is in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I would also like to express our support for Amendments 53 and 55.
Amendment 52 strengthens the environmental improvement plans by introducing a number of minimum requirements. It seeks to provide clear content requirements for each EIP, including an analysis of how specific measures will contribute to relevant targets, timetables for the adoption, implementation and review of each measure, and allocations for the delivery of each measure. It also seeks to bridge the narrative gap in the Bill by ensuring that the measures in this clause relate back to the targets at its beginning, thus providing a crucial link between targets and EIPs as a delivery mechanism.
Those targets are very important in relation to any environmental improvement plans that will come out of the Bill. Such plans are necessary to provide the comprehensive long-term vision that will guide legislation and policy to deliver better protection and the enhancement of our environment. If we have an environmental improvement plan that does not relate to those targets, there is a risk that it will be nothing more than an abstract, descriptive narrative, with meaningful actions backloaded towards the end of each 15-year period that it covers.
Clause 7 also sets out requirements for the content of EIPs. We consider that these need to be strengthened to ensure that all EIPs include timebound, specific measures which are more explicitly linked to the delivery of long-term targets and the interim milestones.
The Bill describes the process by which an environmental improvement plan can be developed and put in place, but then says that an environmental improvement plan is, in effect, already in existence. A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment is specifically referred to as being the present environmental improvement plan. That document clearly demonstrates why we believe that Amendment 52 is necessary. Among other things, the 25-year plan does not address itself to the structure of the Environment Bill. It says a lot of very interesting things but is essentially a narrative document, containing long descriptive passages, with hundreds of possible actions, many of which are difficult to measure. There is a limited attempt to quantify the benefits of actions and to prioritise the most environmentally effective, or to demonstrate that they will lead to particular environmental outcomes. Both updates on the delivery of the current EIP and future plans need to be much more focused on actions and benefits if they are to drive a significant improvement in our natural environment.
Greener UK has suggested that EIPs should be more like plans to achieve the carbon budgets, as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008, or plans to achieve air quality objectives, as set out in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010. Both of those require clear plans and steps to meet targets. Can the Minister say why this approach has not been taken for EIPs? Why does he believe it is not necessary to make the link between EIPs and the targets at its start? This amendment comprehensively makes those connections and introduces important minimum requirements that are necessary if the EIPs are really to make a difference. I beg to move.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 53 in this group, which is, in effect, another way of tightening the wording with regard to the requirements on the Government to report on the success or otherwise of meeting the environmental improvement plans. I strongly support Amendment 52, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, introduced so well just now, and which I co-signed, and Amendment 55, from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay.
As it stands in the wording at the moment, the Government basically have to identify “steps” in the environmental improvement plans to meet their targets. That word is incredibly vague. I could take a step, but it would not be very clear what it is. If they so wished, the Government could argue that a step would, for example, be to set up an advisory group or working group. It is not a concrete, clearly defined action. My very strong feeling is that we should borrow the wording in the Climate Change Act, which says very clearly that the Government have to “prepare such proposals and policies”. That is clear and specific, and those are measurable. To my mind, the term “steps” is insufficient. In this House, we know that words matter.
I am not trying to impugn the Government’s motives; I think it is just an oversight that the word was chosen. But if we are to enable the OEP to do the job we need it to do—to hold the Government to account—the wording in the legislation has to enable it to do that as easily as possible. I strongly believe that asking the Government to outline their policies and proposals, as opposed to just “steps”, would enable the OEP to do its job, which we know the Government want it to do, as undoubtedly does this Committee. In summing up, I ask the Minister to make the case clearly for why he thinks the word “steps” will enable the OEP to do the job we need it to do.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 55 in my name. In doing so, I shall express my support for Amendments 52 and 53.
The purpose of Amendment 55 is to give investors greater clarity and confidence about their potential or expected role and contribution. For businesses to be able to play their full part in delivering future environmental objectives, they need a clear line of sight that covers both national targets and a single delivery plan that sets out the policies and activities needed to achieve those targets. They need to know not only what needs to be achieved but, crucially, how and when implementing measures will be put in place. That knowledge, line of sight and predictability will give businesses the greater degree of confidence and certainty that they need to plan for the future and, more importantly, to invest in the future. Amendment 55 seeks to achieve this by making explicit that environmental improvement plans must include the policies and actions that the Government intend to take to enable long-term environmental targets to be met.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and indeed to build slightly on his points. I speak particularly in favour of Amendment 52, to which I would have attached my name had there been space. I note the strong cross-party support for it. The other amendments in this group also take us in the right direction.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said about steps brings us to the core of the problem, and what the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, was just saying reflects what I heard this morning at an event for the Westminster Forum on net zero, climate change and the food, drink and agriculture industries. From the farmers, land managers and the people who advise them, I heard a real sense of confusion and lack of direction—a feeling like we are being pushed in all these directions and asked to do lots of different things, but no one is giving us a route. It is a step here and a step there, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, have all withdrawn from this debate, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am sorry that I have not withdrawn yet as it might have hastened the business, but I want to support Amendment 52, in the names of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Randall. I welcome the requirement in the Bill for the Government to have rolling statutory plans in place to improve the natural environment. In fact, I am mystified by the extent and detail of this section of the Bill. It rather makes a meal of the review and renewal process. Can the Minister give us a clue as to why the Bill has to go into such paroxysm? Being a suspicious human being, methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. It would be useful to know why from the Minister.
I want to make two comments. First, the current 25-year plan for the environment is to be regarded as the first environmental improvement plan. That made my heart sink, as the 25-year plan is inordinately long and mostly narrative. It has a scatter of actions; many are unmeasured and some are not even measurable. It is a loose and baggy monster. There is no logical thread of targets to be achieved, what policies and actions are needed to achieve them and who should be responsible for implementing the policies and actions, so that they achieve their targets. I would very much like to see that sort of structure going into the requirement for environmental improvement plans.
My second point is that Clause 7 sets out the required contents of the EIPs. I agree with the amendment that these need to be strengthened to ensure that the EIPs have time-bound specific measures, which are explicitly linked to the delivery of long-term targets and interim milestones. I very much support Amendment 52, but also Amendment 53, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Boycott, which mirrors the wording of the 2008 Climate Change Act and requires the Government to set out the proposals and policies, not just steps, to meet all the targets and deliver environmental improvement.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 52, also in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I also support Amendment 53, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Boycott. I will not repeat what has been said about Amendment 52, but add one sentence: for me, the key issue is linking together the pieces of the jigsaw—the environmental improvement plans and the targets.
I want to ask the Minister about one point that has not been discussed so far. In Amendment 52, proposed new subsection (4)(f) refers to
“measures to minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of pollution on human health and the environment.”
One significant type of pollution that we have not discussed so far is noise. In 2018, the World Health Organization published a report entitled Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region. It says this:
“Noise is one of the most important environmental risks to health”,
second only to air pollution, and every year
“in western Europe alone at least 1.6 million healthy years of life are lost as a result of road traffic noise.”
The adverse effects of noise on health include increased risk of heart disease, cognitive impairment of children, sleep loss and tinnitus.
It is not only humans who suffer from environmental noise. According to a review published last year in the leading scientific journal Nature, noise pollution reduces the breeding success of certain bird species. A review for Defra, carried out by scientists at Bristol University, entitled The Effects of Noise on Biodiversity, points to an overall lack of evidence, but also mentions species of birds, mammals and amphibians from the UK list of species of principal importance that appear to be adversely affected by noise. Does the Minister therefore agree with me that it would be appropriate to include a target for reducing noise pollution in environmental improvement plans? The technologies for reducing noise are available, so it is a matter of the will to apply them.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
I am sorry, I meant to withdraw from this group, so I do not wish to comment. I apologise for not withdrawing earlier.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has also withdrawn from this group, so I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly, as the points have largely been made. In my view, it is essential that Clause 7 is strengthened to give it greater effectiveness. The only requirement currently set out is that the plan
“must set out the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to improve the natural environment in the period to which the plan relates.”
There can be no doubt that this is far too vague. The proposals in the various amendments tie the plans to the achievement of targets, and the precise language of these amendments is important. My view is that the use of the words “enable” or “ensure” in relation to the meeting or achievement of targets is the best approach, as that would require the plans to set out concrete and achievable steps to enable the target to be met. That I why I think that the language used in particular in the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, contains that specificity.
That is important because specific and precise language will set out what the duty of the Government is. The public must be able to see exactly what steps are to be taken to meet the targets, and then judge for themselves the commitment and realism with which the Government set about the significant changes that will be required. It would be unrealistic to take any position that there will be powerful interests that are adversely affected by such targets, and who—for reasons that may be understandable, but are wrong—would seek to delay the achievement of those targets. The easiest way to defeat such persons who seek to delay is by transparency and specificity, which is generally more effective than court enforcements, to which we shall return later in the Bill. Requiring the Government to set out the steps is absolutely essential; the vagueness contained in the current Bill is the enemy of achievement.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 52, 53 and 55 all make reference to the environmental improvement plans, which are key to the delivery of the ethos and thrust of the Environment Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has very eloquently set out the case for strengthening the environmental improvement plans—the EIPs—supported by my noble friend Lady Parminter and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. In order for the EIPs to be effective, the minimum requirements should be up front, not an afterthought. Ambitious, realistic targets are vital, but there must be strategies in place to provide a route map for delivery. The one cannot be successful without the other.
All three amendments are interlinked and support each other. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, made the case for the EIPs to include the policies and actions the Government intend to support to enable the long-term environmental targets to be met. So serious is the crisis at our doors that both short-term immediate remedial targets and actions will need to be taken, coupled with and supported by the longer-term aims, objectives and targets to ensure that the country does not rest on its laurels but halts our biodiversity decline and progresses swiftly to tackle climate change on a permanent basis.
Progress is not likely to be overnight, but that is no excuse for not taking immediate and long-term action to rectify the crisis we are facing. This will have an economic impact, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, raised on an earlier amendment, but ensuring sufficient investment in strategies and plans to allow the EIPs to be successful is likely to be a measure on which the public will judge the Government. Failure is not an option. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance that he can accept these three vital amendments.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions so far. I am happy to clarify some concerns raised by noble Lords in relation to these amendments, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Parminter, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay.
I can reassure them that an environmental improvement plan must set out the steps the Government intend to take to improve the natural environment, which the Government expect would include measures needed to meet their long-term and interim targets. We expect this to cover relevant policies and proposals. However, this could also include setting out steps that go beyond this, such as flagging where research is needed to fill gaps. So the EIP must also include the interim targets for each long-term target.
I was slightly surprised by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young; we have not placed detailed requirements on the contents of the environmental improvement plan, as we think it is important that future Governments can assess their own priorities and decide which aspects of the natural environment are most in need of intervention, based on the latest evidence. The idea is that this allows the Government to adapt to changing environmental challenges in future.
To respond briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on the strength and ambition of the plans, the environmental improvement plan is defined as a
“plan for significantly improving the natural environment”.
Its provisions will form part of environmental law. This means that the OEP will have oversight of the Government’s implementation of those plans, as it does over all aspects of environmental law.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, our 25-year environment plan will be adopted, as she says, as the first statutory EIP. My view is that this sets a clear benchmark against which Parliament, the OEP and others can assess future EIPs. The 25-year plan was very well received when it was published and demonstrated real ambition.
In response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that noise should be included as a target, I cannot give him a detailed or specific answer, because we do not want to prejudge decisions that are being made through the process I have already described—but he makes a very good point. Noise clearly is a pollutant and clearly does have an impact, and I would be interested to see any evidence he has—not that I need persuading—to bolster my knowledge on this issue. I know that Highways England has a noise prevention programme which is ambitious and, I am told, has been productive.
On Amendment 52 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the Government are committed to cross-departmental action in the delivery of environmental improvement plans. In fact, cross-departmental action is a prerequisite. A range of government departments will be involved in the development of the plans. For example, the Department for Transport will have a key role in updating on its progress in meeting interim air quality targets on PM2.5, and we will work closely with the Department of Health on the health impacts of our actions, particularly on vulnerable populations. Clearly, planning is central to so much of what we are talking about, so there is a permanent revolving door between Defra and MHCLG.
I hope this has reassured noble Lords and I once again ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it seems that noble Lords agree that this part of the Bill needs serious strengthening. The Minister talked about steps, but the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, quite rightly said that the word “steps” is completely inadequate.
Noble Lords agreed that the connections I laid out at the start of the debate are essential. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, commented on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, talked about the lack of focus in the current EIPs and expressed her concerns over how we will see any outcomes delivered from this. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, put his finger on it when he said that the key issue is linking together the pieces of the jigsaw. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said that the minimum requirements would need to be at the front.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 59. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 59
Lord Redesdale
“(5A) It may also set out steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to improve the conservation of land environments of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest, including improving people’s enjoyment of them (and if it does so references in this Part to improving the natural environment, in relation to that plan, include conservation of land environments of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest, including improving people’s enjoyment of them).”
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 59, I will speak also to Amendments 61, 72, 102 and 111, which are in my name.
Before I go through each individual amendment, let me start by saying that these amendments were brought forward by the Heritage Alliance, which is made up of all the bodies that are involved in heritage. There is a very close link between heritage and the environment. The Minister has talked a number of times about the environmental plan. I also listened to a speech about the problem of overgrazing in the New Forest through cattle and ponies; having lived in the New Forest in the past, I can quite see that that is a major problem.
However, there is also a link between well-managed heritage sites and important habitats, especially for things such as bats and other flora and fauna. Having been on many archaeological sites where there are digs—I speak not as a trained archaeologist but as somebody who took an archaeological degree; there is a difference—I can say that you can see a preponderance of species that are not on many other sites that have been under the plough or suffered a great deal of intensive agriculture. So the purpose of these amendments is to look at how heritage can be included in the Bill.
The rather depressing fact is that, when we looked at the Bill, we saw that the only mention of heritage was to exclude heritage from it, in the environmental improvement plans. That seems to be the wrong way round. Although I know that the Minister and his officials will fight tooth and nail not to add a single sentence to the Bill if it is avoidable, I believe that there is a problem here with the fact that heritage is often seen as the responsibility of DCMS rather than Defra. I believe that, if there had been discussions between DCMS and Defra at an earlier stage, heritage would have been included in, rather than excluded from, the Bill.
This is a massive Bill, of course. It has a number of excellent clauses, but drawing a narrow position without including heritage could pose problems. In the amendments, we are looking as much as anything at how to include heritage in the environmental improvement plans rather than excluding it. The Government undertook to include heritage in the environmental improvement plans in goal 6, but the problem is that, by excluding heritage specifically, the environmental improvement plans will have major effects on funding and monitoring. If a scheme comes forward and needs funding or monitoring going forward, heritage could—indeed, will—be excluded, because there would be a cost implication in doing so.
I very much hope that the Government could look at these amendments. We have set them out at this stage to test whether the Minister is minded to look at accepting them. I would, of course, after 30 years in this place, fall over at that point, because I have never had a Minister accept any of my hundreds of amendments —but one can only hope. And I hope the Minister could think about maybe having a meeting with us to discuss whether it is possible that these proposals could be included, because they have cross-party support, and I think it would enrich the Bill.
Amendment 59 invites the Government to consider heritage in the environmental improvement plans. Amendment 61 includes heritage in line with goal six of the 25-year environmental plan, and Amendment 111 widens the definition of “natural environment” to include heritage. I ask the Minister if it would be possible to talk to his officials and see whether we can move forward on this. I have no intention, of course, of pressing these amendments tonight, but that is the assurance I would hope he can give. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken in this debate so I point first to my interests in the register. Specifically, I point out that I own land of environmental and historic significance. My comments are essentially probing ones attached to amendments in this grouping and relate to the Bill more generally.
My starting point is supporting the general gist of what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has said. In particular, I would like to reiterate comments I made briefly during the Agriculture Act, where I sensed that some of your Lordships were a little bit sceptical about the point I was making, but I believe they were not right in that. It is commonplace to say that all landscape in the UK is, in one shape or another, made land by man. But there is a category—I am specifically referring to landscape parks and gardens—in which the natural and deliberately planned fuse in a kind of hybrid, because humans deploy natural materials to create a work of art. They range in scale from being only a few acres to being what Stephen Switzer, the 18th century designer and author, described as
“aiming at an incomprehensible Vastness, and attempting at Things beyond the reach of Nature”.
To use a contemporary form of words, they are a form of land art.
Our great parks and gardens are probably this country’s greatest distinctive contribution to 18th century visual culture and possibly to global visual culture more generally. I hasten to add that “landscaping” is not used in its general contemporary sense of hard or soft landscaping. “Park” in this context does not have its general contemporary meaning of urban or country and, for that matter, “garden” does not merely mean what it means these days, although it may include them. All these are conceived with a complicated and important cultural, philosophical and intellectual framework which links them to all kinds of other disciplines and art forms. Probably the best-known practitioner is Capability Brown, but he has many predecessors and successors from Charles Bridgeman at the beginning of that century to Humphry Repton at the end of it.
These are landscapes that are incredibly fragile and inherently physically unstable. There is a matter of course because of the inevitability of plants dying. This, though, in some senses, paradoxically, can help to preserve them, but they are easily swept away by changes in taste and in rural land use—things like golf courses and urban development, which, in turn, often lead to physical disintegration and dismemberment. Quite how many there are I do not really know, and I dare say not more, anyway, than 1,000. Sometimes, they can suddenly come out of the undergrowth, like, for example, the well-known Lost Gardens of Heligan. Or, equally, they can disappear more or less completely, like Eastbury in Dorset, designed by Vanbrugh and now green fields. As Sir Thomas Browne put it, “green grass grows where Troy town stood”.
The purpose of these remarks is simply to seek confirmation from the Minister of reassurance that such things as these, which are neither solely natural nor solely manmade, but a hybrid, will be given the highest consideration in the context of what this Bill does in respect of land. They are, after all, one of our nation’s glories and give a large number of people in our country both pleasure and inspiration.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow both the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and my noble friend Lord Inglewood. We owe a great deal to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for putting down these amendments, drafted, as he said, by the Heritage Alliance, which represents so many heritage organisations in this country.
The poetic speech of my noble friend Lord Inglewood inspires me to think of so many of the landscape gardens I know and love. In my own former constituency of South Staffordshire, we had Chillington, one of the masterpieces of Capability Brown, with its wonderful lake, its Palladian bridges and its marvellous vistas. Just a few miles ago, there is Weston Park, the home of the Earls of Bradford through the centuries. But there are so many, many more, such as Studley Royal around Fountains Abbey in Yorkshire. I could dredge my mind and memory and go on, but I do not want to detain the House for too long at this stage of the evening.
Our landscape—my noble friend Lord Inglewood referred to this—is largely manmade and, even in its wilder aspects, man-moulded. It is a real deficiency in this Bill, which calls itself the Environment Bill, if some of the most memorable and vulnerable parts of our environment are excluded. I talked briefly on this on Second Reading, when I referred to parish churches, which are the centre of most of our villages. I am not suggesting that every historic building be brought within the compass of this Bill, but I believe it is important that we recognise the built environment, which is part of the environment. One thinks of hill forts, some of them dating back to the Bronze Age. One thinks of the canals of this country—manmade. One thinks of dovecotes; there is a particularly beautiful one not far from my former constituency that is owned and protected by the National Trust. These are all parts of our built environment, our environment and our heritage.
I would ask my noble friend, following what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said a few moments ago: would he please convene a meeting of those of us who are particularly concerned about this? I speak as president of the All-Party Parliamentary Arts and Heritage Group, which I founded with the late Andrew Faulds way back in 1974, and which has attracted the support of many of your Lordships over many years.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my environmental interests as on the register. This is a very important amendment which I am proud to support, and I urge my noble friend the Minister to agree to it, or at least to some variation of it if it is deemed to be technically deficient. What is not deficient is the concept; it is absolutely right that the cultural heritage of our landscape should be included as part of the definition of “natural environment”, as Amendment 111 seeks to do. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that his request to the Minister was very modest, in my opinion. I am fairly certain I can say to my noble friend the Minister that, when it comes to Report, unless there is progress on this, there will be quite a few loyal friends behind him who will wish to push an amendment of this sort ourselves.
The case for inclusion has been very eloquently made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and my noble friend Lord Cormack, and in the inspirational speech by my noble friend Lord Inglewood. I have been privileged over the last 30 years to live a few miles away from my noble friend Lord Inglewood’s home and gardens, the parkland, the ponds and the well-farmed estate. It is a perfect example of the historical and cultural heritage of this country. Looking at his home, one can see how it has been changed over the years—I think the Scots had some part in changing the configuration of it at one point—and rebuilt according to different architectural styles. The land and the farm have been managed differently over hundreds of years. It is a perfect example of what this amendment is about.
I simply say that if those noble Lords who have spoken, and those who are about speak again—such as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who made this point at Second Reading—who are landowners, and who know all about the management of historic countryside, are in favour of this amendment, then a wise Government should listen carefully to what they say.
Rather than be a poor echo of what those noble Lords have said, I want to put before the House the most brilliant description of the English countryside I have ever read. I regard this amendment as The Road to Little Dribbling amendment—the name of the 2015 book by the American writer Bill Bryson. If Peers have not read it, then I commend it to them. It describes in witty form everything that is so special about rural England. I simply want to put on the record two paragraphs. He writes:
“Nothing—and I mean, really, absolutely nothing—is more extraordinary in Britain than the beauty of the countryside. Nowhere in the world is there a landscape that has been more intensively utilized—more mined, farmed, quarried, covered with cities and clanging factories, threaded with motorways and railway lines—and yet remains so comprehensively and reliably lovely over most of its extent. It is the happiest accident in history. In terms of natural wonders, you know, Britain is a pretty unspectacular place. It has no alpine peaks or broad rift valleys, no mighty gorges or thundering cataracts. It is built to really quite a modest scale. And yet with a few unassuming natural endowments, a great deal of time, and an unfailing instinct for improvement, the makers of Britain created the most superlatively park-like landscapes, the most orderly cities, the handsomest provincial towns, the jauntiest seaside resorts, the stateliest homes, the most dreamily-spired, cathedral-rich, castle-strewn, abbey-bedecked, folly-scattered, green-wooded, winding-laned, sheep-dotted, plumply-hedgerowed, well-tended, sublimely decorated 88,386 square miles the world has ever known—almost none of it undertaken with aesthetics in mind, but all of it adding up to something that is, quite often, perfect. What an achievement that is.”
So says an American writer. Is that not the most magical statement on the English countryside you have ever heard? It is also a definitive description of what this amendment is all about. I am certain that the Public Bill Office and parliamentary drafters would not allow it, but I would love to have that description added to the Bill as an amendment—I would not get away with it.
For the sake of completeness, I said that I would quote a second paragraph, so I must also give the House this one. Bill Bryson writes:
“And what a joy it is to walk in it. England and Wales have 130,000 miles of footpaths, about 2.2 miles of path for every square mile of area. People in Britain don’t realise how extraordinary that is. If you told someone in Midwest America, where I come from, that you intended to spend the weekend walking across farmland, they would look at you as if you were out of your mind. You couldn’t do it anyway. Every field you crossed would end in a barrier of barbed wire. You would find no helpful stiles, no kissing gates, no beckoning wooden footpath posts to guide you on your way. All you would get would be a farmer with a shotgun wondering what the hell you were doing blundering around in his alfalfa.”
Since I am sitting behind the Bishops’ Bench, perhaps I may be forgiven for using the word “hell”, although I do so in a non-biblical sense. I hope that it is not a microaggression to use such a word these days. And I hope, of course, that the Bishops believe in such a place as hell.
The Bill Bryson description makes the perfect case for these amendments. There is nothing more I can usefully add. I rest my case.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a daunting task to follow the splendid oratory of not only the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale, Lord Cormack and Lord Inglewood. I will do my best.
I declare my interests as set out in the register and add that I am custodian—I use that word on purpose—while alive, of historic monuments on my land. I support the amendments in this group, commencing with Amendment 59 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale, Lord Blencathra and Lord Cormack, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I hope that I will not cover too much of the same ground that has been so ably covered by them.
My concern is the considerable lack of clarity on eligibility for, and funding of, this all-important man-made heritage. I understand that heritage is included as part of the specific goals in the 25-year environment plan, and that funding could well be part of the environmental land management schemes to be introduced under the Agriculture Act. But that is all vague, and surely we need the certainty of measurement, reporting and funding that would be achieved by these amendments. After all, a plan is just a plan, and the fact that the Agriculture Act enables heritage to be funded is not an actual promise of funding.
It would obviously help if we had some details of the elusive ELMS, but this is still perhaps two years away. But early reaction from the farming community is underwhelming, particularly at a time of respectable prices for livestock and arable crops. If this continues, and the financial viability of ELMS for farmers is not sufficiently attractive, the laudable aims of encouraging biodiversity, funding heritage, planting trees and much more will not be fulfilled. Surely that is a powerful reason for these amendments.
It might help to give a specific example. Where I live, according to the Domesday Book, there was a bloody battle between the Saxons and the Danes, currently undated, which resulted in a series of barrows—burial mounds—and ancient fortifications and a huge chalk cross carved into the hill, which was once visible from many miles away. There is also the site of a Roman villa nearby. All these monuments are in overgrown scrubland, and invisible. They all have permitted access, so there is no problem in that respect. None is an SSSI, they do not form part of farmland registered for the basic payment, and they are not within any managed woodland scheme. Hence there is no current source of funds from any relevant scheme.
For those important archaeological features, there is neither carrot nor stick available to encourage necessary maintenance. Please will the Minister tell us how those monuments, and many others like them, can be preserved and funded, without the assurance that would be given by the inclusion of heritage in the Bill, as well as much-needed clarification of the funding available through the 25-year environmental improvement plan—and, of course, the environmental land management schemes—identified by the Government for this cause?
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, there are now very few true wildernesses left on earth. The vast majority of landscapes are the result of millennia of human interaction with the natural world. So when we think of the environment we should not just bring to mind an untouched pastureland; there is no such thing. As we know, the way fields have been laid out has varied constantly throughout the ages; the same is true of gardens.
These acres are also where people have lived, worked and played, and the environment cannot be considered apart from them. The land still betrays the marks of the past, as is dramatically illustrated by the finds at Sutton Hoo, and, to take one example, in the way the great tower of Ely Cathedral rises above the Fens.
I strongly associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who was ably followed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. When we are thinking about the environment, what we are really thinking about is a fusion of the natural world and human creativity over many centuries. I therefore very much welcome this group of amendments, especially the inclusion of the words
“beauty, heritage, and people’s enjoyment of the natural environment.”
These words matter, because they concern the environment, which is of value in itself, but also because they have to do with human well-being—physical, aesthetic, and, yes, spiritual. They bring out the fact that being human involves being aware of our past and of the way we are shaped by it.
I also note the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the fact that there are also in the landscape people who have to make a living there. They, too, need to be taken into account.
The word “beauty” is not fashionable among philosophers or art historians today, but, as the great Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote about beauty:
“We can be sure that whoever sneers at her name, as if she were the ornament of a bourgeois past, whether he admits it or not, can no longer pray and soon will no longer be able to love.”
To put it more prosaically, most ordinary people do know that something meaningful is conveyed by the word “beauty”—and, more than anywhere else, they look for it in the natural world, that creative fusion of nature and human creativity over many centuries.
I hope the Minister will look favourably on these amendments, and that, if he cannot accept them in their present form, he will come back with revised wording that meets their main thrust.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the next speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Committee appears to be in complete consensus on these amendments; I too am concerned about the gaping hole where heritage should sit within this Bill. Therefore, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the various amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and would have added my name to them were they not so heavily oversubscribed. It is essential for heritage to be in the Bill to ensure that man’s many historic and essential interventions in the landscape can be preserved and enjoyed for centuries to come.
In his response to these comments at Second Reading, the Minister pointed to the presence of heritage in the 25-year environment plan—our first EIP—but without heritage being in the Bill, there is no requirement that it will be included in the second EIP or any later ones. If it is anything, heritage is a long-term concern and that needs permanent status within this legislation.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I also want to say how impressed I was by my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s rendering of the impressive prose of the American author Bill Bryson. I declare my interest as trustee of the Fonthill Estate in Wiltshire and as former chairman of Endsleigh Fishing Club in Devon.
I will speak in favour of Amendment 59 and the other amendments in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and others. As I said at Second Reading, quoting the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham,
“our attitudes to nature are being kidnapped by the dogma that nature is good and man is bad.”—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. 1250.]
This might explain why the Bill at present includes nothing built by man, although it purports to set targets with respect to people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. Apart from the difficulty of measuring in a scientific way people’s enjoyment of anything, it is obvious that a large part of the beauty of our rural environment depends on traditional farm buildings, stone walls and other archaeological features. Ancient tithe barns and other buildings have been or need to be restored and repurposed in order to accommodate the increased numbers of visitors to the countryside.
I do not think it is possible to set targets for the natural environment without including this aspect. Indeed, the sixth goal of 10 listed in the Government’s 25-year plan is to achieve:
“Enhanced beauty, heritage and engagement with the natural environment.”
Why is this the only goal of that plan on which this Bill is silent? My noble friend may say that this is because existing UK legislation, which is derived from EU legislation, specifically excluded heritage, but the Prime Minister last week welcomed the excellent report from the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform chaired by my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith, who rightly said:
“Now that the UK has left the EU it is important to change our approach to regulation which reflects the needs of the UK. This report shows the way ahead with the move to the proportionality principle setting a more flexible and balanced approach to future regulations and changes to existing regulations.”
Heritage is a key environmental public good and it makes no sense to introduce this important Bill without covering its needs. There is no time to lose as more than half of our traditional farm buildings have already been lost. Will my noble friend confirm that he recognises this? Will he commit to adopt Amendments 61 and 72, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to include heritage in his annual reports and to monitor progress made towards targets covering heritage, both of which are obviously necessary?
Similarly, the OEP cannot carry out its objectives without monitoring heritage as an integral part of our rural environment. Amendment 43 seeks to change the definition of “natural environment” to include heritage buildings in so far as they form part of the landscape, which they clearly do. To accept this change would simplify the task of making other changes to the Bill.
My noble friend will doubtless say that, since heritage is already included in the 25-year plan, it is taken care of and does not need to be covered in the Bill. If inclusion in the plan is enough, why do we need the Bill at all? If heritage is not covered in the Bill, that makes it less likely that it will be covered under the ELM schemes. It will be deprioritised and in practice remain unfunded, leading to its progressive deterioration and disappearance. These amendments are crucial and I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I put my name to these amendments entirely to speak to Amendments 290 and 291 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton—but, as they have not been moved, proposed or spoken to, and nor do they fit at all within this group, I will leave my remarks on them to another time when, hopefully, they will be raised in the right place.
So I had not intended to speak on the other amendments in this grouping, but I will say in passing that I support them all. As a Scotsman from the highlands, I have always really loved the English countryside just because it is man-made. Every tree, hedge, field and parkland—every aspect of it—is the result of some historical figure, from the Middle Ages to the 20th century, contributing to the countryside out of their love of that countryside at the time.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, quoted Bill Bryson. Bryson also said that one of the outstanding features of the English countryside that is different from the rest of the world is that it is loved to death by every inhabitant within the country. As a statement with which to promote these amendments, you could not find anything better.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, through this group of amendments my noble friend Lord Redesdale has set out the case for heritage assets to be included in the definition of the natural environment. Heritage assets are often the natural home of many varied animal, insect and bird species. My noble friend has been eloquently supported by the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Blencathra.
Given the hour, I will be brief. Others have made the case extremely well and I fully support their comments. We debated on Monday the enjoyment that the public get from the natural environment, whether that be by walking in the fells, swimming in rivers or picnicking on grassy open spaces. The benefits to their physical and mental health are well documented. This group of amendments seeks to extend the same benefits to archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural and historic interests. Families’ and people’s enjoyment of all these is important, and in many cases it is the paying visitors who keep these iconic attractions economically viable.
The amendments wish to ensure that the EIPs include natural and built heritage in all its forms, thus preserving them for the future. Many of these iconic structures are well-known to all of us, from Badbury Rings and the Minack Theatre in Cornwall to the Ness of Brodgar in Orkney and perhaps Powderham Castle. Some are inaccessible to those families who are on low incomes but, whatever form they take, they have a fascination and a spellbinding quality that hold us all enthralled at the skill of the men and women who constructed them. Visiting them is definitely life-enhancing and enriching.
Some will have been part of the City of Culture’s categories around the country. It is many years since I last went to Coventry, but I look forward to returning to see how it is faring now that it is the City of Culture. I remember going to Glasgow when it was the European City of Culture. I was amazed as it was very different from my expectations—stunning and beautiful.
I am sure the Minister will agree that many of the examples given during the debate fall into the category of the natural environment, and I look forward to hearing how he sees the EIPs covering them.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority. Given the lateness of the hour, I intend to speak briefly.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate for their generous and vivid descriptions of the art and beauty of the place that they hold dear. Each noble Lord, in their own different way, has had a story to tell. In combination, they have made a persuasive point that heritage and historic buildings are a fundamental part of our natural environment.
As the National Trust made clear in its briefing, and as noble Lords have beautifully illustrated this evening, none of our landscapes is completely natural. They are all the consequence of human interaction with the landscape during thousands of years. The variety of ways in which the land has been farmed and grazed, together with the pockets of communities around it—each very different—are a precious part of our English heritage. Everything from dry stone walls and stone circles, to farm buildings and historic churches, tells a story about our history.
The South Downs has had its own settlements for more than 6,000 years. You can still see the remains of the Iron Age fort at Cissbury Ring or admire the mosaics in Bignor Roman Villa. The great estates of places such as Firle, Glynde and Petworth House still enhance our landscape today. We need to value them for their intrinsic contribution to the living landscape and recognise their attraction to visitors, providing welcome jobs in the heart of the countryside. They clearly have a role to play in enhancing public enjoyment of the countryside.
As a number of noble Lords have said, this is already goal 6 of the 25-year environment plan which talks about enhancing the beauty of our natural scenery, while being sensitive to considerations of its heritage. This was echoed by the Minister in his response to the Second Reading debate:
“The 25-year plan explicitly recognises the link between the natural environment and heritage.”—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. 1307.]
However, as noble Lords have said, these aims are not reflected in the Bill as it stands. As we move to future iterations of the targets and environmental improvement plans, it is important that these elements are not forgotten.
The importance of heritage was rightly included in the Agriculture Act as a public good that can receive financial support. It is important that the Government act consistently and cross-reference that into this Bill as well. I hope that, in his response, the Minister can provide some reassurance that this omission will be addressed in some way—perhaps by meeting noble Lords, as has been suggested.
I was sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was unable to speak to Amendments 290 and 291, addressing the economic role of the national parks. The parks have a central role to play in delivering the objectives of the Environment Bill. I hope to return to this issue later in the passage of the Bill.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for tabling his amendments to include references to heritage and cultural matters in Part 1 of the Bill. I very much enjoyed his speech. I should be happy to meet and will be in touch with him via our office tomorrow.
I will focus first on the legal definitions. The definition of “natural environment” in the Bill, as opposed to in common parlance, was created with two specific aims in mind: to define the scope of the OEP’s enforcement function and to underpin the purpose and scope of the environment improvement plans. This definition, therefore, has specific legal effects which are confined to this Bill. It is not intended to have a wider application.
I worry that, if we were to include heritage in the definition of environmental law, as set out in the Bill, this would then become part of the enforcement remit of the OEP. It would mean that the OEP would have an enforcement remit over such areas as listed buildings—which the Government do not want. I do not think this is what stakeholders want either. This is not the impression I have had from speeches today or from my discussions with stakeholders.
However, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—I pay tribute to his speech, which was beautifully delivered and crafted—and others who raised the same issue can be assured that the historical environment will nevertheless be considered when the Government prepare environmental improvement plans for the natural environment. We recognise the important links between our natural and historical environments, of course, for all the reasons so eloquently laid out today and more—for example, from a purely nature point of view, the peregrine falcons that have made Ely Cathedral their home.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I always find it slightly worrying to make a speech at this—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I am sorry, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, wants to speak. That has not reached me yet. Is the noble Earl there? No? Perhaps we shall continue with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, then.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Wait a minute, the noble Earl is there. Could he speak briefly?
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
I am terribly sorry, my Lords. The Minister says it is not for Defra to handle the funding of heritage restoration, and he directs our attention to DCMS and says that it should handle it instead. But Natural England has long contributed substantial capital grants for existing heritage restoration works. Indeed, this is under the HLS programme. An example would be the award-winning restoration of the belvedere overlooking the Exminster marshes, which was substantially repaired thanks to an HLS and Natural England grant as a historic natural landscape feature. Could the Minister comment on that? I think Defra and Natural England are very capable in this regard.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The examples the noble Earl provided are areas where there is a direct biodiversity value. Not all the examples we have been given today have a direct biodiversity value. I am not suggesting that they have no value; of course they do. But, if we were to squeeze into ELM all the concerns, priorities and projects that have been listed today, it would need to be significantly expanded from what it is, and it is just not practical or possible.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, it is always an indicator when the doorkeepers are standing looking at you purposefully that a speech must be very brief at this point. But I will make just one point. The purpose of the amendments was not to open a massive income stream towards heritage; I do not think that was the intention of the amendments in any form. I quite agree about ELM: it is a pot that, however large, will be spent. I should declare an interest as a landowner who has had HLS and ELS funding, which went to my tenants. Some of that was to deal with access to heritage sites.
I would like to raise the point that we are moving into a different form of agriculture from the European system of funding. In the discussion with the Minister and his officials, I would like to talk not about a new form of funding, or Defra taking on the responsibilities of DCMS, but about making sure that, in any monitoring going forward, heritage could be included, as was set out in the 25-year plan. The problem is that we are ending up with silos.
I finish on the fact that I received a grant from the Northumberland National Park for doing up a stable to retain as an agricultural building. The importance of that for biodiversity is that holes were left in the walls, specifically so that birds could nest—they have been nesting this spring. It is bat friendly, and two types of bat have returned; we have a red squirrel feeding station in one of the last woodlands in Northumberland still to have red squirrels; and I had to get rid of a rather belligerent hedgehog. That is a rather clear example of how a building which has been renovated in accordance with environmental principles can be a haven for biodiversity. If there had just been a DCMS grant, it would have been done but many of those features would have been removed. I think that noble Lords around the House support the idea, not of opening a new funding stream but of looking at how we can, without cost, or without significant cost, look at including heritage in certain aspects of the Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Environment Bill
Monday 28th June 2021
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-IV(Rev) Revised fourth marshalled list for Committee - (28 Jun 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw an amendment. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice to be accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Clause 16: Policy statement on environmental principles
Amendment 73
“(1A) In exercising their functions and carrying out their duties under this Act, the Secretary of State and all public bodies and authorities must adhere to the environmental principles.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is my pleasure to open the debate, especially on this group of essential amendments, which really goes to the heart of making the Bill fit for purpose. We must all know that the Bill currently just does not have any bite. We will have all these lovely environmental principles floating around, but no real duties on the Government other than having “due regard”. “Due regard” is a get-out clause. Ministers can easily have “due regard” for something and then make a completely opposing decision, and they know it. That is why they have chosen this wording. It is weaselly, squirming and not worthy of any Government who take the environment seriously.
My Amendment 73 would rectify this by requiring Ministers, public bodies and authorities to all stick to the environmental principles. This would be a clear requirement, so when they do not stick to them those decisions would be judicially reviewable. That is how things should be. It is a simple amendment that would give real clarity, because we all know what the environmental principles are.
My Amendment 75 would flesh out the environmental principles so that they reflect a much broader set of principles, written in simple, understandable language. For example, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle would actually be explained and defined. It would also add things such as using the “best available scientific knowledge”, the principles of public participation and the principle of “sustainability” to take into account the health of present generations and the needs of future generations.
Taken together, these amendments would create an accessible blueprint for our country and for the planet. They would set out the clear environmental principles on which our future would be founded, and require—not simply invite—the Government to implement those principles in all areas of policy. This is the type of legislation that a Green Government would implement, these are the principles that we would apply and these are the ways in which we would make ourselves accountable to Parliament, to the courts, and to future generations. I beg to move.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I have two amendments in the group. Their aim, rather like those of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is to enable the Government to ensure that the environmental principles do the job we need them to do, making sure that environmental considerations are at the heart of decision-making. Indeed, the Explanatory Notes say of the principles:
“The principles work together to legally oblige policy-makers to consider choosing policy options which cause the least environmental harm.”
I am sure we would all welcome that, but, as the noble Baroness rightly said, there are far too many caveats and exceptions in this list. My Amendments 76 and 78 refer to four of them, and I would like to spend a little time drawing them out.
The first is alluded to in the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which is that public bodies are excluded. The policy statement on environmental principles applies only to Ministers. We know that public bodies, of which there are well over 350 in addition to all the local authorities in this country, do the lion’s share of pushing forward government policy throughout the country. It is therefore an omission of some magnitude that only Ministers of the Crown have to pay due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles. It seems to me that we would want all public bodies, such as Homes England and other bodies, to take account of this policy statement that the Government intend to prepare.
The second issue about which I have concern is the excessive use of the word proportionality by the Government as a caveat. If the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, were here I am sure that I would agree with him that there are times and places when the use of “proportionate” is correct. I feel comfortable with Clause 16(2) saying:
“A ‘policy statement on environmental principles’ is a statement explaining how the environmental principles should be interpreted and proportionately applied by Ministers … when making policy.”
However, by the time we get to Clause 18, there is a disproportionate use of the word “disproportionate”, which my amendment seeks to remove. It is again trying to curtail the application of the consideration of the environmental benefit.
Those are two areas, but the two I really wish to concentrate on are the exceptions of the MoD and the Treasury having to take due regard of the policy statement. As I said at Second Reading, the MoD has 2% of the land use in our country. It has a third of our SSSIs, which accounts, in this time of football interest, to more than 110,000 football pitches’ worth of the most protected land in its purview and control.
Last year, when the National Audit Office did a review of the MoD that looked at its “taking account of” environmental issues, it said that environmental protection was “a Cinderella service” in the MoD. As it stands, given all these SSSIs on MoD land at the moment, we have to ask: if the Government are going to meet their 25-year environment plan, which says that they want to have 75% of protected sites in a favourable condition by 2042, how are we going to achieve that if the MoD is not involved? At the moment, 52% of the MoD’s sites are not in a favourable condition.
I do not wish Members of the House to think that I do not think very highly of the MoD or its job of national security, because I do. It has proved that it can do a sterling job of environmental protection. I know this because last year, on MoD land near me in Pirbright, it found a very rare and endangered spider called the great fox-spider. It is instances like that, of which there are a number around the country, that show that national security and conservation and environmental protection can go hand in hand.
However, I do not understand why there is this blanket exemption for the MoD to have due regard to the policy statement. The Minister in the other place, Rebecca Pow, said in Committee:
“it is fundamental to the protection of our country that the exemptions for armed forces, defence and national security are maintained.”
That is not an explanation but merely a statement. She went on:
“The exemptions relate to highly sensitive matters that are vital for the protection of our realm”.—[Official Report, Commons, Environment Bill Committee, 3/11/20; col. 969.]
Again, that does not explain what those highly sensitive matters are.
Since I was not very clear what the Minister was trying to get at last November, I wrote and asked the MoD. I received a very eloquent reply in February from the Minister, Jeremy Quin, from which I quote:
“the Department remains committed to its duty to conserve biodiversity and delivering on the extended duty to ‘enhance’ biodiversity within the Environment Bill. These duties are not altered by the focused defence disapplication in the Bill.”
I question what Mr Quin is saying there. This is not a focused disapplication, and I ask the Minister here: if there are good and focused reasons why the MoD needs a specific disapplication, then we are all reasonable people and I am sure we will be happy to see that expressed in the Bill, but as it stands it is not a focused disapplication.
My second point is that the MoD is subject to the climate change obligations as outlined in the Climate Change Act. Indeed, the Climate Change Committee regularly offers structured advice to the MoD on how it is applying its climate change targets. So if it is good enough for the MoD to “have regard to” the obligations of the Climate Change Act, why is it not good enough that the MoD must take due regard of the policy statement on environmental principles?
Finally, although I am probably going on too long, the other issue I am extremely concerned about is the Treasury’s exclusion from the need to have due regard to the environmental policy statement. That means that consideration of departmental budgets and tax spending, which we know are fundamental to delivering the environmental gains, are outwith the consideration of the statement. In the Government’s response to the Dasgupta review—a day in Committee cannot go by without someone mentioning it—the Government agreed with Dasgupta that nature is a macroeconomic consideration and spelled out in some detail what they were doing to align national expenditure with climate and environmental goals. They quoted the duty on Ministers to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles but, perhaps not surprisingly, they did not mention the disapplication for the Treasury. Perhaps the Minister might wish to comment on the discrepancy between the Government’s response to the Dasgupta review and the statement.
I feel strongly that public bodies need to be included within the scope of the policy statement and that the MoD in particular needs to be in scope unless there are very tightly defined exceptions. Excluding the Treasury and all the commitments to departmental spending rides a coach and horses through this measure and frankly, the Government’s aim to deliver the environmental considerations at the heart of policy and decision-making will be wasted.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to speak to this small group of amendments. I shall speak particularly to my Amendment 77A but before I do, I would be interested in probing my noble friend on the relationship between Clause 16, on environmental principles, and Clause 45, on environmental law. I have another amendment asking that we write the Aarhus convention into the Bill, so I am interested in how the principles relate to the law in the context of this ground-breaking Bill.
My second point relates to government Amendments 80, 298 and 299. I hope he will look carefully at Amendment 80A in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and Amendment 81 from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, as there may be nuances relating to Scotland and Wales that the government amendments should consider.
In speaking to Amendment 77A, I am extremely grateful to the Bar Council for briefing me and bringing to my attention that the phrase “due regard to” is inappropriate here and should, as the amendment says, be replaced by “ensure compliance with”. The background to this is that the concept of “due regard” has come before the courts a number of times, so guidance is available on the exercise of due regard by public authorities. This is in the context of public bodies making decisions—concerning equality legislation, for example—rather than making policy, as proposed in the Bill before us.
I shall give a couple of examples. Lord Dyson’s description of “due regard” in R (Baker) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in 2008 has been paraphrased as
“regard that is appropriate in all the particular circumstances in which the public authority concerned is carrying out its function as a public authority.”
The courts have otherwise considered those circumstances where a public body is required to have regard alone to the policy or government guidance. On the one hand, strength may be given to the terms as set out by the High Court in the case of Royal Mail Group Plc v The Postal Services Commission 2007, in which it was held in the context of a decision under the Postal Services Act 2000 to impose a penalty on the licence holder that must have regard to a policy statement, that:
“The obligation to have regard to the policy recognises that there may be circumstances when it does not have to be applied to the letter but … there must be very good reasons indeed for not applying it.”
There is another example, in the context of planning law, where a similar conclusion may be drawn—the case of Simpson v Edinburgh Corporation.
I submit to the Minister that the requirement in Clause 18 of the Environment Bill is currently for a Minister to
“have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles”,
not simply the environmental principles, when making policy, not when making decisions. From that follow a number of qualifications to that requirement, based on the significance of any environmental benefit or the proportion or disproportion of environmental benefit from the policy itself.
I argue that the use of the term “have due regard” in Clause 18 creates a potential tension between the Government’s clear entitlement to promulgate policy and to express their policy “in unqualified terms” subject to the
“basic tests of reason and good faith”,
as was argued in SSCLG v West Berkshire, and the rule as applied in Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, which is that a statutory discretion must be deployed to promote the policy and objects of the Act and the significance of having a set of environmental principles enshrined in statute in the first place. To that end, a clearer duty to “ensure compliance with” or “ensure accordance with”, as opposed to “have regard to”, would help to avoid confusion, leave the promulgation of policy open to debate in the courts and give greater recognition to the importance of the principles.
I know that, in the context of previous Bills, we have had cause to discuss the context of “have due regard to”. I am arguing for the importance of leaving the courts with a power to impose a financial penalty, as in this case, upon an unsuccessful body—including, for example, statutory undertakings such as sewerage and water undertakers—which has been found to be in breach of environmental law. It is extremely important that, in the context of what we are asking the OEP to do in the remit of the Bill, it be given real teeth when holding public bodies to account and mirror the pre-existing power, previously exercised by the European Commission and which it is now intended that the body of the OEP should fulfil post Brexit.
The requirement that the breach be severe to justify a financial penalty is noted. It is assumed that this is to ensure that a financial penalty be the exception rather than the rule, but this would also be in the context that the OEP’s power to apply for an environmental review is already on the condition that it considers the authority’s failure to comply to be serious. To that end, it might be less open for debate as to whether it is severe or serious if the court’s discretion were wider, and therefore based upon all the circumstances of the case, but to be exercised where those circumstances are exceptional.
In the circumstances before us, “have due regard to” is not appropriate. I would like to replace it in the Bill with the words: “ensure compliance with”. That would give the OEP greater clarity and, should it be subject to judicial review, it would be easier for the courts to clarify in those circumstances. I hope that my noble friend will look sympathetically on probing Amendment 77A.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted as always to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and well understand the points that she has made. I hope that the Minister will listen to them. I support the assertions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in moving Amendment 73, but my amendments relating to Wales deal with a somewhat different aspect of these policies.
There is a somewhat bizarre linking of issues in the way that they have come together in this debate. We are where we are because of how Clauses 16 to 18 are formulated and the manner in which the Government have tried to ensure that provisions relating to environmental principles do not fall foul of devolved competences in Wales. That is absolutely fair enough but it is far from clear to me, as I suspect it is to the proposers of Amendment 78, what exactly the Government are trying to do. I have tabled Amendments 79 and 81 to try to tease out exactly what their intention is, and I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for highlighting Amendment 81.
As things stand, in making policy that may impact on Wales, the provision is that the Minister must not have due regard to policy statements on environmental principles to the extent that they relate to Wales, whether or not those spheres of environmental policy are devolved. If the Bill has no application whatever to Wales then, as for Scotland and Northern Ireland, Chapter 1 should be excluded from any applicability to Wales. But the Government have insisted on making Chapter 1 applicable in certain circumstances to Wales. On a superficial reading, it would seem that the Government insist that a Westminster Minister will have some powers relating to Wales, although we do not know exactly what they may be. But whatever they are, in applying those policies in Wales, the Minister shall not have regard to environmental principles, though in relation to similar responsibilities in England he will need to have regard to those principles.
The issue of environmental principles is a very important dimension of the Bill and we must be clear about the way in which it applies or does not apply to Wales. It may be that the Minister will look again at the wording of these clauses before Report and, if necessary, bring forward further amendments on the Government’s behalf to clarify the situation. I certainly look forward to hearing his response to this debate.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, as always, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I am speaking about devolution as well, but devolution in relation to Scotland is the topic that I wish to concentrate on. I will speak to Amendment 80, which is the first of the three government amendments in this group, and to my amendment to that amendment, which is Amendment 80A. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for what she said about them.
If your Lordships will forgive me, I need to take a little time to explain which problem Amendment 80 seeks to deal with. Both these amendments in fact address the legislative competence of Section 14(2) of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. That subsection states that UK Ministers must have regard to the guiding principles which are set out in Section 13 of that Scottish Act. Those principles are derived from the equivalent principles provided for in the EU legislation, which Scotland has decided to adopt. The UK Ministers are told by subsection (2) that they must have regard to them in making policies extending to Scotland. Amendment 80 seeks to qualify that provision by saying that it
“does not apply to policies so far as relating to reserved matters.”
In other words, it seeks to amend the Scottish Act by saying that it does not apply to environmental policies made by the Secretary of State under the provisions of this Bill. Your Lordships are being asked to accept that amendment and I am afraid that this raises a question of law.
The question is whether the direction by the Scottish Parliament to UK Ministers, which we are being asked to qualify in this way, is compatible with the devolution settlement as set out in the Scotland Act 1998. Its wording seems to assume that, in this context, the distinction between what is devolved to the Scottish Parliament—and thus within its legislative competence—and what is reserved to Westminster with regard to the environment can be determined entirely by the geographical area to which the policies relate. In other words, it assumes that environmental policies directed to what happens in Scotland, whatever their subject matter, must be for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Ministers.
The problem, however, is that a provision in an Act of the Scottish Parliament is outside the competence of the Parliament if it relates to reserved matters. Guidance from the Supreme Court tells us that the phrase “relates to” requires one to consider the purpose of the provision under challenge. If its relationship to a reserved matter is merely loose or inconsequential, it will not be outside competence. Speaking for myself, I do not see how a direction to Ministers of the kind contained in Section 14(2), with regard to which environmental policies they must have regard, could be said to be loose or inconsequential. In other words, it seems that the Scottish Parliament’s competence in regard to environmental matters is determined by the subject matter of the reserved matters, not by the geographical area to which they relate.
Environmental policies with regard to energy and transport, perhaps the most important examples in this context, are therefore for Westminster and not for Holyrood. That extends to things such as the transmission, distribution and supply of electricity; restrictions on navigation, fishing and other activities in connection with offshore installations; the provision and regulation of rail services; and the regulation of aviation and air transport. These activities happen within Scotland but the statute says that they are reserved matters. This means that the making of environmental policies that are to be applied to them must be left to Westminster.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I rise to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I completely agree with her that to “have due regard” to environmental principles is absolutely not enough and we have to insert the words that we must “adhere” to them.
The fact that environmental protection is not yet integrated into all other policy areas makes it impossible for us to reach our net-zero targets. The fact that, for instance, it does not apply to the Treasury leads the cynic in me to say, “Why on earth did they commission the extraordinary review—the Dasgupta review, which the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referenced in her excellent speech? Is it just a cynical operation so we have some good window-dressing leading up to the COP?” Otherwise, why leave the Treasury out? It is, at the end of the day, probably the most important government department to ensure that we carry this out.
I want to speak quickly and specifically about the integration principle a bit more. I have spoken here before about the absurdity of putting houses up on the edge of Knepp, the rewilding estate. Just this morning I read the Times:
“More than 60,000 oak, beech and other native trees planted to celebrate the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee are to be chopped down … to build up to 4,000 homes.”
This is on military land at the Prince William of Gloucester barracks in Grantham. It has been commissioned by Homes England—another body referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. The Government are apparently eating up their own plans.
The point about these trees is that 88,000 of them were planted between 2012 and 2013 to celebrate the Jubilee, and, as anyone will know, this means that the trees are just coming into their maximum moment to be wonderful carbon sinks. It is a fantastic time for trees. The trees were planted by a group of people in the area, including 15 year-old Call McLelland, who yesterday asked what kind of message this sends out to people. He said:
“I planted a tree at the Grantham Diamond Jubilee Wood with my family when I was seven years old. I can remember looking forward to seeing the trees fully grown and feeling we’d done something worthwhile … I would be devastated”
if this goes ahead.
We cannot have this; we must have consistency. These environmental principles are here for a point. Do we want to lose people like Call—the people we are going to need? I will point out to the Government what happened to them in Amersham recently. People do not like it; they have woken up, and they care about the land and biodiversity. We have targets to meet and integration is where we have to start.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and to thank her for putting that important case study on our record. I rise to speak chiefly to Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, to which I have also attached my name, as have the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Young of Old Scone.
Before I get to it, my noble friend Lady Jones has already covered the amendments opening this group and they have been powerfully supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, but I want to briefly address Amendments 77A, 79 and 80A, because those three amendments—as we have just heard very powerfully, in the case of 77A from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—are about the need for the OEP to have teeth. Her important change does that, and this is something I suspect we will be discussing for a good part of the rest of the day. To the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I say that of course Wales needs equal protection from the environmental principles that are applied in England. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, clearly identified a really important issue. I would like to offer support to all of those.
I will come specifically to Amendment 78. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, did a great job of introducing this. We are talking a great deal about security at the moment and I want to focus on two elements of this amendment, addressing the Armed Forces and defence policy, and also a little bit on the Treasury—as others have already. When we heard the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, read out the letter from the Minister in the other place, it seemed that we have that great catch-out, security: “Oh, it’s security—we can’t question any of that.” Well, I point noble Lords to the recent integrated review and its foreword, written by the Prime Minister, which says:
“In 2021 and beyond, Her Majesty’s Government will make tackling climate change and biodiversity loss its number one international priority.”
It further points out that
“the UN Security Council recently held its first ever high-level meeting on the impact of climate change on peace and security.”
So we should not be saying, “Here’s security and here’s the environment and security’s going to overrule the environment”. We are talking about the same thing here. The Government say that they grasp this, but I think it is very clear from the wording that they do not.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referred to the fact that the MoD has so many SSSI sites. That is really not surprising, when the MoD controls nearly 2% of the UK. Looking at what that is, 82% is training areas and firing ranges, which we might think are natural sources of biodiversity and natural spaces where there is a great deal of nature—and similarly with the 4% that is airfields.
It is useful to note that the Armed Forces themselves regard this as really important. Noble Lords might be aware of the sanctuary awards, which are awarded every year within the defence sector, aiming to showcase sustainability efforts across defence. Last year, the silver otter trophy went to the Chicksands historic walled garden project, which brings us back to an earlier debate about heritage being included in “nature”. I also note that the sustainable business award was won by the Portsmouth naval base’s Princess Royal Jetty and Victory Jetty project, which aimed to create sustainable moorings in Portsmouth. It would be well if we saw the same thing happening in Oman, where we built a large new military base without any environmental assessment at all. None the less, we are doing this here in the UK. It is really important that we get the Government to see that security and the environment are not in opposition to each other but joined up.
On that point, I apologise to noble Lords because I will mention something that I have mentioned many times before. When we come to the Treasury not being covered by the Bill, let us look at New Zealand: the New Zealand Treasury puts at its absolute heart a living standards framework informed by the sustainable development goals, putting the environment, economy and security together. If the Government want to be world-leading, we need all aspects of their activities, and particularly the Treasury’s activities, covered by the Bill.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 76 tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Young of Old Scone. The whole Bill legislates on the way in which we look after, and improve where possible, the environment, both natural and manmade. I looked at the government website over the weekend and saw that, currently, it lists 20 non-ministerial departments and no fewer than 414 agencies and other public bodies, plus 13 public corporations. These public authorities—I assume that we must add to them the local authorities in a certain sense—control almost every aspect of our lives.
The Bill is, in a certain sense, a framework Bill, from which will come many pieces of secondary legislation and various policy decisions. Clause 18(1) requires a Minister, when making policy, to
“have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles”.
Given the large number of public authorities that make policy, it seems to me both logical and necessary that they should also have regard to the statement on environmental principles. Having listened to the debate this afternoon, I am not sure that the words “must adhere” are not better than “have due regard”, but that is a matter on which I am sure the Minister will comment.
However, the point of Amendment 76 is to add “public authorities” to the organisms of government that must take account of these principles. Therefore, I look forward to the response of the Minister on why this amendment is not one that the Government could and should accept.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I note that—and am honoured to be—listed twice on the speakers’ list for both this and a future group today. I assure the House that I will not speak twice.
I support much but not all of Amendment 73 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Boycott. It certainly increases rigour by adding a requirement that
“the Secretary of State and all public bodies ... must adhere to the environmental principles”,
rather than just having
“due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, rightly doubts the efficacy of “have due regard”.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support the Government’s approach on this. Requiring a policy statement on environmental principles is the right approach. Obviously, government must follow the principles, but to make this explicit in the way proposed in the lead amendment would provide scope for mischief-makers and single-issue enthusiasts doggedly to pursue matters in the courts and elsewhere, to the detriment of efficiency and the overall public interest.
The Bill does not and cannot go into the necessary detail, so it seems to me that Amendment 73 would create sweeping requirements and huge uncertainty. For example, how could you prove that environmental protection was integrated into the making of all policies? How could you prove that the polluter pays principle was respected—and in every public body, as now suggested? I am afraid that this is virtue signalling, and it is unenforceable. We have too much repetitive legislation moving in the direction of vague promises and, therefore, storing up decades of trouble for perhaps a favourable headline today. On a Bill so important for the future of our country, I feel that it is time to call a halt.
I have another concern, which is the reference to the precautionary principle in Clause 16. As I think we will hear in due course from my noble friend Lord Trenchard, the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform, set up by the Prime Minister on 2 February, is set to recommend that this principle should not be carried over from EU law. What is my noble friend the Minister’s response to this? Can he kindly explain why the precautionary principle needs to be included in the list of environmental principles?
The basic difficulty of the precautionary principle is obvious. It provides no mechanism for determining how precautionary we need to be. It can always be argued that, however precautionary it is proposed we should be, we should be even more so. Should the chance of death from a new medicine be less than one in a million, or one in a billion? We have no means of deciding. Human progress has also been characterised by innovation, from the wheel and wheat yields to the internet. The precautionary principle could put the latest innovations at risk and, I fear, ensure that they are not invented here in Britain. The list in Clause 16(5) seems more than adequate for environmental protection without this extra principle.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and I agree with everything that she said.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Boycott, seek in Amendment 73 that, in preparing his policy statement on environmental principles, the Secretary of State
“must adhere to the environmental principles.”
Clause 16(2) already commits him to explain how the principles should be interpreted and proportionately applied. I therefore rather doubt that this amendment is necessary. The principles already carry great authority, as they are included within the nine environmental principles contained in the withdrawal Act. Four of these were included in the Lisbon treaty and are the same principles—with the addition of the integration principle—that are the subject of the Government’s consultation launched on 10 March and included in the Bill.
It is disappointing that, even though the Prime Minister has welcomed the report of the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform, published on 16 June, this landmark Bill is being introduced on the assumption that our environmental regulatory regime will basically stay the same as it has been under the EU. The task force, under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith, recognises that our departure from the EU provides a one-off opportunity to set a bold, new regulatory framework and proposes the adoption of a proportionality principle to replace the EU’s precautionary principle which, as the report points out, has led to innovations being
“stifled due to an excessive caution”.
It continues by saying that, freed from the precautionary principle, the UK should
“actively support research into and commercial adoption by UK farmers … of gene edited crops, particularly those which help the transition away from agrochemicals to naturally occurring biological resilience.”
It is disappointing that the precautionary principle has found its way into the Bill and that the Government have proposed it as one of the five principles on which future environmental policy is based. It is of some limited comfort that it has been downgraded from its number one position in the Lisbon treaty to the fifth of five in the draft policy statement on which the Government are consulting. Interestingly, Clause 16 of the Bill places it third out of five.
Last Wednesday evening, I tabled Amendment 75A, to replace the “precautionary principle” with the “proportionality principle” in Clause 16(5)(c). It was accepted on Thursday morning, but only for the fourth Marshalled List, which is of course pointless because it will be by-passed by the time that list is finalised tomorrow.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in her Amendment 75, seeks to increase the number of environmental principles to which, following her Amendment 73, not only the Secretary of State but all public bodies and authorities are compelled to adhere. The counter-innovative precautionary principle makes it into her list at number three out of no fewer than 12, some of which are very broadly drawn. Her amendment would have the reverse effect from the objective of the Government to simplify and clarify our very bureaucratic regulatory rulebook.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in Amendment 76, would require all public authorities to have regard to the policy statement on environmental policies. I am not sure that this amendment is necessary but, if it were adopted, it would certainly provide another good reason why the environmental principles should be simple and clear.
I am unable to support Amendment 77A, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which would I think put the Crown in a very difficult position. The precise definition of what is in compliance with the principles as drafted and what is not is very subjective.
I am also unable to accept Amendment 78, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, because the exception for the Armed Forces is very important. There may be other exceptions regarding resource allocation that the Government may reasonably need to rely on.
I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response on the amendments regarding the devolved authorities and their powers. I just say, however, that I regret that this United Kingdom Parliament cannot legislate for the whole country on such high-level matters as environmental principles. Politicians in the four home nations will constantly try to adopt slight differences in policy to show their power and for their own political purposes. I have listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on this matter, but I very much hope that my noble friend, through the UKIM Act and otherwise, will find a sensible way through to a common position. I certainly look forward to hearing his rationale for Amendments 80, 298 and 299, which I am inclined to support.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is the first opportunity that I have had to speak on the Bill, since I was unable to take part at Second Reading. Perhaps I should begin by assuring noble Lords that I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech on this group of amendments, even though they are wide-ranging. I simply say that, through the course of the Bill, I hope to take an interest in the key issues of air and water quality, biodiversity and waste management. I also wish to raise again, where appropriate, the issue of access to the countryside, concerned as I am about the 38,000 miles or so of permissive access that have been lost with the closure of the CAP-funded stewardship schemes. In speaking today, I should perhaps also point out a non-financial interest that I have, namely that I am president of the Northumberland National Park Foundation.
Regarding the amendments in front of us, I support those in the names of my noble friends Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Young of Old Scone, who spoke a few moments ago. I also broadly agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Parminter, on the importance of the environmental principles and stating what they are, as well as on embedding environmental principles at all stages in the work of government and public bodies and authorities.
I shall comment briefly on the amendments that relate to devolution, although I understand and rather sympathise with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that this seems a rather strange marriage of amendments in this particular group. I support full respect for the devolution settlement, but I hope none the less that there will be proper and full consultation and, indeed, willingness—despite political differences—to learn from each other in the relationships between the devolved authorities.
I read with interest the letter the Minister sent to all of us at the end of last week, addressing some of the points that had been raised in the debate last Wednesday regarding environmental principles and the devolution settlement. In explaining the position, he talked about policies that were tailored to each of the nations, and while I broadly accept what he said, I would like to make the point, which echoes something the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, that environment issues cross borders. I am particularly sensitive to that, living in Northumberland, where the countryside and agriculture are similar on each side of border. On a recent, wonderful hike in the Cheviot hills, I concluded that nobody had explained to the wandering sheep exactly where the border was and certainly had not explained that they might be subject to different rules on each side of the border.
The hill agriculture and countryside in the north of England—Northumberland, Cumbria, the Yorkshire Dales, for example—are very similar to areas in Wales and Scotland. Therefore, as well as co-operation across borders and the importance of sharing with and learning from each other, I hope the Minister’s policy for England will take fully into account the huge countryside and environmental differences and variety within England. Perhaps he can reassure me on this point.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendments in this group that aim to strengthen the role of environmental principles, including Amendments 73, 75, 76, 77 and 78. When we started out on this journey towards an environment Bill, we were told it would be a non-regression Bill. I thought the idea was not only to maintain but to strengthen environmental protections after leaving the European Union. Yet Clauses 16 to 18, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, explained so clearly, appear to weaken environmental protection in at least three ways: first, by weakening the legal effect of the environmental principles—since instead of acting in accord with the principles, there is only a much weaker duty to “have regard” to them; secondly, by introducing proportionality in the application of the principles, suggesting that they may be compromised for other priorities; and thirdly, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, by exempting many public authorities, including two government departments that were specifically referred to.
I shall focus on Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and others, and on Clause 16(2). Can the Minister explain why he considers the introduction of proportionality necessary, when the precautionary principle, according to the High Court, already includes proportionality? I strongly disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and I hope this example will help to explain why there is no need to replace a precautionary principle with a proportionality principle.
I refer to the High Court judgment of 28 May 2021 in the case of Natural England applying the precautionary principle in relation to nitrogen loads in the Solent. In his decision in favour of Natural England, Mr Justice Jay said that Mr Elvin, who was representing Natural England
“also submitted that the precautionary principle embodies both proportionality and a degree of inherent flexibility to reflect the nature of the harmful outcome. … If all that Mr Elvin was submitting was that in some circumstances it would be close to impossible to obtain precise scientific data and consequently it may be appropriate, as well as proportionate, to draw from generic data and experience in analogous situations, I would agree with him. … But that is the whole point of the precautionary principle: the uncertainty is addressed by applying precautionary rates to variables, and in that manner reasonable scientific certainty as to the absence of a predicated adverse outcome will be achieved, the notional burden of proof being on the person advancing the proposal.”
There is no need for a principle of proportionality according to the High Court; the precautionary principle includes proportionality. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this example.
Finally, I refer to the extended list of environmental principles in Amendment 75 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. One principle in the extended list is the
“use of the best available scientific knowledge.”
I do not understand why that is not in the Government’s list, because it is surely uncontroversial that the best scientific evidence should be used to make determinations about environmental matters. Good science is particularly important since many key scientific matters—the safety of certain pesticides, for example—are hotly contested. It is important that we have a good understanding of where the certainties and uncertainties in the science lie. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support some of the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others. I support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who just spoke about the importance of the list of environmental principles contained in Amendment 75.
We are in danger of having a debate over a more detailed list, that some noble Lords have said may be unenforceable, and a higher-level list which, sadly, many people would say was a bit like motherhood and apple pie and probably unenforceable for that reason. I think the list in Amendment 75 is extremely good. But, as other noble Lords have said, environmental interests can conflict with commercial interests, even if they are hidden by something that is called “environment.” A debate can sometimes use pretty abstruse environmental information to put forward an argument that is not necessarily compliant with everything that should be on this list.
I was involved in the Aarhus convention some years ago, and that seems to sum this up. It is a great shame we do not have it and it has to go back in here if this amendment is accepted; it is about public participation and how to extract information from Governments and public bodies wishing to hide it until it is too late to cause any problems. It is very important to put this in more detail in the environmental principles.
I am also concerned about exemptions. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone mentioned the example about trees, which was quite frightening. Some friends from Plymouth who live next to one of the muddy creeks said that the MoD turned up with a jack-up barge a few weeks ago. They asked, “What is this jack-up barge doing? This is mud, which is quite environmentally friendly—there are lots of birds, fish and everything else,”. The MoD said, “We are going to put a large pylon in to help the submarines go into one of the docks in Plymouth.” My friends asked, “Shouldn’t you have told anybody? Shouldn’t you have told the local council? Shouldn’t you have consulted the residents along this little muddy creek?”
They ended up having three public meetings about this, with the top brass of the Navy turning up with an ever-increasing number of stripes on their arms to say how important this particular pylon was. They said in reply, “Anybody who knows anything about pilotage or moving big ships knows that you do not need this anyway, so why are you doing it? You’re supposed to be the experts”. We can go into the navigation issues, but that does not really matter. The point is that this is another example of the MoD trampling over people. If my friends had not phoned up those at the council and asked whether they knew about this—oh no they did not—it would have gone ahead, and they would have had a great big pylon in the middle of a rather nice creek which was quite happy as it was.
Unfortunately, the MoD has a reputation for not always consulting and not always thinking about whether something is really necessary. My view on so much of this is that we say it is necessary for A, B or C—and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that we have to move forwards, or something like that—but we must occasionally think “Can we do without it?” We do not have to go back to the horse and cart, but life and the environment might be much better if we did do without it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, pointed out in her earlier speech, she has been listed twice. I will not call her a second time, but will instead call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. This is a very extensive group of amendments which, quite rightly, places the responsibility for the environmental principles on all public bodies and authorities. Amendment 75 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, removes these environmental principles and substitutes a far more extensive set to ensure that biodiversity, climate change and human health are all part of the consideration of the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Parminter seeks in Amendment 78, again quite rightly, to put the environmental principles at the heart of government and has expanded on the wish to include all government departments within the scope of the Bill. It is a nonsense, as we have just heard the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, eloquently say, to allow the MoD and the Treasury to be excused from the need to take responsibility for what happens to the planet. We cannot have highly influential policymakers ignoring the efforts that the rest of the country is making to improve our environment for future generations, especially where this includes SSSIs, as my noble friend Lady Parminter said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raised the knotty issue of ensuring the Minister “must ensure compliance with” and not only “have due regard to”. The Minister can have due regard to the comments your Lordships are making this afternoon, but he does not have to comply with them, no matter how passionately our arguments are put. He can have due regard, take note of what we say and then completely ignore it. I am not suggesting that the Minister will do this, but it shows that, unless compliance is in the Bill, there will be little confidence that it will make the difference we are all looking for.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, gave us a very powerful example of where environmental principles should be upheld by all government departments. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, urged the Government to adopt the New Zealand Treasury model, where the environment is at the heart of its policies. I regret that we cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, but I note that she is chair of the Select Committee on planning, and so can understand where she is coming from. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, also gave a very powerful example of the precautionary principle where it affected Natural England.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, make the case for the involvement of, and consultation with, Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Senedd respectively with regard to environmental principles and reserved matters. The devolved Administrations cannot be ignored, although the Bill makes it clear that it relates only to England. Unless we have a holistic approach across the whole of GB, we will see piecemeal policies and uneven progress on vital matters. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope we will not have to bring these issues back on Report, because I can tell from the level of enthusiasm and passion we have heard in this debate that, unless we get a satisfactory response, we will go around them again.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate, with some excellent speeches. I hope the Minister is clear about the concerns of the majority of those who have spoken. I will speak particularly to Amendments 76 and 77 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and to Amendment 78 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. We also support the other amendments in this group that aim to improve the application of environmental principles and address the proportionality limitations and exemptions currently in the Bill.
The Bill enshrines important principles in law, as we have heard, but the clauses on these principles are largely unchanged from previous drafts, despite very clear evidence from pre-legislative scrutiny of the need for them to be strengthened. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, these are the principles a green Government would wish to implement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, we must have consistency. Other noble Lords have spoken about the importance of the principles and the inadequacy of just having to “have due regard”. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, rightly reminded your Lordships’ House that we were expecting a Bill of non-regression.
Amendment 76 seeks to drive consideration of the environmental impacts of policy-making throughout all governmental bodies. Amendment 77 ensures that a Minister must, when making policy, directly apply the environmental principles in effect at that time. Environmental principles have been binding on all public authorities, including in individual administrative decisions, but this legal obligation on all public authorities will be undermined by the Bill. The impact of the principles has extended deeply and routinely into administrative decision-making, often having a binding effect on the public bodies directly delivering measures, including, for example, in respect of GMOs, pesticides, waste regulation and water regulation. As my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone clearly laid out, it is vital that the duty applies to all public authorities. The principles must be taken account of in the formation of policy, implementation, public authority decision-making and many other stages of environmental management.
We have heard concerns about the impact on our devolved Administrations from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for example, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, talked about the Scottish legislation. I draw the Minister’s attention to Section 14 of the Scottish continuity Act, which requires Scottish Ministers to have direct and due regard to the guiding principles on the environment in developing policies, including proposals for legislation. It also places additional requirements on public authorities to have direct and due regard to the principles when carrying out strategic environmental assessments of plans, policies and programmes. Can the Minister explain why he believes the Government’s approach here will have a better outcome for the environment?
Clause 16 of this Bill requires the Secretary of State to prepare a policy statement on environmental principles, but only Ministers, and not public authorities, must have due regard to this statement, and this requirement does not apply to decision-making. Furthermore, Clause 18 brings in a number of wide-ranging exemptions, as we have heard, seeming to absolve the Treasury, the MoD and those spending resources in government from having to consider the principles at all. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, clearly explained why this is very problematic. It is important to establish a principle that no area of government should be exempted from its responsibilities to the environment.
Amendment 78 removes the proportionality limitations and exemptions for the Armed Forces for defence policy, tax, spending and resources. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, introduced her amendment on this extremely clearly, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, explained further why it is particularly important to include the MoD.
However, in considering the exemptions for the Armed Forces and defence policy, we do not want to impede the work of our Armed Forces or compromise our safety and security in any way. Were these exemptions to be confined or constricted to decisions relating to urgent military or national security matters, it could perhaps be considered reasonable. However, the clause is not drafted in this way; rather, it is a blanket exclusion for the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces from complying with environmental principles at all, as set out in the Bill.
We are in a climate emergency. There is no time to wait around for the good will of departments to take action and certainly not those with those such significant spending, carbon emissions and land ownership. In response to media coverage of concerns about the wide exclusions in the Bill, Defra offered some clarification on spending, including:
“It is not an exemption for any policy that requires spending.”
However, these wide exemptions remain in the legislation, meaning that policymakers are less likely to apply the policy statement in relation to the policy on defence and financial matters without explicit instruction to do otherwise.
The truth is that Clause 18 is a blank cheque for Ministers to invoke if they decide under certain circumstances not to be bound by environmental protection. I look forward to the Minister’s consideration and response.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this important subject.
I start with Amendment 75 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The Government’s view is that the current list of five environmental principles will work to protect the environment. The principles outlined in the Bill have significant case law and history so their meaning and application is clearly understood and defined. These five principles are also consistent with those agreed through the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement. If we were to increase the number of principles to those outlined in the noble Baroness’s amendment, this would create confusion, leading to ineffective application of the principles for policymakers and an uncertain impact on future policy-making
Amendment 78 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, deals with proportionality and exemptions for tax and spending, the Armed Forces and defence policy. Environmental principles will be embedded at the heart of policy development across government, but there will be times when action is not proportionate. As such, it is right that Ministers are able to reject a policy change where this is considered legally disproportionate—for example, where a policy change would be very costly and the environmental benefit insignificant. I do not believe that this is an unreasonable position. If the exemption to act proportionately were removed, Ministers would be required to prioritise environmental concerns even where they incurred significant and disproportionate cost to society and where the gains were nevertheless insignificant.
Similarly, exempting some limited areas from the duty to “have due regard” provides flexibility with respect to the nation’s finances, defence and national security. In relation to defence and national security, removing the exemption in the Bill could restrict our response to urgent threats. Policy decisions concerning defence are often made rapidly, or even in real time, where there is an urgent need to achieve operational imperatives. The Government wish to retain that agility.
Let me add now rather than later, in relation to the point made by the noble Baroness about land—in particular, SSSIs, which are currently owned by the MoD—that the exemptions do not apply in any respect to SSSIs. There should be no change in status for land that is protected in law as a consequence of its designation as an SSSI or anything else. As it happens, the MoD is meeting its national target in relation to SSSIs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, gave an example of trees planted on MoD land for a special purpose but which now face a threat. Given that this is a live planning matter there is a limit to what I can say, but she will not be surprised to hear that neither I nor—I am quite certain—my colleagues would want to see such trees grubbed up. The Bill adds protections for trees, through strengthening the Forestry Act as well as through other measures, which we have discussed, and will continue to discuss in Committee. In addition, Defra and MHCLG are currently working closely together to work out how we can boost protections for trees in various ways, including through the new designation of “long-established woodlands”.
Taxation, spending and allocation of resources are excluded from the remit of the principles of the office for environmental protection to provide for maximum flexibility in respect of the nation’s finances. For example, at fiscal events and spending reviews, decisions must be taken with consideration to a wide range of policy priorities, such as sustainable economic growth, macroeconomic and financial stability and sustainable levels of debt. These macroeconomic issues are too remote from the environmental principles for them to be directly applicable. However, I emphasise that this is not an exemption for any policy that requires spending. For example, if in future the Department for Transport were given funding from the Treasury to achieve a particular transport aim, the programme in question would still have to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement in policy and decision-making.
As regards Amendment 76 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, given that it is central government that sets the overall strategy and approach for any key decisions taken by other public bodies, it is not necessary to extend the environmental principles duty to cover these public authorities. The application of the environmental principles policy statement by Ministers will mean that the environmental protection promoted by the principles will filter down into local policy and strategic decisions. This means, for example, that in the case of a planning application for a village pub, the decision will be made in compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework, which will in future be set by Ministers having had due regard to the policy statement. It would therefore be unreasonable, and create unnecessary duplication, for the local authority to also have due regard to the principles policy statement—as well as in considering a planning application in the case of that village pub. We need to try to avoid imposing excessive and unnecessary burdens on public authorities. That is why we have taken the approach that we have.
I turn to Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 73 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Requirements to apply the principles directly via a duty through the policy statement would risk inconsistency in their interpretation and application by Ministers. It could result in the principles being applied either too stringently or ineffectively. Placing a legal duty on the environmental principles policy statement offers greater clarity for policymakers because the policy statement will set out specific details on the application and interpretation of the principles. By comparison, a similar requirement in the EU framework is opaque and effectively impossible for anyone to legally challenge. The extent of the EU requirement to consider the principles—the manner in which it has actually impacted EU environmental policy—is an unknown. Our policy statement, with more detail and more context, will mean better and clearer application of the environmental principles to policy-making.
I hope that it will also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, if I clarify that Clause 46 already provides through a definition that policy includes proposals for legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I believe—I apologise if it was not her—mentioned the Aarhus convention. I know that we will be debating that issue in some detail in a later group of amendments, so I will leave my comments until then.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 77A in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. By placing a statutory duty on Ministers of the Crown to “have due regard” to the policy statement, the Government are ensuring that the application and interpretation of the five environmental principles is consistent across government policy-making. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the Clause 18 duty is amenable to judicial review. It provides flexibility for the policy statement to be considered with substance, rigour and an open mind. The due regard duty is used in other high-profile areas, such as in the case of the public sector equality duty, and has been shown to have significant effect to catalyse a change in behaviour. There is also extensive case law and, notably, the Brown principles setting out what this duty means in practice. The practical effect of these principles is that a duty to ensure compliance with the policy statement as proposed in the amendment would not add any additional benefit or clarity. However, such a duty would add unnecessary burdens and inflexibility for policymakers compared to the due regard duty as the clause stands.
To address the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I say that our approach is not designed to replicate the EU framework; it is designed to provide a more effective process. Our approach goes further than the EU by ensuring that Ministers across government are legally obliged to consider the principles in all policy development where it impacts on the environment. In the EU, the principles apply only in the development of policy that is specifically environmental. In addition, the environmental principles listed in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union do not apply directly to, and therefore are not legally binding on, member states. Rather, they apply when the EU makes environmental policy. Under our membership of the EU, there was no legal obligation for the UK or any other member state to use these principles when making environmental policy unless they featured in domestic law. That clearly changes with, I hope, the introduction of the Bill. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I think he could not be more wrong on the point of regression in relation to our previous status under the European Union.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received two requests to speak after the Minister, from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I will call them in that order.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said about the precautionary principle, because this is hugely important to conservation and land management. I note that my noble friend the Minister did not respond specifically to the question he posed. While he is considering an answer to that, I am going to ask him a couple of questions too. How will the precautionary principle be interpreted by government? Will it be on the basis of a hazard approach or of a risk approach? The two are very different. It has to be a balanced approach; I think the courts have indicated that this is the right way forward. He will know that the precautionary principle, depending on how you interpret it, can stop some vital research. His department, Defra, has been guilty of stopping research because it used the precautionary principle. If we are trying to help biodiversity and conservation, we must be allowed to carry out sensible, controlled research to try to get to the right answer. If he is going to use—it is probably the wrong word—political bias against a particular aspect and say, “You cannot do research into that area”, then we are not being of any benefit to conservation or land management.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, on the first question, I felt that I answered the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in some detail—indeed, in more detail than any other point raised—and I do not want to have to repeat what I said on non-regression. On my noble friend’s question about the precautionary principle, the principles have significant case law and history, as I said. Their meaning and application are clearly understood and defined, and none of them represents a leap into the unknown. The Government’s approach to the precautionary principle includes a proportionate and risk-focused application, respecting the balance with social, economic and other considerations. This was provided for in the draft policy statement which noble Lords will have seen. In response to my noble friend’s question, I say that our view is that the principle should not hinder innovation due to novelty but should instead support innovative policy approaches by providing policy-makers with the tools that they need in order to balance risk.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, given all the respect and affection in which I hold him, I am slightly dismayed that my noble friend actually played back at me that “having regard to” worked perfectly well in equalities policy. I actually quoted case law at him. If I may, I would like to submit the case law I have to him so that his legal team can look at it. But I just make a plea: we are about to come on to the office for environmental protection. We are hoping to replicate at national level, throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, very stringent penalties for infringement of environmental policy or principles, such as a chemical spillage or other contamination of water. That is why—I am sure he would agree—we want the fewest referrals possible to any court under a judicial review, we want to be absolutely clear and we need to ensure compliance and have the possibility of financial penalties being imposed, rather than just a very mealy-mouthed “have regard to”.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend. I think she offered to submit other examples in case law, and I look forward to seeing what she has to say. I am also willing, if she is willing to speak to me, to talk details in due course.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, even the ones who have disagreed broadly because, although it is not good for my temper, it is good to see just how far the Government will go in trying to block all these common-sense amendments. I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, was excellent on her amendment, and I hope that we can do something more on Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, sort of implied a threat, which is completely contrary to her gentle nature—but, obviously, a threat is what the Government will understand. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also talked about too many caveats and too many exceptions, and of course that is absolutely right. We have to make sure that the MoD does not do things such as cutting up hundreds of trees that were planted in honour of the Queen or putting pylons in muddy rivers where they are not needed. This is exactly the sort of organisation that needs some environmental principles. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her support; it is always good to have her support across the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, talked about the other Governments, and I support what they said completely. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her support and for signing the amendment. It is incredibly important that we work across the Chamber and cross-party, so I look forward to working with her on this in the future.
It is always good to hear from my noble friend Lady Bennett, who is much more clinical and knowledgeable than I am. She wields a scimitar much better than I do; I am far too friendly for your Lordships, really. She made a point about security and the environment being linked, and we see this in almost every area. There are places in the world that have been growing our pineapples and bananas that will not be able to in the future, when they have droughts and all sorts of intemperate weather. This means they will be under threat, so we may have to move around. We cannot divorce these things—in fact, you cannot divorce any topic—from the environment.
I did not quite pick up what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, was saying, but I think he was supporting us and I thank him. If I got that wrong, he can see me afterwards. Of course, I am always grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, yes, of course there will be things we cannot do because of the precautionary principle. This goes for the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, as well: if it is bad for the environment, it is probably not a good idea to do it. We can use lots of other areas for innovation, and Greens love innovation. We love using technology where it fits—if it fits all the criteria we are talking about, for the well-being of humanity and of the planet.
I did not agree with anything said by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, but that is the norm.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Quin; that was a calm exposition agreeing with Amendments 73 and 76, which is very valuable. Of course, it is fantastic to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on anything. He pointed out that this was meant to be a non-regression Bill but, quite honestly, when the Minister said that it is, I choked. I started coughing because it is so patently untrue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, sounds so reasonable. I wish I had some of her reasonableness when, at the same time, she is very tough. That is fantastic.
In dismissing this list, the Minister talked about how the current principles are based on case law and so on. The Government have already lost so many cases because they do not understand environmental principles. In fact, the stronger the basket, the structure, we can have around every single government department, the better it will be for all of us. I am sure we will fight over that many times.
Are the exclusions of the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury necessary for agility? I do not think so. That sounds like the sort of argument that could easily be dismissed, so I would be interested to see where the Minister got it from. It does not risk confusion if we have more; in fact, it clarifies things to have better and clearer principles. I argue that the amendments in this group are vital and that the Government will have a tough job to convince us otherwise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(4) Subsection (1) applies to policy relating to Scotland only so far as relating to reserved matters.(5) Section 14(2) of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 (asp 4) (UK Ministers must have regard to guiding principles on the environment in making policies extending to Scotland) does not apply to policies so far as relating to reserved matters.(6) In this section “reserved matters” has the same meaning as in the Scotland Act 1998.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Clause 138, page 123, line 22, apply the provisions about the policy statement on environmental principles to reserved matters in Scotland, and provide that section 14(2) of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 does not apply to such matters.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I shall take that intervention as inadvertent—although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has reappeared.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
I am not quite sure whether I am audible or not. I just want to thank the Minister for his kind remarks about my support for Amendment 80. As far as my Amendment 80A is concerned, I hope he will reflect carefully on what I said and perhaps come back with something on Report but, for the time being, that amendment is not moved.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we come now to the group consisting of Amendment 81A. Anyone wishing to press this to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 19: Statements about Bills containing new environmental law
Amendment 81A
Lord Hope of Craighead
“(1A) The purpose of this section is to ensure that the effects of the provision on the level of environmental protection under existing environmental law are considered before the Bill is introduced.”
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I hope I can be heard. Amendment 81A is a probing amendment, for reasons that I hope to explain. Clause 19 provides for the making of statements about Bills containing new environment law before the Bill’s Second Reading. According to paragraph 22 of the Explanatory Notes, these are to be statements setting out “the effect” of the new primary environmental law on existing levels of environmental protection provided for by environmental law, but the wording of the clause does not quite say that. All it requires is a statement by the Minister that the Bill contains a provision which, if enacted, would be environmental law and would not have the effect of reducing the level of protection provided for under existing environmental law, or that the Minister is unable to make that statement. There the matter lies. How great the reduction would be and in what respects, if he or she is unable to make the statement, is another matter, which the clause does not mention or require to be considered.
A requirement of the limited kind that this clause describes seems to be breaking new ground, although something similar is to be found in Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires Ministers to make a statement of compatibility. That provision was seen, when the Human Rights Bill was introduced, to serve three purposes. First, it would have the salutary effect of focusing the Government’s mind on the question of whether the proposed legislation would be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Secondly, it would provide information to Members of Parliament which might be relevant to their debates and discussions. Thirdly, it might affect the judicial interpretation of any legislation that was passed.
The third purpose was soon negatived when the Law Lords sitting in this House made it clear that it was for the courts and not a Minister to say whether the legislation would be compatible with the convention. The second does not seem to have been borne out in practice, as I cannot recall any case where the significance or otherwise of the Minister’s statement has been debated in this House. That may be because it has no legal significance. I hope that the first salutary purpose is still there, and that these statements, which appear without fail in every Bill, are not a mere formality because the matter has been considered.
So the question is: what is the purpose of the requirement in Clause 19? It cannot bind the courts, as it is for them and not the Minister to say whether the provision would be environmental law, should that issue ever arise in legal proceedings. I can see some prospect of its having the salutary effect of requiring the Government to address the question, focused on in Clause 19(3), of whether the level of environmental protection provided by existing environmental law would be reduced. That would be a good thing and very welcome, but do we need a provision in this Bill for that to happen? What would happen if, as it turns out, the statement the Minister made was wrong, if the Bill is amended in a way that might affect what the Minister said or if the Minister is unable to make the statement? The clause does not address these issues at all.
If, on the other hand, the making of a statement of the kind referred to in Clause 19(4) is to provide an opportunity for debate, what purpose would that debate have if the Government nevertheless wish the House to proceed with the Bill and will enforce their wish? The clause does not provide for any kind of sanction or remedy. It can be said that there is some value in drawing the matter to the attention of the House, but does it really add anything to what would be likely to happen anyway when the Bill came under scrutiny?
There is one other point worth mentioning. The phrase “existing environmental law” is defined in Clause 19(8), in relation to a statement under the clause, as meaning
“environmental law existing at the time that the Bill … is introduced into the House”.
However, that definition does not say what it is or where it is to be found. For that purpose, one has to go to Clause 45. The very broad definition that this clause provides is
“any legislative provision … that … is mainly concerned with environmental protection”—
which, for this purpose, includes devolved legislative provisions as well.
This is quite a package. It is unlike Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, where the convention itself and its precisely grouped surrounding case law is the point of reference. Given the extensive legislative background against which the Bill is likely to have been drafted, it may be quite difficult for a Minister to make such a statement with any conviction that everything has been turned over correctly and would stand up to scrutiny. That is why it might be wiser, to avoid any misunderstanding and any potential mishaps due to the difficulty of searching the ever-expanding reach of legislation in this field, to make it clear that the purpose of the clause is limited to what is indicated in my amendment.
In any event, it would be helpful if the Minister were to make it clear, for the assistance of all those to whose functions it is directed, what exactly the purpose is of this clause. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 81A, which I have co-signed. I support entirely the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in moving it.
I want to raise a very narrow point with my noble friend the Minister. It relates to the second part of Clause 19(8). Subsection (8) states:
“‘Existing environmental law’, in relation to a statement under this section, means environmental law existing at the time that the Bill to which the statement relates is introduced into the House in question, whether or not the environmental law is in force.”
This posed quite a question at the time of the withdrawal Act and the subsequent statutory instruments on retained EU law, particularly as the water framework directive was being considered and revised. Unfortunately, we had an empty-chair policy at the time, so were not at the council meetings when this was discussed, but it begs the question of which water framework directive, for example, is now enshrined in UK law. Is it the one that we previously agreed to or is it the one that was subsequently revised at the time of our departure from the European Union?
The second and last question that I have for my noble friend the Minister relates to a jolly good read which I commend to him: the 22nd and final report of the European Union Committee, Beyond Brexit: Food, Environment, Energy and Health. It was adopted by the European Union Sub-Committee, on which I was privileged to serve. In paragraph 148, the report sets out that the trade and co-operation agreement
“negotiated by the Government will affect the policy choices available to devolved administrations and legislatures in areas of devolved competence including the environment.”
That perhaps relates more to the previous amendment, Amendment 80A, but also to the amendment before us now.
The report goes on:
“There are already diverging environment and climate change goals across the UK, which could indicate challenges ahead. We urge the Government to address any concerns raised by the devolved administrations regarding the TCA’s environment and climate change provisions—via the Common Frameworks programme or other routes—as fully and promptly as possible.”
Scotland has now set up its equivalent to the office for environmental protection, the name of which escapes me completely—I think it is Environment Services Scotland—so it has an operation that is already up and running. We will not have ours in place until July. Have any issues already arisen in this regard, as we are slightly later in our programme than we would have hoped to be? Also, have any of these issues been identified and raised under the common frameworks programme? That is in addition to my earlier question about, for example, the water framework directive.
With those few remarks, I am delighted to lend my support to Amendment 81A.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I understood that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, had withdrawn from this debate—but she is shaking her head at me, so I assume that she wishes to speak. I think I should make it clear that her name is listed as having withdrawn; however, I will call her now.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Thank you. There was an administrative snafu, which I understood had been sorted out. I apologise. I did not mean to withdraw from this debate and thought that it had been fixed.
I will be very brief anyway. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for this amendment. I wish to speak to it briefly to highlight the way in which it helps to stress and shows the interaction between this Bill and so many other Bills, and the fact that the environment is now part of everything we do and there will be environmental impacts on all legislation.
What we are talking about here is a way of finding joined-up government, so that we do not have the siloed thinking that says, “This is environment and this is security and this is education”. My understanding of what the noble Lords who tabled this amendment are trying to do is get a functional way to do this—and it is very important that we do, so I thank them for their efforts. We need to make sure that Clause 19 really works for the future operation of the law and of government.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and to agree with her on this occasion—at least in some respects.
I have much sympathy with this amendment, for an important reason. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering seem to be asking that Her Majesty’s Government ensure that the effects of this provision on environmental protection under existing environmental law are considered before any Bill is introduced, rather than rushed out for Second Reading. If this new vetting procedure for all our Bills can be justified and agreed, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in thinking that it would be better to have it done earlier, so that it informs policy on the Bill in question and can be studied before Second Reading. Indeed, I would like to see the same for other impact assessments.
Following on from earlier questions, could I also understand—simply, if possible—how the system will work? Does my noble friend see a parallel with human rights statements? As I recall from my time on the Front Bench, the relevant policy Minister studies these, talking to his or her legal team, then signs and deposits them in Parliament, where they can be considered by the relevant committees. It would be good to understand whether that is what is envisaged and possible here.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. After what was a fruitcake of amendments, we are now on a fairly simple Madeira cake—but it is no less welcome. I am grateful to be noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his forensic approach and for tabling this probing amendment. We need to be absolutely clear what is the purpose of this clause if we are to ensure that the Bill helps parliamentarians in future—including Select Committees, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned—properly to scrutinise the effects of proposed legislation to ensure that it is compatible with the Government’s environmental goals. So we welcome the approach of this probing amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, shall be quite brief. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for tabling this amendment. As he says, it is probing and, as ever, he set out very eloquently the reason why it is important. I have listened carefully to his analysis and very much agree with what he said.
As we discussed in the previous group, throughout consideration of the EU withdrawal Bill, we were reassured that environmental protection would be at least as good as that which we enjoyed in the EU. However, it is already clear that the wording in this Bill on environmental principles is a weakened version of what has gone before, particularly in the need to have only “due regard” to the policy statement. The academic experts giving evidence on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the previous version of the Bill concluded that
“the Bill does not maintain the legal status of environmental principles as they have come to apply through EU law.”
Now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is rightly raising the issue of making new environmental law, as set out in Clause 19. His amendment would require that the level of environmental protection under existing environmental law should be clearly spelled out before it is possible to say, in Clause 19(3), that any new legislation will not reduce the level of environmental protection under existing law. It would remove any ambiguity and provide a double lock on protections for future environmental legislation.
At the same time, we should acknowledge that regression often happens by stealth, and can occur at a number of levels, not just in primary legislation. For example, it could appear in secondary legislation or in the detailed policy proposals that precede it. Therefore, ideally, the scope of this provision should include secondary legislation as well. It would also make sense for a statement of this nature to be published at a much earlier stage, as part of any consultation or before a new Bill was introduced. As we have discussed in other contexts, we need accurate baseline evidence, including about the impact of existing legislation, before we can assess the effectiveness of any measures proposed in any new legislation.
So we share the concerns that the noble and learned Lord has raised in this amendment and very much hope that the Minister will feel able to take these issues on board and give a positive response.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his Amendment 81A. It summarises in many respects the purpose behind Clause 19 very well. The clause is aimed at delivering accountability through transparency. It guarantees that effects on the level of environmental protection are considered before a Bill is introduced and will ensure that the environment will receive the close attention and appropriate consideration it deserves in the policy-making process.
I should like to provide some more detail how it will work in practice, in response also to questions raised by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. The statement under Clause 19 will take the form of a short, written statement in any new Bill that contains a provision that, if enacted, would be environmental law. The statement would confirm that the Minister was of the view that the Bill contains an environmental provision, and would set out that the Minister believed that the existing levels of environmental protection would not be reduced.
Bills are accompanied by a range of documentation to aid Parliament in its scrutiny of legislation, including the Explanatory Notes and Delegated Powers Memorandum. These are produced by convention, rather than being required by legislation. Clause 19 is designed to ensure that Parliament has the necessary information so that it can properly scrutinise legislation that affects the environment. The Government will consider what arrangements may be appropriate for specific Bills. I assure noble Lords that we will engage with the authorities in both Houses prior to implementation. As Clause 19 is straightforward in its purpose and current wording, I do not think it is necessary to reiterate it in the Bill.
I should also like to take this time to respond to colleagues in the devolved Administrations who have requested some reassurances on the implementation of this clause. Incidentally, the organisation that my noble friend Lady McIntosh referenced is called Environment Standards Scotland. The statement under Clause 19 will take into account the extensive discussions held with the devolved Administrations throughout the development of any new Bill that includes provisions with implications for them. Engagement with the devolved Administrations will be in accordance with the memorandum of understanding on devolution, or any arrangement that replaces it, and the practices outlined in the devolution guidance notes. My noble friend also asked about working with the devolved Administrations, and I hope I have addressed her concerns.
Once again, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his amendment and beg him to withdraw it.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I must thank the Minister for his very helpful remarks, which have reassured me and, I hope, other noble Lords, that there is real purpose behind the clause. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said, the clause really must be made to work, and I think he has explained how, given the information that will be revealed, it will indeed achieve that purpose.
Part of my concern was that perhaps the Government are taking on too much, because one should not underestimate the increasing reach of environmental law, but it is very important that the reach should be carefully considered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, we want to be really sure that the matter is carefully thought about before the Bill is introduced, and I am reassured by the Minister saying that that indeed is the purpose of the clause and that the clause will achieve it.
For those reasons, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 82. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 82
“Office of Commissioner for Environmental Protection
(1) The office of Commissioner for Environmental Protection is established.(2) It is for Her Majesty by Letters Patent to appoint a person to be Commissioner for Environmental Protection.(3) Her Majesty’s power is exercisable on an address of the House of Commons. (4) It is for the Prime Minister to move the motion for the address.(5) To do so the Prime Minister must have the agreement of the person who chairs the Environment Audit Committee.(6) The person appointed holds office for 10 years, and may not be appointed again.(7) The Commissioner for Environmental Protection is by that name to be a corporation sole.(8) The Commissioner for Environmental Protection is to be an officer of the House of Commons.(9) But section 4(4) of the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 (which provides for the application of provisions of that Act to staff employed in or for the purposes of the House of Commons) does not apply in relation to the office of Commissioner for Environmental Protection.(10) The person who is Commissioner for Environmental Protection may not be a member of the House of Lords.(11) The Commissioner for Environmental Protection is not to be regarded—(a) as the servant or agent of the Crown, or(b) as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.(12) The person who is Commissioner for Environmental Protection may not hold any other office or position to which a person may be appointed, or recommended for appointment, by or on behalf of the Crown.(13) Before a person is appointed as Commissioner for Environmental Protection, remuneration arrangements are to be made in relation to the person jointly by the Prime Minister and the person who chairs the Committee of Public Accounts.(14) The Commissioner for Environmental Protection may resign from office by giving written notice to the Prime Minister.(15) Her Majesty may remove the Commissioner for Environmental Protection from office on an address of both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to help secure the independence of the OEP by making its chief executive a separate office holder appointed by the House of Commons. It is modelled on provision made for the Comptroller and Auditor General under the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I know this group of amendments is unlikely to find favour with Defra. While I normally contribute to our debates in this House in what I hope is a dispassionate, calm manner, I have to say that on this occasion, I feel quite passionate about this issue. I am what I would describe as “a very cross Bencher”.
In the early days of Brexit planning, we were promised that we would have as near a replication of the EU environmental oversight of our organisations as is possible. At the time, Michael Gove, the then Secretary of State, was reported as saying that he thought that putting Defra in charge of the OEP would not be suitable. As ever, he was right.
The OEP will be at the centre of our country’s new environmental future post Brexit. We all have great hopes and expectations for it—some, I suspect, possibly too high. But within all our ambitions to secure a cleaner, more sustainable and more biodiverse future, I cannot stress how important it is that we get the OEP right—and at the moment it looks as though it will be a mere tool of the very body it should be overseeing.
I know that the EU regime we are leaving could not possibly be the same as any domestic arrangement we might replace it with, but, as I say, in the early days we were promised “an equally effective regime”. So it is worth reiterating what various ex-Ministers have said: namely, that in the past, the mere threat of the EU Commission taking action against the Government had departmental Ministers and Secretaries of State quaking in their shoes. And you can understand why. As an example of the punishments doled out by the ECJ, at the behest of the Commission, in 2014 Italy was fined €40 million, with an additional fine of €42.8 million every six months that the issue of dumping illegal waste remained unresolved—as I believe it did for at least one six-month period. Again, in 2015, Italy was fined €20 million and a further €120,000 each and every day that the region of Campania failed to resolve its waste-management problems.
The interesting thing about that last case is that it was the Italian Government who were fined, not the regional council of Campania, which was at fault. I say this because when Professor Macrory—who I see has now joined the shadow OEP board—gave evidence to our Lords environment committee last year or the year before, he emphasised that the Commission infringement proceedings were always directed at Governments, even if the breach was by another public body. He argued that, if possible, this should be replicated post Brexit, with the OEP’s enforcement powers being directed solely against Secretaries of State. But of course, that would be impossible under the current proposed arrangements, because it would mean the Defra Secretary of State taking himself to court.
In this context, it is worth remembering that the EU Commission took the UK to court for infringement 34 times in total and won 30 times. There is no reason to suppose that the frequency of infringements by UK public bodies will not continue into the future. Why would that change? Our institutions remain as fallible and, dare I say it, as underfunded as ever. But now, the Secretary of State will stand between the OEP and the infringing body, rather than taking the hit, as he or she should.
I must repeat what I said at Second Reading: this has nothing at all to do with our trust in the present Ministers, in whom I recognise a total commitment to the environment, but we have to think what will happen if, in the future, we find ourselves with a disinterested, or maybe just incompetent, Secretary of State and an overcontrolling department. The decisions that we make in this Bill could still be affecting the governance of our environment in 40, 50 or even 60 years’ time. So I say again: the auditing and bringing to book for environmental rule-breaking by our relevant public bodies, the most important of whom are within the Defra family, is unlikely to happen when Defra gives the guidance to, and controls the budget of, the OEP.
Let me tell you a story. I had a friend who was a regional director of MAFF in the 1980s. He had a farming neighbour who had a grouch about some MAFF policy—I am afraid I cannot quite remember exactly what it was—and he asked my friend to help him write a letter to the Secretary of State. Of course, in those days he was called not the Secretary of State but the Minister of Agriculture. Anyway, in due course the Minister, having received the letter—largely written by my friend—sent it down to my friend, the regional director, and asked him to draft a reply to him, refuting the farmer’s complaint. So my friend, no doubt employing his best departmental penmanship, wrote the reply for the Minister to send to the farmer. And then, of course, the farmer brought the Minister’s letter to my friend, asking him to help draft a further response for him to send back to the Minister. And so he did. Rather like someone playing chess against himself, he ended up having quite a long, rather enjoyable, correspondence with himself over several months, writing letters for both sides of the argument.
You can see where this is going, because that is precisely what will happen when, for instance, the OEP is threatening the Environment Agency with proceedings. The Secretary of State may not be actually writing the correspondence, but you can bet that he will be monitoring it and ensuring that, in whatever is said by either side, no blame could possibly fall on either him or his department. We know for sure that many of the current failings of the Environment Agency and Natural England are a direct result of them being starved of funds by Defra—and, also, incidentally, being subtly indirectly controlled by that department. So much for Professor Macrory’s wish that the buck should always stop with the Secretary of State.
Just last week, I was talking to an organisation about our rivers, and it was saying that it is lawlessness out there, because no one is monitoring, inspecting or enforcing the rules on our rivers, since the Environment Agency has been starved of funds in this respect. That is what it said, and when you read the evidence given to the Environmental Audit Committee last month, it is clear that it is right. The buck should stop with the Secretary of State, or at least his department, and he should definitely not be the one controlling the buck.
That brings me to the Minister’s claim, in his admirably full letter to us all last week—for which I thank him very much—that the OEP will be a non-departmental body. I am afraid that, in my view, the phrase “non-departmental body” is widely overused and wrongly applied in today’s political world. As an ex-chair of the Countryside Agency, I can say that it was not always thus—at least, it was not when I reported to the Department of the Environment, before we came under the control of Defra—but in the modern political climate of total control from the centre, free-speaking bodies within Government are no longer tolerated.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Cameron. Like him, I am very much a “cross”-Bencher in this case. I have been looking through the Second Reading document and would say that there are many cross Lords, all across this Chamber and wherever they are beaming in from, who also completely agree with what he says about the necessary independence of the OEP.
It is extremely chilling to read Defra’s power under Clause 24 to issue guidance on how the OEP should behave and what it should do. At the end of the day, it is the department for the environment but also agriculture and food. Those two areas make up such a massive part of the climate change agenda, how we use our land and how we will reclaim our biodiversity for the future of this whole country. The thought that advice on the levels of control should be given in that department seems quite absurd but also very sinister. Either this is really cowardly or it is an agenda that wants to conceal.
My noble friend Lord Cameron pointed out various cases in which big fines have been able to be issued. Will the Government really be able to fine themselves for transgressions relating to chemicals, the use of neonicotinoids and all the things the EU can cope with at the moment?
Earlier this afternoon I spoke about the grubbing up of trees at the barracks near Grantham. When the Minister answered us, he said that neither he nor his colleagues wanted to see any of these grubbed up. I have used the intervening time to look up the remit of Homes England. This is what its website says—it is such a good quote:
“We’re the government’s housing accelerator. We have the appetite, influence, expertise and resources to drive positive market change.”
If you scroll down to look at what it is responsible for and its priorities, there is not one mention of the word “environment”, climate change or care and attention to how we live. I wonder how this will work out if a case is brought by those children—by Callum McLelland, the 15 year-old who planted a tree when he was seven. If he decides to bring a case, will Defra say, “We don’t want this case”?
I also point out that, like my noble friend Lord Cameron, I do not doubt for a second the authenticity and sincerity of the current holders of the office, both in this Chamber and in the other place. I know they mean what they say and do their best, but this is statute that has to stand for ever. It will probably stand when we are all dead.
For instance, I would like to bring to noble Lords’ attention the situation with the recent Australian trade deal. As I understand it, Defra did not approve of it, but it was overridden by the department for trade. We will accept animals into this country such as sheep that have been subjected to the practice of mulesing. If any noble Lords do not know what that is, it is the process of ripping the skin off a lamb’s backside so that it forms scar tissue and then is not vulnerable to flies. The department for trade won.
Government is complicated and messy. There are lobbyists, and a lot of money is being thrown around. The Tory council of Horsham, where Knepp is threatened by 3,500 houses—this was in the Sunday Times eight days ago—has received £600,000 from these developers. There is much going on like this. We need an agency that can stand up to it, act quickly and with independence and that does not have to run to the Minister and say, “Is it okay if I do it?” Please support my noble friend Lord Cameron’s excellent amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to support and speak to the amendments in this group. As we are considering in detail a number of amendments relating to both the independence of the OEP and its budget, resources and staffing, I will keep my comments on this group limited to parliamentary oversight and scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and I served together on the EU Environment Sub-Committee, and I think he is the sole survivor of that committee to now be on the Environment and Climate Change Committee. He carries the candle for us all in that regard. I am grateful to him for tabling these amendments and agree entirely that we were promised oversight as near as possible equivalent to and as effective as that which pertained through our membership of the European Union, and that my right honourable friend Michael Gove, in the other place, said that it would be inappropriate for Defra to be in charge in the way that, it has now become apparent, it will be.
On balance, I prefer the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, which would ensure that appointments would not be made without the consent of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee. On a number of occasions during my tenure as chair of the EFRA Committee, we conducted pre-appointment hearings. I do not know whether there was a pre-appointment hearing in this case, but we know that Dame Glenys Stacey is now in place. My first question to my noble friend is: was there such a pre-appointment hearing? Was it carried out by one, the other or both of those committees? I think I am right in saying that Amendment 85 breaks new ground in suggesting that the other non-executive members of the OEP would also face a pre-appointment hearing. I do not know whether that has ever happened before.
The reason why the amendments are so welcome, particularly Amendment 85, is that it gives us the opportunity to ask my noble friend to set out precisely what the parliamentary oversight of the OEP will be. I argue very forcefully not just for a pre-appointment hearing by the two committees in the other place but for opportunities to have the chair of the OEP, Dame Glenys Stacey, in annually for a full review of its work.
It is important to ask my noble friend one last question. When we were preparing the report to which I referred earlier, Beyond Brexit: Food, Environment, Energy and Health, the Secretary of State told the EU sub-committee—he is quoted at paragraph 162 of the report—the following:
“It is important to note that the chair of the OEP, Dame Glenys Stacey, has already been appointed and is in post … It is already able to receive complaints. Until it has its full legal powers, there is a limit to what it can do to act on those complaints. If the European Union wanted to have dialogue with the OEP for the purposes of that part of the agreement, which really is only about cooperating and sharing, there would be nothing to prevent that from happening in this early stage.”
I would go further and press my noble friend to ensure that there is an obligation, particularly in the early stages while the OEP is being set up and finding its feet, to have regular contacts with the European Commission to find out its exact approach. It may take a different view, but it would be helpful to have at least some background in this regard. It is my certain understanding that Environmental Standards Scotland has already had such contact. It would be highly regressive and retrograde if the OEP, representing England, did not replicate that.
I am also concerned—I hope my noble friend will put my mind at rest—that it should not be in any shape or form admissible or possible for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to lean on the independent chair of the OEP and suggest that she not take up a complaint, were she minded to do so. According to my current understanding of the OEP’s composition and independence, the situation in that regard is by no means certain. I commend these amendments, and in particular I have great sympathy with Amendment 85.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, introduced his amendments extremely well. There is not much I can add except to say that it is widely recognised across the House that the office for environmental protection is not currently fit for purpose—it is too weak and easily ignored. It is therefore pretty much a done deal that your Lordships’ House will amend this Bill to strengthen the OEP. I hope that when we do, we can come up with the strongest possible options.
The OEP needs status as well, which the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, pointed out. The amendments would give it that status and, more importantly, they would help to ensure the independence of the office, establishing the commissioner by letters patent from the head of state, which would prevent the Government meddling. That is the sort of level of ambition that we should be setting for our environmental watchdog. Parliament is also the proper place for the OEP to be accountable to. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about exactly how that will happen was quite useful.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, before I turn to the amendments in this grouping, I refer to a comment that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made in relation to the grouping including Amendment 73 when he pointed out that the Minister had not actually answered my question. In his reply the Minister said he had answered it, but I will just repeat the question which he did not answer—I do not expect him to answer it right now but I hope he will at some point. I said: “Can the Minister explain why he considers the introduction of proportionality necessary, when the precautionary principle, according to the High Court, already includes proportionality?” I then went on to quote in detail the judgment of 28 May 2021 from the High Court. I therefore hope that at some point the Minister will respond to that question.
I support all the amendments in the group including Amendment 82 and I am especially grateful to my noble friends Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lady Boycott for leading us into what is perhaps the core debate of the Bill: the role and nature of the office for environmental protection. As has already been said, this is the first of a series of amendment groupings that we will discuss in the coming hours which deal with the independence and enforcement role of the OEP.
The Government promised us a strong and independent OEP and, as we have already heard, many of us feel that we have been short-changed. I remind your Lordships of a score line: 25-0. This is not the forecast for the England-Germany game tomorrow but the number of speakers at Second Reading who expressed concerns about the OEP not having enough independence or teeth—25—versus those who thought it had too much of both: zero. There is no doubt about the strength of feeling across the House on this matter. As others have already spoken with great force and clarity on the issues, I wish to add only one personal anecdote, relating to ministerial involvement in appointments. This is particularly relevant to Amendment 85 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
A few years ago, when I was chair of the Adaptation Committee of the Climate Change Committee, I went through the standard appointments procedure to select two new committee members. The selection panel was chaired by a Defra senior civil servant and included the requisite independent member. The panel unanimously agreed on the two best candidates. The then Secretary of State rejected both candidates because she did not think they had the right profile to serve on the committee.
If we are to have confidence in the genuine independence of the office for environmental protection, there has to be some transparency and independence about the recruitment, not just of the chair but of board members, as proposed in Amendment 85. I therefore hope that the Minister will take that amendment and the other amendments in this grouping seriously and that he will respond appropriately.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, while I do not support every detail of Amendment 82 and tend to prefer Amendment 85, the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington makes a very important point of principle, which I support. The independence of the office for environmental protection is crucial if it is to have public confidence. As the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, said in its report on the Bill:
“It is essential that such an important public body be independent of the government.”
It is true that paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 states:
“In exercising functions in respect of the OEP, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect its independence.”
The question is whether the provision in Schedule 1 is sufficient and appropriate to ensure that independence. I very much doubt that it is sufficient, which is why I said what I said at the beginning of this intervention.
The amendment, which provides for the appointment of a commissioner who is to be the chief executive of the OEP, would be well worth considering as an additional safeguard for the composition of this very important body, as indeed the alternative suggestion in Amendment 85 would be.
The provisions of Clause 24 about guidance by the Secretary of State to which the OEP must have regard in
“preparing its enforcement policy, and … exercising its enforcement functions”
are worth bearing in mind, because they show how important it is that it should be seen to be independent when, as will so often happen, a government proposal raises environmental concerns. The words “have regard to” are not the same as “must follow”. They leave room for independent thought and judgment. It is that aspect of independence which is so important, and why the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Cameron is so well worth considering carefully in this debate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone has withdrawn, as she is listed twice on this list and will not be speaking in either place, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
Lord Cormack (Con)
A few moments ago the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to this as the core amendment of the Bill. In many ways it is, because the success of the Bill depends upon having a totally independent, vigorous, courageous person who can stand up to any Minister and who has the authority to call the Government properly to account for infringements of an environmental nature. One thinks of the debate we had last week about the pollution of rivers and the ability to fine—the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in his admirable introduction to his amendment talked about the swingeing fines that have been imposed upon Italy, among other countries.
If the Bill is truly to become a landmark Act of Parliament—again I use those words, which have been used so often—it has to stand the test of time. We are not legislating for the next five years or even for the next 25 years—a figure that has cropped up before. We are legislating to lay the foundations for an environmental system that our grandchildren—in the case of some of us, our great-grandchildren—will depend upon. We cannot be fobbed off with the answer that this is more or less another function of the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has spelled out many things—I do not agree with all of them—which are of great importance to us all.
I have some doubts about appointing a person for 10 years; I would prefer the electoral cycle of five years, although emphatically not to coincide with a general election. I would be entirely happy with an appointment for five years, to be renewed for another five years, but not longer. So I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on the overall length, but we have to be a little cautious about appointing any individual for a 10-year period. Things can go wrong, and it can be very difficult to get rid of people who are not fulfilling their function.
This is a minor point, but I also think we should not rule out Members of your Lordships’ House. We have a number of people who are highly accomplished and who could fulfil such a role. Of course it would be necessary to stand down from active membership of the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, did, but we have provision for that. It is possible to take leave of absence, and if anybody is appointed to a very important position, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Ashton and Lady Amos, were, they do not function as a Member of the House during that period. To rule out somebody by virtue of his or her membership of the House is wrong and unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, hit on many other important points. There has to be a degree of independence. He talked about the Comptroller and Auditor-General as an example on which he has drawn. There has to be independence and vigour and strength—it is crucial.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in her inimitable way, talked about Report. I say to my noble friend, not in any spirit of threat, that there must be meetings with Members of your Lordships’ House between now and Report, otherwise the Government will get a lot of egg on their face and the possibility of a 1 November deadline will vanish. I do not say that in a threatening spirit and, in particular, I say it in no spirit of animosity towards any of the Ministers concerned, either my noble friend or those in the other place. A number of people, including the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Krebs, have made that point this afternoon. We are not expressing doubt in their sincerity or wisdom, but we are saying that if they are creating something for generations to come, they have to bear certain things in mind. We do not need recent examples to remind us that Ministers do not always end in a blaze of glory.
This is a core amendment. It is something that I, and I am sure others, would like to sit down and discuss with my noble friend before Report. If we can reach agreement by compromise or discussion, it is always better than dividing the House, because if any Bill deserves—needs—the support of Members in all parts of your Lordships’ House, it is this one. The environment we are talking about is ours and, far more important than that, we are legislating for the environment of our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and beyond, otherwise there is that fear of extinction, about which we talked the other day.
I support the spirit of all these amendments and very much hope that we will be able to come to a collective decision that will enhance the Bill and make it a Bill that has real teeth, with a body created by it that has real teeth and can deal with real problems in a vigorous way.
Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very happy to support Amendment 82. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for dealing with it so comprehensively that I feel there is little more for me to say.
I speak to support the view that the office of environmental protection must not only have teeth but must be totally independent from all strands of government. There are many good reasons for this. Independence is, in a way, self-explanatory and a good thing in itself, but it is even more important to spell out that it must be independent of government when the judgments it will have to make may well be on cases in which a government department is involved. Additionally, I suspect there may be environmental transgressions, such as on effluent disposal, where much tougher punishments are required, and in some cases present legislation may be adequate but it is simply not being enforced correctly. The culprits may well have links to the Government, or the Government may, for various reasons, not be prepared to take as strong a line as they should.
In summary, it has been described as a core part of the Bill. I am not too sure what significant difference to the protection of our environment the creation of this office will have. I suspect much will depend on the approach and, more importantly, the resolve of the person appointed to the task. By giving it true independence, we can at least give it the best possible start.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, when the office of environmental protection was mooted, I hoped it would be on the same basis as the Climate Change Committee, and be totally independent of government. When that was not the case, I hoped that the structure of the Bill would be that advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and that that part of the Bill should be within the remit of the Climate Change Committee, which is sufficiently independent.
I remember when I was a Minister, and that was many blue moons ago now, being quite irritated at times by the interference of Brussels. We had perhaps some of the best civil servants in the whole of the EU then; my advice was excellent, and I thought that what we were doing was right. But on reflection, perhaps we were not that right. I remember I once lost a Division and went to the Leader, the late Lord Whitelaw, and said to him, “Willie, I’m terribly sorry, I lost that amendment”. He looked at me and said, “Malcolm, perhaps they were right”. Perhaps the Government are wrong on this occasion. As I see it, the problem is that Defra will remain judge and jury, and there is a route for disaster.
I shall give two examples. One example is the water authorities, which I helped to privatise in the mid-1980s. My friend, the late Lord Ridley of Liddesdale, made a revolutionary change in policy by taking control of pollution away from the water authorities and handing it to the National Rivers Authority. The water authorities were outraged, but it was right. What went wrong was that the NRA was amalgamated into the Environment Agency, and the money for the Environment Agency was reduced so that the controller of the polluting companies did not exercise the brake that was needed. We talked about that a couple of days ago.
The other government department that is a classic example of judge and jury is the Forestry Commission. I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench agrees that the Forestry Commission has been an utter disaster for this country. It has cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money and planted the wrong trees in the wrong places with the wrong policy. I hope that that is beginning to change. I have been banging on in this House on that for more than 50 years, but at long last I am being proved right.
I would really like the OEP to be seen to be independent. Not only does it have to be independent, which it is not under the Bill—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said, the schedule is not strong enough—it has to be seen to be independent. My noble friend Lord Cormack was right: this is better done by negotiation. The Government will get defeated on Report on this, but it would be far better if we got an amendment that we could all sign up to, because that would send a message to everybody who will be affected by the Bill—which is the whole of the country—that there is unanimity in Parliament that that is the right way forward. At the moment, as I said to my noble friend when he was kind enough to have a meeting with me, I am unhappy with the OEP. I am not quite certain what the right amendment is, but I know that there is one out there if we all make an effort to get it right.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there has been near unanimity in condemnation of what is currently in the schedule to deliver a really independent body of the kind we want. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said in a formidable opening address on the group, we want to create the same degree of fear, almost, in public bodies that the possibility of the European Commission intervening and fining this country provided before Brexit. What is envisaged in the Bill goes nowhere near that.
Frankly, we know that there are precedents for what happens to so-called independent bodies. I had expected to speak after my noble friend Lady Young and just before my noble friend Lord Rooker. It is instructive that one was the chief executive of the Environment Agency and the other the chair of the Food Standards Agency. When the Environment Agency was first set up in the 1990s, to which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, just referred, there was a lot of talk about independence, but in fact it became part of the Defra family. Its independence was limited by successive Governments over the whole of that period. Under the coalition Government, it was restricted from briefing parliamentarians or engaging in anything that amounted to a campaign in the eyes of the then Government. Subsequently, of course, its funding has been seriously cut. The Environment Agency is doing an effective job on limited resources, but it is not independent of government.
The other example is the Food Standards Agency. The FSA is a non-departmental body, but as soon as it started straying into areas of interest to the Department of Health on diet, health advice and well-being, those functions were taken off it and ploughed back into the Department of Health. It was right to take it out of its origins in MAFF, but in practice it was never completely independent of government, much though the efforts of my noble friend Lord Rooker and others tried to make it so.
We want a truly independent body on the environment to face up to the immense challenge of climate change and biodiversity diminution. This is not it. I agreed with pretty much every word that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said. I do not entirely agree with his amendment—like others, I prefer the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch—but, as recent speakers said, the Government really do need to take notice of the overwhelming view of the Committee that this will not do. To be truly independent, the OEP needs not just a formal position and designation as a non-departmental body; it needs powers, which are insufficient in the Bill; it needs provision for how its composition is established, which is not fully in this Bill; and it needs powers of enforcement, which we will consider later in Committee and which are, at the moment, clearly completely inadequate to the task.
This is the central part of the Bill. The Government have to think again. If they can come up with a better proposition then let us seriously consider it, but what is in the Bill at the moment is not adequate. None of us believes that it is, and I doubt whether the Government themselves—and the Minister in particular, if I may say so—really believe that it is. Let us think again and try to get something better before the Bill completes its course.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I agree on the importance of this part of the Bill. Indeed, it is the only part of the Bill that I dealt with at Second Reading, on governance issues. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, introduced Amendment 82 very well. We might argue, but as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, somewhere there is an alternative to what is in the Bill. We just have to find it, because the Minister and his advisers will appreciate that this will not get through the House.
I sat on the environment sub-committee of the Lords EU Committee for a few years. The early promises about the governance gap are not being filled with this Bill. I will not quote again the article that Michael Gove wrote in November 2017, when he was Defra Secretary of State, accepting the fact that there is a gap, but I will refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to, which is the 30 out of 34 wins by the European Court of Justice on environmental issues. You have to ask yourself about this: it won on 30 out of 34 cases. That meant that the UK Government were refusing to do something that caused them to be taken to court. Both parties were involved, by the way. The UK Government did not want to do something—whether it was cleaning up the beaches, making water safer, it does not matter: they did not want to do it. But the European Court of Justice and the Commission took the case to the court, and the court decided, “Yes, you will”, in 30 cases out of 34. When I checked, the other four were undecided.
I know from my own experience inside the department that the threat of infraction meant that you got cracking, talked to the Treasury and said, “Look, we ought to do this. Can we have a few more quid or move some budgets around to satisfy this? Otherwise, we’ll be penalised with a bigger fine than what this will cost us.” That is what actually happened in some cases. I know from experience that this is the way that it works.
I also know, of course, that Defra loves control. In my first two years as a Minister, from 1997 to 1999, I was at MAFF. I was then at Defra from 2006 to 2008—the same department, basically. The point that I am making is that the culture was the same; it was about control. This probably would not happen, but it would be very interesting to have some interviews—exit interviews would be the wrong thing—with people who are no longer serving on some of the bodies, particularly Natural England and the Environment Agency, as to what happened. I know to my certain knowledge that Defra leant on Natural England.
When we were setting up the Food Standards Agency in 1998 and 1999—I might add that my noble friend Lord Whitty was wrong on this, as it is a non-ministerial department with a different structure from a non-departmental public body—I discovered, because of the capacity and willingness of Defra civil servants to adhere to the policy of the Government, that there was an attempt at the highest levels in Defra to convert that agency to an executive agency of MAFF. The department wanted to keep control, even with all the problems we had in setting up the agency. Despite the report from Philip James and the manifesto commitments, they still thought at the last minute that they could keep it as an executive agency. It would have been the ultimate control, if you like, of having an executive agency compared to a non-ministerial department.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak from these Benches in favour of the amendments in this group and to commend the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for their excellent and powerful introduction of them. If I may paraphrase Oscar Wilde, I say to the Minister that for the Government to provoke the crossness of one Cross-Bencher is in itself careless, but to provoke the crossness of two is surely dangerous, particularly if those Cross-Benchers are as reasonable and thoughtful as the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. It is not just the Cross-Benchers who are cross; noble Lords have heard from across the House a rejection of the approach that the Government have taken.
One of the reasons for the crossness is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and many others have said, we were promised a strong and independent office for environmental protection. The then Secretary for State for Defra, Michael Gove, said in a speech on 16 July 2019,
“we have to create … a new Office for Environmental Responsibility to hold government to account.”
He went on to say:
“There is obvious merit in their argument that any body which is designed to hold the Government to account is independent of ministerial interference.”
He promised:
“An Act that combines … comprehensive objectives with strong enforcement powers”,
but the OEP currently has no such independence. It has no strong enforcement powers; its members will be appointed, and its budget set, by the Government. It will be subject to the guidance from the Secretary of State on enforcement—the Secretary of State who should be subject to that enforcement—and its effectiveness will be undermined by the constraints placed on judicial enforcement.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said at Second Reading, the office for environmental protection
“has not only to be independent but to be seen to be independent. As currently set up, it is neither”.—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. 1206.]
That is why the amendments in his name and that of the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Young of Old Scone, are so important. As we have heard, Amendment 82 puts it beyond doubt that the OEP would be accountable to Parliament, rather than to the very Minister and Government who may be subject to its enforcement powers. It would do so by making it clear that the CEO is to be the commissioner of environmental protection.
Amendment 85, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Young of Old Scone, seeks to provide a greater degree of scrutiny and independent involvement in appointments to the OEP through the Defra committee and the Environmental Audit Committee. I may have misunderstood, but I did not see a conflict between the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, because my understanding is that hers relates specifically to non-executive members, whereas the noble Lord’s first amendment relates to the chief executive in the role of commissioner of environmental protection.
Amendment 91 would provide a means of securing financial independence for the OEP through a role for the Public Accounts Committee. We have heard how important that is. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, cited the experience of the Environment Agency and how significantly its budget has been cut; as a result, its enforcement powers in many regards have disappeared.
Together, these amendments seek to tackle many of the deficiencies in the Bill as it stands and which, at the moment, fatally undermine the independence of the OEP. I hope the Government will consider them carefully, but I fear that, at the moment, they simply do not understand the concept of independence. In Committee in the other place, Leo Docherty, who was then the assistant Government Whip speaking for the Government, had this to say:
“The operational independence of the OEP … should not impede the”
ability of the
“Secretary of State in exercising appropriate scrutiny and oversight of the OEP.”
But it is the OEP that should be exercising scrutiny and accountability over the Minister, so that in itself undermines the case. He went on to say:
“Requiring the Secretary of State to actively protect the OEP’s independence at all times would be incompatible with … ministerial accountability”.—[Official Report, Commons, Environment Bill Committee, 5/11/20; col. 316.]
I hope the Minister can explain those two rather extraordinary statements. If that is the Government’s position then it is quite clear that there is no independence for this office at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, impressed upon us the need for bold action rather than settling for politics as the art of the possible. To me, politics is the art of making possible what seems impossible. If this seems impossible in Committee, I hope that, by the time we get to Report, it will seem not only eminently possible but absolutely necessary.
I ask the Minister to put aside his ministerial brief and endorse independence of mind both for himself and for the OEP, possibly by backing these amendments, or another form of them if they need to be improved, but certainly by backing the principles behind them and by supporting the arguments that have been made by noble Lords with such cogency and passion.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have had an excellent debate. I feel as if I have had a master class from some very experienced practitioners on how government really works and what it is like to be on the inside of some of these decisions.
I shall speak to Amendment 85 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for setting out so comprehensively the case for enhancing the status and autonomy of the CEO of the OEP. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has said, those of us who know the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, know it is very unusual for him to be a cross Cross-Bencher, and it is a sign that we should sit up and take notice when he shows so much passion about the issue.
This is the beginning of a debate about the OEP’s lack of true independence which we will have in different forms over the next few groups of amendments. It has been hugely informative to have had insight from previous Ministers and chairs of NDPBs, who know how Ministers’ powers are really exercised behind the public face.
Our amendment is simple but important. It would amend Schedule 1, which sets out the detailed appointment arrangements for the OEP. I very much welcome the support for the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and other noble Lords. It would require the chair and other non-executive members of the OEP to be appointed by the Secretary of State only with the consent of the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. That would prevent in years to come the Secretary of State having complete control over non-executive appointments to the OEP. As Schedule 1 stands, there is a worrying cascade of power from the top. The Secretary of State appoints the chair, and then the Secretary of State and the chair appoint the remainder of the non-executives. So in a future scenario, the Secretary of State would only have to appoint a compliant chair to exert undue influence over all the other appointments to the board.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for this important debate. Before I get into the points raised, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and all members of the Constitution Committee for their recent report on the Bill’s measures. My officials and I will review their recommendations and will issue an official government response in due course.
In the coming days, we will debate the OEP in detail in numerous groupings, including those on guidance—an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—and on fines, which were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Whitty. We will also debate it in the group on finance and the group on enforcement, led by Amendment 104. All these issues will be covered in detail.
I will make one or two points on comparisons with the EU. The OEP will be able to liaise directly with the public body in question to investigate and resolve alleged breaches of environmental law. The EU cannot liaise directly with public bodies; only member state Governments can. It can take years for cases to reach resolution through the EU infractions system; our framework will resolve issues more quickly. The OEP can apply for a range of judicial review remedies, such as mandatory and quashing orders, subject to the safeguards we have already discussed. The Court of Justice of the European Union cannot issue these remedies to member states; the only mechanism available to it to ensure compliance with its judgments is the threat of fines several years later. We have the vastly stronger mechanism of mandatory court judgments.
The OEP is being established with a dedicated purpose to monitor the implementation of, and enforce compliance with, environmental law, holding public authorities to account. It is designed specifically for our domestic context, as a non-departmental public body, following the constitutional framework of other public bodies with a watchdog function over government, such as the Committee on Climate Change, which I think most noble Lords who have discussed it would agree has been enormously effective and actually lacks the kind of teeth that the OEP is being given.
Therefore, I reiterate our commitment to delivering an independent body to hold government and other bodies to account. As announced on 7 June, the first non-executive board members have been appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the chair designate, Dame Glenys Stacey, and they will soon be available to be involved in activities to support the OEP and any interim arrangements. Notwithstanding the warning that I received from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I thoroughly recommend looking at this list of appointees because noble Lords will see the depth of expertise that is already forming within the OEP. This demonstrates a commitment to ensuring that it will be a formidable independent organisation, with environmental protection at its heart.
Turning to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, the Bill grants the Secretary of State no power to interfere in the OEP’s decision-making on specific or individual cases. The Secretary of State cannot tell the OEP what to do in a way that undermines its discretion and obligation to reach its own decisions. There is of course plenty of room for legitimate debate around the measures that may or not be required to improve the OEP in various ways, but I think that even its sharpest critics would balk at the idea that it is merely another function of the Secretary of State, as one noble Lord put it. This is far removed from the reality, and I encourage noble Lords to really go through the detail of the Bill relating to the OEP. Nor can it reasonably be said that, as currently proposed and structured, it will be anything like judge and jury—a point made by my noble friend Lord Caithness said. Again, I encourage noble Lords to actually examine the Bill in relation to the formation of the OEP.
Turning to specific amendments, I begin with Amendment 85 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I reassure her that there is already a proper role for Parliament in the public appointments process for significant posts, which is to scrutinise the actions of Ministers in making appointments. She will know—as does my noble friend Lady McIntosh—that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee jointly carried out a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the OEP chair and confirmed her suitability for the role. We would of course similarly expect the Secretary of State to duly consider any recommendations made by the committees in relation to the appointment of future chairs.
The Government do not believe it necessary to prescribe a particular role for Parliament in scrutinising the appointments of other non-executive members. The OEP chair has been and will in future be consulted on this, as required by paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. Ultimately, Ministers are accountable and responsible to Parliament for public appointments and they should retain the ability to make the final choice. The amendment would reverse this and is unnecessary, given the important role that Parliament already plays.
I turn to the amendments of noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I assure him that the Government are committed to establishing the OEP as an independent body, and the provisions in the Bill allow us to do this. The OEP will be established as a non-departmental public body, and we believe that this is the best model to achieve a balance of independence, value for money and accountability. For example, the Climate Change Committee is also a non-departmental public body, as is the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but, in the case of the former, I do not believe that there is any requirement on the Secretary of State to have due regard for its independence.
The OEP will be governed by non-executive members, who will appoint the chief executive as per long-established practice. These members will go through the appropriate appointments process, which is regulated by Her Majesty’s Commissioner for Public Appointments.
My concern is that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, could create significant confusion regarding what is a well-established model, leading to a significant delay in getting the OEP up and running. For instance, the chief executive, if there were one, would be subject to a completely different appointment process from the rest of the board and, crucially, the chair, blurring accountability structures both within and outside the organisation.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on his Amendment 91, that several provisions in the Bill already ensure that the funding of the OEP is safeguarded. First, paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 states that the Secretary of State must provide such funding as is considered “reasonably sufficient”. This is a novel provision, intended to work in conjunction with the duty on the OEP to provide to Parliament an assessment of whether it received sufficient funding. Ministers will be held to account if it is deemed that the funding is not sufficient. The OEP may also submit to a Select Committee any evidence that it believes makes a case for additional funding.
The Government have committed to a ring-fenced multiannual funding envelope within the remits of the spending review, which will be regularly reviewed. For added transparency and to enable further parliamentary scrutiny, the OEP’s budget will be set out as a separate line in Defra’s supply estimate.
I hope that this is not outside protocol, but I will answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that I did not answer in the previous debate. He is right that proportionality is an element of the precautionary principle; nevertheless, it is important that proportionality be also applied across all of the five other wider principles in the Bill, not just the precautionary principle. I apologise for not having made that clearer earlier.
I hope that this extensive package reassures the noble Lord, and that he withdraws his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I get the impression from that short reply that the Minister does not understand the gravity of what was said around the Chamber. I understand that we are coming back to this issue and Clause 24 on another occasion, but in his description of the OEP’s relationship to the Secretary of State he asked Members to “examine the Bill”. I am looking at Clause 24, which says:
“The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in section 22(6) (OEP’s enforcement policy).”
If that were not bad enough, the next sentence is:
“The OEP must have regard to the guidance in … preparing its enforcement policy, and ... exercising its enforcement functions.”
That drives a coach and horses through what he has said.
I come back to his point about the Climate Change Committee. Whatever the arguments are about it—and we all believe it is a hugely fantastic organisation for this country—it does not have an enforcement role in terms of the Government; the OEP does, and that is the big difference. Perhaps he could give those items more attention.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for this question, which relates to ministerial interference in the OEP. Ministers cannot set its programme of activity or in any way improperly influence its decision-making. The Bill does not provide Ministers with powers of direction over the OEP; it requires the OEP to act objectively and impartially and to have regard to the need to act transparently. If it does not, it is breaking the law. The OEP will be free to consider and highlight any instances where is a suspicion of any kind of improper ministerial interference in its decisions.
I know that we will be coming to the issue of ministerial guidance—although I forget which group of amendments it is in—but I will say that the OEP is under no duty to follow guidance if it feels that the guidance is in any sense improper. Indeed, it would be illegal for a Minister to suggest guidance that undermines the independence of the OEP. As I say, we will be coming to this later on and I hope that I will able to address some of the noble Lord’s concerns more completely then.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate—this core debate as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, described it. Noble Lords from all sides of the Committee seem to support the principle of what our amendment proposes. It was not quite 25-0 as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, put it, but I think it was 13-0. This is clearly a matter of passion for a lot of people. I am sorry that we could hear the passion of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, because I know that she has had to go to the dentist, which is why she has excused herself. I am sure that we all wish her a very comfortable evening.
I am also quite glad that some noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Whitty, to be specific—spoke about the details contained in my amendments, and quite right too. As I explained, the words come directly from the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011. With the Bill Office, we decided not to change any of the words. I wish that we could have been discussing the technical detail of my amendment in the form of further amendments to my amendment—that would have been nice. If we did that, we would have got past the first hurdle of getting the principle of these amendments and gone on to, as it were, the Government’s playing field.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said in what I thought was a very powerful speech, we cannot replicate what we had in the EU. Maybe my amendments are not precisely what we need, but we do need a body that can hold the Government to account, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said and, in particular, hold the family of Defra to account. I note the Minister’s point about the speed of rectification under the OEP compared with the EU, but that is not what we are discussing; it is the OEP’s perceived and actual independence that is the crucial factor.
In answer to the Minister, we have examined the Bill and we have found it wanting in that respect. He spoke very fast and I have to say that I did not catch every point that he made. I will examine what he said in detail later, but there was nothing that, on the surface, I found very convincing. I still think that leaving the OEP within the control of Defra—the ultimate control, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, described it—is the equivalent of a batsman being in charge of their own LBW decision. There will be times when the decision is so obvious that, if they were not to walk, there would be riots in the stands. But there would be many more times when the batsman would stand obdurately at the crease because it suits the interests of their own team. I still believe that the OEP, like cricket umpires, should be independent. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we come now to the group beginning with Amendment 89. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 89
“(7) A person is to be considered unable or unfit to carry out the member’s functions under sub-paragraph (6) if the Secretary of State is satisfied as regards any of the following matters—(a) that he member has becomes insolvent;(b) that he member has been convicted of a criminal offence;(c) that the member is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member or is unsuitable to continue as a member.”Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is to define the meaning of “unable or unfit” in Schedule 1, sub-paragraph 5(6).
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to move Amendment 89 and speak to Amendment 90. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, for his support. I also thank the Law Society of Scotland for suggesting that this was worthy of probing by way of an amendment at this stage. It follows on from the little debate we have just had.
As my noble friend the Minister said in summing up the last group of amendments—and as Schedule 1 very clearly sets out—the appointment of a chief executive is to be by non-executive members of the OEP and the other executive members are to be appointed by the OEP. There are regrettably, and unusually, a couple of typos in the amendment on the Marshalled List. Clearly, it should not state that “he member” but “the member” has become insolvent or has been convicted of a criminal offence. I just mention that in the rare event that the Committee might want to adopt the two amendments, which—I hasten to add—I do not intend to press at this stage.
I have tabled these two amendments to introduce a definition for being unable or unfit to remain a member. This would give greater legal certainty as to the circumstances in which a person may be removed from office as a non-executive member of the OEP. As present, the Bill does not provide further detail as to the basis for determining whether a member is unable or unfit to carry out their functions. The amendment specifies that this would be the case when a member becomes insolvent or has been convicted of a criminal offence. The amendment is intended to bring greater specificity to the provisions of the Bill while still providing sufficiently wide scope to take account of other circumstances where the individual is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member or is unsuitable to continue as a member. I understand that there are similar appointee-removal processes in relation to other bodies, such as the Scottish Police Services Authority, set up under the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006, and the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, set up under the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007.
On Amendment 90, where prior notice should be given for the removal of such a person, it is intended that the Secretary of State would consult with the chair of the OEP in this regard. This would impose a duty, which I understand is currently not in the Bill, on the Secretary of State to consult with the chair of the OEP prior to giving notice to remove a non-executive member from office. The reason for this is that the consultation provides for an additional layer of scrutiny; the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult with the chair of the OEP will help to ensure openness and transparency regarding the Secretary of State’s actions.
Does any procedure exist that I am not currently aware of whereby such a person deemed unfit can be disqualified from holding office in these arrangements? What procedure is intended other than what I have set out in Amendments 89 and 90? With those few words, I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I had thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, intended to speak, but she is not in her place. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thought I understood the intention of my noble friend Lady McIntosh in these amendments and I tried hard to understand her explanation, but I am not certain that I fully understood and I too look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister will have to say.
Some discretion should be given to the Secretary of State, even in the case of a person who may have been insolvent or convicted of a criminal offence possibly decades ago. As noble Lords are aware, many of those who have been convicted of a criminal offence and punished for it have often gone on to make a positive contribution to society years later. It would set a bad precedent to legislate that they should be for ever denied opportunities for which they might otherwise be considered.
Regarding Amendment 90, I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which the Secretary of State would not consult with the chairman of the OEP prior to removing a non-executive member from the board. If the Secretary of State does not have the kind of relationship with the chairman where they are in regular contact on the operations of the OEP and the composition of the board, it would surely follow that either the chairman or the Secretary of State was in the wrong job. I do not think that such prescriptive details as my noble friend proposes should be included in the Bill.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, mine is a very brief point which goes in the opposite direction to the noble Viscount’s. On the previous amendment, we discussed the method of appointment of non-executive directors and the role of parliamentary committees. Surely, at least in respect of the final version, if the Secretary of State considers a non-executive director to be unfit there should at least be a consultation with the chairs of the parliamentary and Commons committees who were party to his or her original selection.
It seems lopsided that we have more or less agreed in principle for parliamentary engagement in the appointment, but that the Secretary of State could on the face of it, taking sub-paragraph (6)(c) as it stands, make a decision against a member of the OEP because they thought they were not doing the job properly. When we have parliamentary scrutiny, that judgment should at least be shared by the chair of the appropriate committee. That is my sole point on this group of amendments.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I was very happy to support and sign this amendment, which has been explained by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. It is a specific proposal and has been brought to our attention by the Law Society of Scotland as something it feels is consistent with similar circumstances in other public bodies, such as those she mentioned. Trying to define what makes a person unfit gives some clarity and specificity to such a situation, in contrast to a general catch-all that is left to some extent to the discretion of the Minister.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said that he thought a conviction was not necessarily appropriate as a disqualification. This is stretching a point, but it seems to me that the Secretary of State still has discretion and what the amendment seeks to do is to say that in normal circumstances, and probably in most circumstances, a conviction, whether it happens while the member is in office—especially if it happens in office—or prior and has not been disclosed, would be a valid reason to remove someone. Similarly, becoming insolvent while being a member of the board is another reason that is clear and understood.
The purpose of the amendment is to add some clarity, without in any way preventing the Secretary of State from arguing other reasons as to why a member has become unfit. It is not suggesting these are the only two definitions, but they are generally accepted as significant ones that have been identified in other bodies—particularly in Scotland, which is why the Law Society of Scotland has recommended it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, it is interesting to hear the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, introduce her amendments because at present the Bill does not give detail on what happens if a member becomes unfit, is found unsuitable or is simply not satisfactory as a member of the committee. It strikes me that we need proper clarity in this, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, said.
It was interesting to hear what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said about the amendment preventing anyone who had ever been found guilty of a criminal offence at any time in their life being on the committee. I agree that it is harsh but I am not sure, having looked at the amendments, if that is their intention. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, said, the Secretary of State would still have discretion over that. If that means that situation could be avoided, I see no issues with it, but I agree that we would not want to have a blanket ban on anyone who maybe had a small conviction many years ago when they were young but had been a perfectly good citizen since.
It is also interesting how this fits with the Government’s Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies, which clearly
“expects all holders of public office to work to the highest personal and professional standards.”
We know that there are clear codes of conduct set out for all members of such boards to adhere to. Section 5.8 of that code says:
“You must inform the sponsor department of the body of any bankruptcy, current police investigation, unspent criminal conviction or disqualification as a company director in advance of appointment, or should any such instances occur during your appointment.”
This completely ties in with what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, was saying: that the issue would be if you had not declared such a thing at the time of your appointment. On that basis, it would be helpful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this area because, now I have listened to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, I think that we need some clarity.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I hope I went some way at least towards reassuring noble Lords about the robust process for appointing the chair, board members and non-executive directors of the OEP earlier. I would like to provide additional assurance in relation to Amendments 89 and 90 from my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
We have carefully designed the OEP for it to effectively deliver its functions in England and over reserved matters. We have designed the appointment and removal processes of OEP members to retain the right balance between ministerial accountability and operational independence. Should it become apparent that a non-executive member of the OEP were unable or unfit to carry out their duties as a member of the OEP board, we would expect this important development to be a subject of significant discussion between the Secretary of State and the OEP chair. As such, it is not necessary to prescribe this on the face of the Bill.
Additionally, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, Schedule 1 already sets out the grounds for the removal of a non-executive board member in the unlikely event of them being unable or unfit to carry out their functions. Greater detail on these matters is better dealt with in the terms of appointment for individual non-executive members rather than on the face of the Bill. Should the Secretary of State act disproportionately in the termination of a non-executive member, they will be held to account and scrutinised by Parliament.
I hope that this reassures my noble friend, and I beg her to withdraw the amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to have this little debate and to all those who have contributed. Obviously, I am disappointed that I was not clear enough for my noble friend Lord Trenchard, but I am delighted that, in some way, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, addressed his concerns ably and effectively. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, put it very well by saying that there is a need for greater clarity, and it was a professional body—the Law Society of Scotland—that first proposed these amendments.
I take my noble friend’s point that this level of detail was perhaps never intended to be on the face of the Bill, but it would be interesting to know what sort of template there was and, for example, how “disproportionately” would be considered. Clearly, common sense will dictate what disqualifies one from office. Because of some historic misdemeanour that is not of any great consequence, it would be unfortunate to lose a person who would be a good member of the board.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise this, and I am grateful to my noble friend for putting my mind at rest in summing up. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we come now to the group beginning with Amendment 92. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 92
“(3) The OEP must as soon as practicable prepare a budget for the following five financial years, and then a budget every five financial years thereafter.(4) The OEP must—(a) arrange for the budget to be laid before Parliament, and(b) publish it.(5) The budget must—(a) include—(i) an estimate as respects resource requirements;(ii) the proposed amount of funding required; (b) be accompanied by information as to the OEP’s projected work plan for the next five financial years.(6) The OEP may revise the budget at any time (and sub-paragraph (4) applies to any revised budget).(7) Before preparing or revising the budget, the OEP must consult the Secretary of State and such persons as it considers appropriate.Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment has the effect of introducing a requirement for the OEP to prepare a five-year budget which is subject to consultation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful again to have the opportunity to press and probe my noble friend further on the matter of the OEP’s budget. I have followed his advice and read the relevant paragraphs in Schedule 1, which is the relevant schedule here. I would just like to make the case for why I believe that a requirement to prepare a five-year budget, which is subject to consultation and review, is needed.
We spoke earlier of what level of parliamentary scrutiny there would be, and it would be opportune, perhaps when there is an annual hearing of the two Select Committees—the Environmental Audit Committee and the EFRA Committee—to take evidence from the chairman of the OEP. But if there was a five-year rolling budget, there would be much more meat on the bones, and it would show what direction, focus and priorities the OEP was going to have.
The reason that this is such a key part of the Bill, and why I seek to probe through Amendment 92—which Amendment 93, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Young of Old Scone, is not dissimilar to—is that, if the OEP is going to do its job effectively, it needs to be properly funded to carry out its role. I remember the arguments that we put passionately and consistently through the course of the Trade Bill, as it then was, that the Trade and Agriculture Commission should have a proper budget, be properly resourced and have an office and staff independent of the department. Where the Bill says that
“The Secretary of State must pay to the OEP such sums as the Secretary of State considers are reasonably sufficient”,
each of us would have a view as to what “reasonably sufficient” might be.
On the need for a wider budget, I know that research grants—for example, in other aspects of agriculture—run for some three years, and after the end of the first and second years, the whole of the next year is spent wondering whether the same level of budget will be available. I believe that a five-year period is ideal, as it is neither too short nor too long. It will help to ensure that the resource requirements are adequately met with sufficient advance notice and that the proposed funding is clearly identified and published as we go through each five-year period. It can only help Defra when we come, such as in this year, to the strategic spending review, to know precisely what the commitments will be.
The purpose of Amendment 92 is to ensure that there will be a five-year budget that is subject to consultation, and it will go some way to ensuring that the OEP is sufficiently funded and resourced to carry out the work that we all hope it will do. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to be a co-signatory of Amendment 92, and I am pleased to support the case that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has just made. However, I can certainly also support the case for a provision for budget review, as incorporated into the otherwise similar Amendment 93. But that is the specific difference that I think adds something to what is proposed.
As the debate on the independence of the OEP progresses, its resources and budgetary process will be significant to both how independent and how effective it is going to be. These amendments are trying to probe, in some detail, what the budgetary process could and should be because, to be effective, the OEP needs the necessary resources to carry out functions and to respond to the dynamics of what is an inevitably changing situation with environmental issues. Members have been talking about us legislating for 40, 50 or 60 years ahead, yet the dynamic of rapid change on the environment means that we need to be rapid in our responses, and the mechanism needs to be able to adopt that.
It is also important to reinforce the fact that the OEP’s job is to support Parliament and, though it is based in Defra, to be as independent as possible. So, again, these amendments are designed to try and ensure that it is able to do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, it takes over EU responsibilities in this respect but, obviously, not in a way that was possible when we were in the EU, because its impact is entirely domestic. It is clearly distinct from the Environment Agency, but there is likely to be an interaction between the two organisations. Again, it is important that both sides are aware of the resources, the budgets and the responsibilities that they have.
These amendments set out the framework, and it would be helpful if the Minister could give some indication of what the Government believe the budget is likely to be and what staffing and resources are envisaged for the OEP. The interim board is up and running so, presumably, some serious discussions and proposals are emerging at this stage. It is proposed in these amendments that there should be a five-year budget that addresses the resource requirements and the funding and also sets out a work plan for that five-year period so that both Parliament and those who will be impacted by the work will be aware of how the OEP is going about its business and how effective its reach is likely to be.
There is absolutely a sensible reason why there should be reviews as necessary, but there should be at least one review during a five-year period. Five years is a long time when we are facing the environmental changes that are bearing down on us.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, very briefly, the Bill does not require the Secretary of State to pay. Subsection (1) requires him to pay what he thinks is reasonable, which is not altered by this. I see the benefit of a five-year budget, but the key point is to have it published. That way, the Select Committees and the National Audit Office can check on performance. Looking at proposed new subsection (5) and its detail about the work pattern, if they do not deliver an effective framework that is economic, they will be called to account by the Public Accounts Committee. The NAO needs to know what their plan for the budget was to start with.
So the key issue in this amendment is for the budget to be laid before Parliament and published. Publishing the budget is unusual for non-departmental public bodies. Non-ministerial departments are different, because their budget is separated out, and outsiders can check whether the funds are being cut. It is not always possible to do that with executive bodies and non-departmental public bodies. Publishing it means that the NAO and the Select Committees in the other place can check whether or not the Secretary of State paid them what they thought was necessary to do the work they planned to do. If the work is not done, someone needs to find out why; it is much easier to do that if you had a published budget to start with.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, in speaking briefly in support of this group of amendments, I refer back to the budget of Natural England. I seek absolute assurance from the Minister that the OEP will not suffer the same fate as Natural England has.
Between 2010 and 2020, Natural England’s budget was cut by almost two-thirds. In a letter to the chair of the Environmental Audit Committee in another place, dated 2 November 2020, the chair of Natural England, Tony Juniper, wrote:
“Natural England’s current funding is below the level required to deliver all of our statutory duties to a good standard. That in itself presents several key risks including increased legal challenge, lost opportunities for environmental enhancement and the wider effect that presents on wellbeing.”
He went on to list the areas of work that had been curtailed or reduced as a result of the funding cuts. These included land use planning, species recovery, wildlife licensing, national nature reserves, SSSIs, landscapes, agri-environment, evidence gathering and partnership funding, for instance for community-based initiatives with parish councils.
The Secretary of State acknowledged to the Environmental Audit Committee that the cuts had been severe and, in May this year, Natural England had an increase of 47% in its budget. In spite of this increase, Natural England’s budget for 2020-21 of £198 million is still below the £265 million it received in 2008-09. In going into this example in some detail, my point is that we certainly do not want to find the OEP, in five or 10 years’ time, in the same state as Natural England has found itself, with the consequent damage to our environment.
To repeat what I started with, I very much hope, therefore, that the Minister will confirm that the OEP, with a long-term settlement, will have sufficient resources to carry out its job; and, importantly, that when there are cuts to government expenditure across the board, which there will no doubt have to be to pay the huge bill that we have racked up as a result of the Covid pandemic, the OEP will be one of the protected areas and will not just take a salami slice along with everybody else.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, after my remarks a moment ago on the independence of the OEP, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I strongly support the principle that the OEP should have as much financial independence as possible and that I therefore support these amendments.
Funding is vital. I note that the correspondence from Natural England that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, just read out could equally be replicated in correspondence from, I suspect, the Environment Agency to Defra, because the same incredible cut—up to 70%, I believe—has happened to the Environment Agency. So funding is absolutely vital for the proper operation of all these NDPBs. In my view, the OEP’s budget should not be at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Defra.
I believe that the public at large will take a great deal of interest in the work of the OEP—if not, they certainly should do—so anything that makes the OEP’s finances more transparent to the public, more long-term and more the business of Parliament rather than at the whim of the department gets my approval.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.
I support the amendments in this group. It is worthy of note that the Government have agreed that,
“to ensure its financial independence, the OEP will be provided with a five year indicative budget which is formally ring fenced by HM Treasury within any given Spending Review period.”
However, it needs to be much more concrete than that.
This is comparable with how some other bodies are given long-term financial certainty; for example, the Treasury has made a similar commitment for the OBR. In its letter to the OBR setting out a multiannual funding commitment, the Treasury noted that this approach
“supports the OBR’s independence and ability to manage its resources effectively in the medium term. This approach for independent fiscal institutions is consistent with international best practice, strengthening institutional independence through delegated budgetary autonomy.”
The Government have said that they will make this commitment on the OEP in Parliament; I would like to see the Minister make it to your Lordships’ House today in his response to this group of amendments.
It would also be helpful if the Minister could clarify that the Government’s position remains as set out in their response to the EFRA Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny, which stated:
“In order to ensure its financial independence, the OEP will be provided with a five year indicative budget which is formally ring fenced by HM Treasury within any given Spending Review period.”
This was repeated in the Government’s Environmental Governance Factsheet, which was published in March 2020. However, since that time, the Government appear to have wavered on the commitment for the long-term budget to be for five years, leaving such matters to political rather than legislative commitments.
As per Amendment 93, I urge the Minister to confirm that the Government remain committed to providing the OEP with a five-year indicative budget. That must be enshrined in legislation. In such circumstances, I support Amendments 93 and 92, which would require the OEP to prepare a five-year indicative budget that would be subject to public consultation, and allow it to request in-budget increases.
If the OEP is to work strategically, it will require financial security enshrined in legislation. A binding commitment to provide a multi-annual budget would help to avoid the slow but significant funding decline that many of Defra’s arm’s-length bodies have suffered over recent years and provide certainty of ongoing funding levels.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support both amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has indicated that hers is a probing amendment. We support the need for a clear statement of the financial independence of the OEP because, by that means, we can be clear that it has sufficient funds for its function.
I very much support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about the need for its budgeting to be published. Parliamentarians have often had to rely on other opportunities, such as that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, when the chair of Natural England made public comments at a Select Committee down the other end, or charities getting information by FoI about the funding shortfalls of the Environment Agency. That should not be the way we have to find out about the budgets of these important bodies. That information should be available to parliamentarians; it should be published and we should all be able to see it clearly.
I echo my colleague, my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie. In his remarks at the end, I hope the Minister will say more about the current budget for the OEP. I know it is in its interim phase, and I understand that its first board meeting will be this week. It has been suggested that, in its initial year, staffing levels will be around 25 members. Clearly, that will not be its final staff resource level, but if the Minister could indicate the scale of OEP staffing next year, that would give us a clearer idea of the capacity of this critical body to deliver the functions we all need. I hope he will say a few words about scaling up the budget of the body for next year.
In closing, I agree with other Members on the principle that a five-year budget associated with a work plan be published and put in the Bill.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and Amendment 93 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Both are similar in nature and one could assume that we, on the Labour Benches, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, have been sharing our homework. I thank the noble Baroness for moving her amendment so eloquently and reiterate the case she made for the OEP to have flexibility and longevity when setting budgets.
In June 2018, the Government recognised the value of multi-annual budgets. In announcing a five-year settlement for the NHS, the Government emphasised that this long-term funding commitment means the NHS has the financial security to develop a 10-year plan. If the OEP is to work strategically, it too will require a similar level of security. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, made the same point, looking at comparable bodies and the way they have operated in taking a long-term approach.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I very much hope so. I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for tabling Amendments 92 and 93. I agree, of course, that it is important for the OEP to have certainty regarding its level of funding on a multi-annual basis That is why the Government have committed to providing a multi-annual indicative budget for the OEP, ring-fenced within each spending review period. For transparency, the OEP’s budget will also be given a separate line in Defra’s supply estimate, which will be laid before Parliament to allow for parliamentary scrutiny. This is, nevertheless, an administrative matter, so it is not appropriate to put it on the face of the Bill.
There is also a need to retain flexibility, both initially in light of delays to the Bill due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and should the process for allocating public body budgets ever be reformed at a future date. It is worth pointing out that other bodies with multi-annual funding commitments—the Office for Budget Responsibility, for example—do not have this set out in legislation. The Bill does provide several safeguards on OEP funding. These include a duty on the Secretary of State to fund the OEP sufficiently; in conjunction, the OEP will provide an annual assessment to Parliament of whether it has received sufficient funding. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the OEP has been given £8 million for its interim stage for this business year.
I hope that this reassures noble Lords and ask them to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to all who have spoken, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, for lending his support in co-signing the amendment.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker; if you look at paragraph 12 of Schedule 1, it really is not very forthcoming. It just talks about paying
“such sums as the Secretary of State considers … reasonably sufficient to enable the OEP to carry out its functions”,
and then talks of
“subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may determine”
if there is further assistance by way of grants or loans. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Khan, that both amendments deal with a potential revision; I think the difference in Amendment 93 is if any additional funds are required. To a certain extent, I think that is already addressed in the schedule.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, is right that we need to equip the OEP to be in a position to respond rapidly to what we are asking it to do. I am not in a position to say whether £8 million seems low. It does not seem particularly high for its first year, but it depends on whether it is for half a year, assuming that the organisation really only comes into swing properly on 1 July, this week. Perhaps my noble friend could confirm whether it is six, nine or 12 months—I think we are going to have a penalty fine for anybody whose mobile phone goes off in the Chamber, as that one has just done.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, is absolutely right. I am grateful that my noble friend confirmed that it is an indicative budget, but we do need greater clarity to enable the OEP to do its work, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, gave about how out of kilter the Natural England budget is. Obviously, that has not been a blow to Tony Juniper in making these points, because he has gone from strength to strength. I do not think people should be shy of criticising the funding—not the Government themselves—where that is due.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said, both in this debate and the previous one, that it is not just the OEP and Natural England that are being kept short of funds. What worries me very much is the fact that the Environment Agency is on the record as saying that it does not have sufficient funds to inspect the rivers. If we are not inspecting the rivers, how is the OEP going to impose the penalties that we wish it to?
I believe this has been a very useful debate. We might want to consider how to address this, if it is necessary, going forward. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We come now to the group beginning with Amendment 94. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 94
Lord Krebs
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes the independence of the OEP an absolute requirement.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will move Amendment 94 on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who will speak later in the group. I will speak also to Amendments 98 and 99, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and myself; Amendment 100, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson; and Clause 24 stand part, in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Parminter.
All these amendments concern the independence of the OEP, a topic we have already debated at some length, in particular in relation to the group beginning with Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Amendment 94 in this group would make the independence of the OEP an absolute requirement, rather than something that the Secretary of State merely has to “have regard to”. Amendment 98 would remove the requirement for the OEP to have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, and Amendment 99 would require the OEP to explain why it did not follow the guidance. Amendment 100 and the opposition to Clause 24 standing part both aim, in different ways, to ensure that the OEP is as fully independent as possible, exactly in the spirit of the group beginning with Amendment 82.
I will focus on the contention that Clause 24 should not stand part, which is at the heart of many of the concerns expressed in these amendments. In some ways, Amendments 94, 98 and 99 could be seen as important sticking plaster, but a more comprehensive way of dealing with the concerns expressed in these amendments would be to remove Clause 24 altogether. Clause 24 empowers the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the office for environmental protection on its enforcement policy, including how it should determine whether a failure to comply with the law is serious. However, the clause does not define what constitutes serious, nor the areas in which the Secretary of State should not give guidance to the OEP. It does not say whether the Secretary of State should issue guidance on a specific case, for instance the development of a new nuclear power station, or on general principles, such as the transparent use of evidence, and it does not say when and how often the Secretary of State may issue guidance. Therefore, it is hard to judge how wide-ranging the guidance will be, how often it will be given and whether it will be used to constrain the independence of the OEP.
After Second Reading, the letter from the Minister attempted to reassure us that the guidance powers would not compromise the independence of the OEP, and I thought I heard him say earlier this afternoon—but I may be wrong—that there would be no need for the OEP to follow the guidance. In that case, how do the Government justify the inclusion of Clause 24 at all? Well, according to the Secretary of State in a recent radio interview, it is to avoid the OEP becoming an “unaccountable regulator” or “making it up as it goes along”. If this is the case, it suggests to me a lack of trust in the OEP chair and board, as well as a wish to control the way it operates.
The Government may well argue that this is a fairly standard clause, and although it is true that similar powers to issue guidance do exist for some public bodies, including Natural England and the Climate Change Committee, there is a crucial difference between these bodies and the office for environmental protection—because, as we have heard many times today, the OEP has responsibility for enforcing potential breaches of the law by public bodies, including Ministers, which most other non-departmental public bodies do not have.
A better comparison might be with the Information Commissioner's Office, which is not subject to similar guidance in its enforcement function. Another comparison is the Food Standards Agency, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, explained, is a non-ministerial government department accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. By coincidence, Section 24—the same number—of the Food Standards Act 1999 covers the situation in which the FSA is deemed to have gone off the rails. It allows the Secretary of State to intervene only if the Food Standards Agency has seriously failed to fulfil its duties or international obligations. The Secretary of State may then give direction for remedying the failure. Otherwise, the Food Standards Agency is not subject to ministerial guidance.
As noble Lords will be aware, I was the first chair of the Food Standards Agency, and in a later period the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was also chair. During my five and a half years Health Ministers considered invoking Section 24 on one occasion: when the manufacturers of natural sausage casings made from sheep’s intestines claimed incorrectly that we had not given them the statutory notice period before introducing a ban on their use because of the potential risk that they might contain the infected agent that causes BSE. So, in five and a half years, there was one use of it, which was very rapidly resolved, and the Secretary of State did not need to issue any instruction.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, continuing the theme of great minds thinking alike, apparently the requests for a clause stand part debate landed at exactly the same moment and there was the equivalent of tossing a coin to see whose name would appear. I am delighted to support the clause stand part debate and to go a little further in my Amendment 100.
My question to my noble friend at the outset is this: does he not accept that, for the OEP to do all that I am sure he, the Government and all of us would wish it to do, it must be seen to be independent, not just of the Government but of other organisations, such as Natural England and, to a certain extent, the Environment Agency? I am still not entirely clear what the relationship of the OEP and the Environment Agency and these other bodies will be. The question I keep asking, to which I hope one day to get an answer, is this: to who would a farmer, whether a landowner, a tenant or an owner-occupier, go to seek advice? Would it be Natural England, the Environment Agency or the OEP? That is not entirely clear.
I could never be cross with my noble friend, so I would not like to be described as a cross Back-Bencher, but I find it inappropriate that Clause 24 appears in the terms that it does. It is discretionary. It simply states that:
“The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in section 22(6) (OEP’s enforcement policy).”
It then goes on:
“The OEP must have regard to the guidance in … preparing its enforcement policy, and … exercising its enforcement functions.”
This reverts to the point I made earlier, when I set out my concern that it might be the case that a Secretary of State—or, heaven forfend, a junior Minister—might lean on members of the OEP to ensure that a particular enforcement does not go ahead. That would be utterly inappropriate. It then goes on to say that
“The Secretary of State may revise the guidance at any time”
but
“must lay before Parliament, and publish, the guidance (and any revised guidance).”
I am not quite sure which body would be scrutinising that in that situation. Later, it sets out the OEP’s enforcement functions.
At this point, I just say that I do not believe there is a place for Clause 24 in the Bill, and I look forward to some very strong justification or proposed changes that my noble friend might make when he sums up this little debate.
Just before I address my Amendment 100, I want to support the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. They also go to the heart of parliamentary scrutiny, which we discussed a little earlier. I endorse those amendments; they are entirely appropriate.
Amendment 100 would go a little further than just leaving out Clause 24 and would insert a new clause specifically stating that
“In performing its functions, the OEP is not subject to the direction or control of the Secretary of State or any member of Her Majesty’s Government.”
I cannot put it in any stronger terms than that it would be entirely inappropriate for that to happen. This debate is a good opportunity to cast beyond doubt the independence of the OEP, not just, as I said, from government but in its dealing with other bodies which have a role to play in the environment. We want to give it the greatest authority we possibly can. I would argue that we leave out Clause 24 but insert my wording in Amendment 100.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I support the amendments in this group and wish to speak in particular to the amendments in my name: Amendments 117 and 118, relating to Northern Ireland.
Schedule 3 makes provision for the functions of the office of environmental protection in its activities in Northern Ireland. Along with many organisations, including Greener UK, I support the inclusion of Northern Ireland within the remit of the office of environmental protection. These provisions are broadly parallel to those in Part 1 and Schedule 1 that relate to England. I raised this specific point during Second Reading, some three weeks ago.
Extensive regulatory dysfunction and unacceptable levels of disregard for environmental law have resulted in substantial degradation of the environment in Northern Ireland, with significant economic and social costs. The independence of the OEP in Northern Ireland is therefore vital. The lack of an independent environmental regulator, despite the fact that it was first recommended in 1992 by a House of Commons Environment Select Committee report—nothing has ever happened in that regard—has meant historically weak environmental governance, which means that the OEP must have a cast-iron constitution and culture of independence from the outset. The need for independent oversight is exemplified in the case of designated sites, such as protected sites. In some cases, it is quite dismal in our areas of special scientific interest and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
In this context I have a concern about a broad power for DAERA, the department in Northern Ireland, to issue guidance to the OEP that it must have regard to when preparing its enforcement policy or exercising its enforcement functions in Northern Ireland. This will affect the OEP’s ability to perform its role independently and does not take sufficient account of the particular political circumstances and context of Northern Ireland, including the mandatory power-sharing nature of the Northern Ireland Executive—hence Amendment 117.
There is concern about the timetable for appointing the Northern Ireland member of the OEP board. There must be no further delay in appointing that member, and the appointment process should be progressed as quickly as possible. I hope the Minister will pursue that with his equivalent colleague in the Northern Ireland Executive.
Those problems concerning the guidance power for DAERA should be removed from the Bill, and Amendment 117 would do that. There are three particular areas of concern. In line with the Ministerial Code, cross-cutting and controversial matters must be brought to the Northern Ireland Executive—and guidance from the DAERA Minister to the OEP on its enforcement policy and functions would qualify as both cross-cutting and controversial. Therefore, what is the procedure for bringing this guidance to the Executive before it is issued by DAERA? As a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, about 13 years ago, I knew what that meant, but I just want to clarify that.
Secondly, ministerial appointments in Northern Ireland are managed through the d’Hondt system, under which the largest parties are allocated multiple departments. What mechanisms will be put in place to minimise the risk that a current or future DAERA Minister could use the guidance power to advise the OEP in relation to enforcement or potential non-compliance on environmental law relating to either a department of a similar affiliation or one allocated to an opposing party? Given its wide scope and the lack of transparency in how it will be prepared, the guidance could in theory be used for political benefit—a risk that does not appear to be considered by Defra or DAERA in designing this power.
As a public authority, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency will fall within the remit of the OEP. If DAERA exercised its power to issue guidance in relation to enforcement matters involving the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, that would further cloud Northern Ireland’s already difficult environmental governance and could result in blurred areas of accountability.
Amendment 118 would require the appointment of the Northern Ireland board to be made with the consent of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly. To engender the greatest level of stakeholder trust and buy-in to the OEP, Northern Ireland must be—and must be perceived to be—embedded within it from the start. The appointment of a dedicated Northern Ireland board member will help ensure that Northern Ireland’s nuances, including geopolitical, biogeographic and societal, are properly accounted for in the OEP’s policies and activities. It will also establish trust and credibility.
In this context, can the Minister ask DAERA to clarify the timescale for the appointment process? I note that the first interim board meeting of the OEP is expected to be held this Thursday, 1 July.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and to hear from her about the situation in Northern Ireland, with its beauty and diversity of flora and fauna. These amendments relate to the issue of the independence of the office for environmental protection, which was much debated at Second Reading. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and, like him, I hope the Minister can reassure us.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. We often agree but on this occasion I have to say that we do not. I shall speak briefly because the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, introduced so eloquently the amendment to which I put my name, concerning Clause 24 stand part. It would remove this clause, which would give the Secretary of State the right to give guidance to the OEP that it must have regard to in preparing its enforcement policy.
I do not want to repeat points that have already been made, so I shall merely congratulate the Select Committee on the Constitution, which is very ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and refer to two points that it made. The committee said that:
“Guidance is a poor substitute for clear rules”,
and it is correct in saying so. That goes very much to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs: when it is guidance, it is hard for us to judge how wide-ranging or how constricting it will be to the independence of the OEP, but it could be very wide-ranging and that is one of the reasons why I am concerned.
The Constitution Committee also said:
“The power to issue guidance on the OEP’s enforcement powers could call into question how independent it will be.”
For me, that is the nub of the issue: it is about the public perception of how independent this new watchdog will be. At a time when there is increasing concern about public confidence in public institutions and indeed in politicians, we need to ensure that this new body is seen to be not just as independent as we would wish it to be but as independent as it needs to be.
It is not acceptable for the Minister to say, “Oh, we’d only use this guidance as a last resort”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, we have a very independent-minded interim chair of the OEP at the moment; however, that may not be the case in future. Irrespective of that, we need to be clear that it has to be set down in statute that this is an independent body with the power to set its own enforcement policy. I am afraid that any indication that the Government can somehow meddle by looking into matters in other bodies within the Defra family just does not cut the mustard. I therefore feel very strongly that Clause 24 needs to be removed.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, the Minister would be well advised to pay attention to what the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, said. The Northern Ireland situation is not a coalition; it is a power-sharing Executive. The parties carve up the ministries. I had one year as a Minister when there was direct rule. I had planning and the environment among other responsibilities and duties. I discovered that most of the political parties there do not believe in planning. They would like a bungalow in every field. That is the situation: if you fly over Northern Ireland, have a look at it. Imagine a bungalow in every field, with the waste and everything else. “If you own land, you can do what you want with it”: that is what I was told. So it is a really sensitive issue to get the wrong person at the wrong time. It would be terrible to meet without someone representing Northern Ireland, but we should be aware of the way the d’Hondt system allows the parties to control the ministries.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I heard the Minister say that there is no requirement to follow the guidance. I wrote it down at the time. That is interesting. I would love to be a fly on the wall the day the department’s lawyer goes to see the Minister and says, “Well, Minister, it only says you ‘must have regard’. You want to do this, that and the other and do your own thing, but it actually says you ‘must have regard’. Here’s all the reasons why you have to have regard to what the Secretary of State says.” Before you know it, there will be a threat of malfeasance on the office, because it has gone against having regard to a sufficient extent of what the Minister said.
How do you measure “have regard”? I realise that I will be followed by lawyers; I am not a lawyer, but I have been there when the lawyers have come in and said, “You can’t do this because you’ve got to take account of this, that and the other.” That is the pattern: it is the way advice to Ministers from the department’s lawyers works. I am not criticising or complaining about it; I am just saying that that is the way it works. So, if it is not clear in the legislation to start with, we are building up trouble. There are therefore good grounds for taking Clause 24 out of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, reminded me that in February 2017 I too had the privilege of being on the EU sub-committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, when we arrived at this. I remember doing fringe meetings at the Labour Party conference the year before when the sector was waking up to the fact of the governance gap. As I said at Second Reading—I will not read it all out—Michael Gove had woken up to it by 13 November 2017, when he said that there has to be mechanism to replace what we are losing because of Brexit. He went on to say we would have
“a new, world-leading body to … hold the powerful to account. It will be independent of government, able to speak its mind freely.”
That was not a speech; that was a published article, authored on GOV.UK.
My final point is this. I know that it is easy and people will say that we have unaccountable agencies and this, that and the other, but sometimes they are a comfort blanket to Ministers. Situations arise in society where the public do not believe what they are told by Ministers. Going back to the time before I entered government, that was the situation regarding food safety: a collapse in confidence in what people were told by Ministers. That is one of the reasons a semi-independent body was set up, so that Ministers do not have to go on telly and say, “The food’s safe—please eat it”. People did not believe them. The technical people, the scientists and those who are qualified to have a view go on when there is such a situation—the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is aware of that, having set up the agency.
I was originally partly responsible for some of the legislation that set it up; I certainly never forecast that I would be the chair. However, the fact is that these bodies are useful in certain circumstances because the public have a trust in them. It is important that the public have that trust; I will not start to imagine what kind of environmental problems there would be where there is public uproar and where Ministers find it very useful to have an expert body that is able to speak to the public and engender their confidence. Believe you me, I am giving this away for free. It can be a bonus for Ministers, and they ought to wake up to that fact.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 100, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh; Amendment 117, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick; and the stand part debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Krebs, which would restore the position as it was when the Bill entered the Commons, with Clause 24 not standing part.
The conflict of interest which I shall suggest is presented by Clause 24 arises in the specific context of the OEP’s enforcement functions in Clauses 31 to 40, on which I have a number of amendments and on which I will focus now. Each of those functions, from starting an investigation, to issuing information notices and decision notices, to applying to the courts for environmental or judicial review, depends on an assessment by the OEP that a failure to comply with environmental law is serious, and, in the case of an application for judicial review, that it must be necessary to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or to human health.
While those assessments may be for the OEP, Clause 24, read with Clause 22(6), allows Defra to frame the processes by which the OEP assesses the seriousness of environmental damage, the seriousness of damage to human health and the seriousness of law breaking for which Defra and other public authorities are responsible. As if those instruments were not blunt enough, Defra is given a further power to guide the OEP on how it prioritises cases. This guidance will presumably be additional to and more prescriptive than the guidance that we are asked to endorse in Clause 22(7). To the response that ministerial guidance will not impinge on the independence of the OEP, I would say: what is the point of guidance, if not influence? Why should the OEP not be trusted to work out its own priorities? And why should Defra have influence over the preparation of enforcement policy and the “exercise of enforcement functions”, to quote the Bill, that are specifically designed to be used against it?
As a former independent reviewer, although in a small way and in a very different field, I have reflected quite a bit on the risk of regulatory capture. This is usually thought of as a subtle and insidious process. It does not require the express approval of the legislature: the fertile soil of insufficient institutional independence, on which your Lordships have heard so much already, may be all that is needed for regulatory capture to germinate and to take hold. That is why Clause 24 is so unusual in the context of a body charged with enforcement. It actually signals regulatory capture on the face of the Bill.
The compromise Amendments 98 and 99—sticking plasters, as my noble friend Lord Krebs described them—would reduce the strength of that signal but would still leave the guidance power in place against a background of less than total institutional independence. For that reason, and with respect to those who put them forward, my enthusiasm for these compromises is limited. The Government’s first thoughts were best: the Bill is better without Clause 24.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We appear not to have the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support the messages being delivered in this group of amendments. Above all, I support the stand part question opposing Clause 24, to which I would have added my name if there had been room. I strongly support the powerful speeches given on it by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and—as ever—the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, with his great experience on this matter.
My basic position is that I would support any amendment which reduced the influence of Defra and its Secretary of State on the workings of the OEP. I know that sounds harsh, and I repeat my point that this does not denote any mistrust of the current officials in Defra, and certainly not its Secretary of State or Ministers. However, we have to ensure that the workings of the OEP over decades to come, as stressed by many, are completely independent of the bodies on which it is supposed to keep a watchful eye. That definitely includes Defra and its wider family. It must be independent and be seen to be independent, so the idea that the Secretary of State of Defra should be giving guidance to the OEP on how it exercises its enforcement policies must be wrong. I have yet to meet anyone who, in their heart of hearts, does not agree with that statement, with the perhaps unique exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who gave the impression of not having listened very closely to the previous debates.
Our whole constitution is based on checks and balances, yet what we have here is the equivalent of the potential accused being able to influence the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service. This must be very wrong. It would be a travesty of proper governance if Clause 24 were to remain in the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Thank you, Deputy Chairman. My Lords, I offer support for all these amendments, but particularly on whether Clause 24 should stand part. Opposing it is the obvious way forward here. I want to pick up on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who was not entirely consistent in suggesting that we should not worry about how the Bill was structured because there is a strong person as the first head of the OEP, Dame Glenys Stacey. However, then she said, “But we don’t want it too independent because then it might get too strong and dynamic, and take too much control”. That really highlighted the issue.
Many people are saying “Isn’t it great that we have that person as the first chair of the OEP?”, but structures should not depend on individuals. Those individuals change; they go to different places as roles change over time. Often when we talk about what is in the Bill the Government tell us, “Trust us, we don’t have any ill intentions”, but the point is not who the current Minister is or what the Government of the moment’s intentions are. We are setting up something new and important here, which is likely to continue for decades. We are talking here about the environmental review process and the OEP being able to state what the remedies for that are. There has been a lot of talk about carrots and sticks, and soft and hard powers. These things are really quite subtle and need to be used with great independence to have real force over long periods.
We have heard a lot of comparisons with other government bodies, such as the National Audit Office, the Electoral Commission and the Office for Budget Responsibility, all of which have stronger levels of independence. They have real independence from Ministers and departmental structures. It is quite telling that two of them are financial structures. When we talk about spending money, we have to have some independent oversight of that; but when we talk about the environment, somehow it is good enough to leave it with Ministers and the Government. It is a question of what we regard as important and what we really value and guard. That is what we are looking for.
I think it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who quoted the Secretary of State as saying, “If we do not have these controls, there is a risk of making it up as it goes along.” Surely that is the point. The OEP needs to create new structures, not to be directed by the Minister in those structures.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry, speaking just before the break, asked a very important question: what is the point of having guidance if there is no impact? We are being told that the Minister can provide some advice, some offering, but if that is not going to have an impact, why does it need to be in the Bill and why does it need to be given? We think about spending government money very carefully with real independent oversight. When we are looking after our environment, our natural world, and tackling the climate emergency, we need that same kind of independent oversight.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I cannot help feeling that there is an air of unreality about this debate. Everyone on all sides agrees about the need to preserve the independence of the OEP. The Government’s position is set out quite clearly in paragraph 17 of Schedule 1, to which I referred earlier today. The phrase is “must have regard:
“the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect its independence.”
As my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich said, there is much to be said for the view that it is no business of the Secretary of State to give guidance on these matters and that Clause 24 should not be there so that the OEP can make up its own mind about the policies it needs to follow. Much depends on the meaning and choice of words, so let us reflect for a moment on that.
Is it really being suggested, as I think someone mentioned earlier, that Clause 24 can live with paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 because there is no requirement to follow the guidance that has been talked about in Clause 24? Do the words of Clause 24 really have that meaning? Does the phrase “must have regard” change its meaning according to the context in which those words are found? As I have mentioned, paragraph 17 contains the same formula. Are we really to read it as imposing no requirement to have regard to protect the independence of the OEP? That would be an astonishing position to take and I am sure the Minister will not be taking it, but if it means what it appears to mean, the word “must” imposing an obligation that must be fulfilled, why not so in Clause 24?
I hope that the Minister was listening very carefully to what I said in the debate about Section 14(2) of the Scottish continuity Act. It is difficult for me, far away, looking through a lens, as I am, to observe closely what the Minister is doing to know whether he really was listening very carefully. I very much hope he was, and his closing words suggest that he was, and I am glad of that. He will have noticed that the reason why I was supporting him was because of the meaning that I gave to the phrase
“Ministers of the Crown must … have due regard”
in Section 14 of the Scottish Act to Scottish environmental policies. I made it clear in my remarks that it was because I read those words as giving a direction to UK Ministers, imposing an obligation on them, that I felt that Amendment 80 had to be supported because it was correcting a mistake in the Scottish legislation. If I had been told that there was no requirement on UK Ministers to follow these policies, the position would have been quite different. One cannot pick and choose. The words in each context are perfectly clear and they must have the same meaning.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that, as worded, Clause 24 “drives a coach and horses” through paragraph 17. I must confess that, taking the words according to their ordinary meaning, that seems to be absolutely right. So I agree with my noble friend Lord Anderson that the Bill would be much better without Clause 24, but, if it is to remain, its wording must surely be adjusted so as to preserve the independence of the OEP, which the Secretary of State is, I suggest, under an obligation—in terms of paragraph 17—to do.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have not taken part directly in these important debates around the OEP, mainly because of the fear of repetition. There are many noble Lords far wiser and more eloquent than me to discuss this. However, I share many of the concerns that we have heard around the funding and, as we are now discussing, the independence of the OEP. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take on board the serious concerns of many around the Committee, including myself. I hope that he and his officials will consult with noble Lords before coming back with the Bill on Report. If he does not, he may find himself in rather more difficulties than I would like. There are lingering doubts about this.
There have been some very wise words. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said that it was important for the OEP to be seen to be independent. The problem is that there is distrust on both sides. The Government’s position will be that they are distrustful, fearing that a strongly independent OEP will run riot and cause many problems—although we would probably argue that, if that is what is necessary, that is what will have to happen. Others think that the Government’s intentions are to make sure that that does not happen and so are curtailing the power of the OEP.
As I have often discovered since I arrived in this House, I take on board the very wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I say to the Government that it is just possible that having a strongly independent OEP could help, because the public will not necessarily believe a government Minister. If the OEP were not seen to be independent enough, when it made a decision that the public did not like and went against them, they would consider it a government stitch-up. However, if there were a strongly independent OEP, they would have to accept that it was an independent decision.
I hope that this can be resolved because this is a very important part of the Bill. If we are to have faith in how the legislation works, we need that strongly independent OEP.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I start by quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who said that the OEP was “adequate”. Remembering that word, I will quote Michael Gove, who said in July 2019, when he was Environment Secretary and the Bill started its oh-so-slow process—procession, we should say—through Parliament:
“The measures in our Environment Bill will position the UK as a world leader, ensuring that after EU Exit environmental ambition and accountability are placed more clearly than ever before at the heart of government.”
Is that a description of “adequate”? I think not.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for introducing this suite of amendments—including Amendments 94, 98 and 99 in my name—and the question on Clause 24 stand part, to which I have added my name.
Continuing the theme from the earlier grouping, all of these amendments focus on the need for the OEP to have guaranteed independence and not to be under the direction of the Secretary of State in how it carries out its enforcement policy. I was really disappointed in the Minister’s response to the earlier debate. It did not feel to me as though he had listened to the strength and weight of the arguments or, indeed, answered many of the points put to him. I hope that he will engage more in the arguments that have been put forward in the debate today, if not now then certainly before Report.
I am very grateful to everyone who has added to the chorus of concern about the wording of Clause 24, which is really what we are talking about today. Of course, this clause has history. It was added only as an afterthought to the Bill at the Commons Committee Stage; it is almost as if the Government got cold feet. We got a flavour of why that might be—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, quoted the Secretary of State on the Today programme last year when he said that the Government did not want “unaccountable regulators” who
“make it up as they go along”,
“change their remit” or “change their approach entirely”. So, a huge suspicion hangs over this body. As the noble Lord said, it is as if Clause 24 is a continuing manifestation of the Government’s reluctance to create the OEP in the first place.
This, of course, was before Dame Glenys and her team were appointed. I hope that the Government have relaxed a little since then but, given their obvious competence, why do we still need Clause 24? The Minister will claim that there are other precedents for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to public bodies, and it is true that there are examples where this is the case. However, it is not the case with, for example, the Committee on Climate Change; the Climate Change Act specifically says that the Secretary of State cannot
“direct the Committee as to the content of any advice or report”.
The critical issue with the OEP is that it has enforcement powers against public bodies, including government, who are potentially breaching the law, and with the power to take government to court. A better comparison would be with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which enforces breaches of the law on human rights and equality—and cannot be directed by Ministers.
We can swap different examples of precedents, but it is more important that we do the right thing for what is a new and relatively unique organisation. Of course, one reason that it has special status is that it is taking over powers of enforcement previously carried out by the European Commission, which certainly would not have tolerated direction from the Government and did a huge amount to maintain environmental standards across the EU. As noble Lords have said, we were promised during the lengthy debates on the EU withdrawal Bill that we would have a UK body with equivalent powers to the Commission. To allow Clause 24 to remain would be a serious breach of those promises. We believe that it represents a fundamental undermining of the independence of the OEP.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I welcomed the Minister’s letter, but unlike her, I did not find it quite so enlightening. In his letter of 10 June, the Minister said:
“Although the Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on its enforcement policy, they will need to exercise this power consistently with their duty to have regard to the need to protect the OEP’s independence.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, it seems that these two requirements represent a contradiction at the heart of the Bill. This was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. You cannot have it both ways: being able to give direction while respecting its independence. One might say it would be a lawyer’s dream to try to sort it out. My noble friend Lord Rooker said he would like to hear the legal argument about the meaning of “having regard to” the Minister’s guidance and sit in as a fly on the wall. How do you measure “have regard to”? As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, quite rightly said, what is the point of having guidance if not to exert influence?
We believe that it would send a strong signal to Parliament and stakeholders if the Government agreed to remove this clause. It is ultimately a matter of trust; it would demonstrate the Government’s confidence in the new leadership of the OEP, and I therefore hope the Minister will agree to reconsider this wording and remove this clause.
My Amendment 94 would have the effect of making the independence of the OEP an absolute requirement, rather than one that Ministers are merely required to have regard to. Amendments 98 and 99 would make any guidance from the Secretary of State discretionary. But to return to the main point: we do not believe the guidance should be there in the first place. The helpful Amendment 100 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, approaches the need for OEP independence in a separate but equally valid way, continuing to underline the main point at issue.
Finally, I welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Her Amendment 117 mirrors our concern to ensure OEP independence. It would remove the wide-ranging power for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to issue guidance to the OEP. Amendment 118 revisits the question that she has posed before about how and when the appointment of the dedicated Northern Ireland board member will be made. I hope the Minister can answer this point today. Quite rightly, her amendment requires it to be made with the consent of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is a similar point to our Amendment 85, which we debated in an earlier group.
I hope that the Minister has carefully listened to this debate. There are important principles in these amendments, and they will not go away, as noble Lords have stressed on a number of occasions. I hope that he will feel able to take these issues away and give some assurance that we will not be back repeating these debates on Report, as he can probably predict what the outcome of that would be.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I will begin by addressing the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
On Amendment 94, the Government are committed to ensuring the OEP’s operational independence. This is precisely why we have included in paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 the duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to protect the OEP’s independence. The actions of the Secretary of State in exercising functions in relation to the OEP will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way.
However, the OEP itself is not an elected body. It is the Secretary of State, as an elected representative of the Government, who is ultimately accountable to Parliament for the OEP’s use of public money. Ministerial accountability is one of the Government’s key principles of good corporate governance. Ensuring the OEP’s operational independence must therefore be balanced with allowing appropriate levels of scrutiny. The amendment suggested by the noble Baroness would prevent Defra, as the OEP’s parent department, exercising vital functions of public accountability, including carrying out accounting officer responsibilities.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their excellent contributions to this debate; it is the second major debate we have had today about the independence of the OEP. I emphasise again to the Minister the strength of feeling around the Committee, not just among the cross Cross-Benchers, in which I join my noble friends Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lady Boycott, but from all groups.
The Minister did a valiant job in trying to defend the position of leaving Clause 24 in the Bill and in rejecting the other amendments, but it felt rather less than convincing and I do not think that we have yet fully dealt with some of the key points that were raised by contributions. For example, my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead and my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich made important points. My noble and learned friend Lord Hope talked about the fundamental contradiction in the Bill and how the words are really important, and my noble friend Lord Anderson asked what the point of guidance is if not to influence. So I really do not think that we are out of the mire yet on this issue.
I will not go through all the contributions, because there were so many important points made in the excellent summing up by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. But I want to reflect on something that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, which was sort of, “Be careful what you wish for”—if you are a Minister and you want to have influence and control over a supposedly independent body, it may come back to bite you. I will give a personal anecdote. When I started to set up the Food Standards Agency, the then Secretary of State for Health said to me, “John, I am in a nightmare situation. I have no control over you, but I have to take responsibility for you in accounting to Parliament”, to which I said, “No, you have the dream scenario: if things go well, you take the credit; if things go badly, you blame me”. So it is not all downsides to give the OEP greater independence, although the Minister seemed to feel that it would be.
Without delaying your Lordships further, because the hour is late, I again thank all those who have contributed, and the Minister for his response. I am sure that we have not resolved this and that we will come back to the matter of OEP independence when we come to consider the Bill at the next stage. But, as in earlier debates, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, emphasised that we ought to be able to find a compromise. I hope that, between now and Report, we can have further conversations and find out whether there is a way of avoiding confrontation at a later stage. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 95. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 22: Principal objective of the OEP and exercise of its functions
Amendment 95
(b) how the OEP intends to co-operate with devolved environmental governance bodies.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the OEP’s strategy must set out how the OEP intends to co-operate with devolved environmental governance bodies (as defined in Clause 46 of the Bill).
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Amendment 95 creates a duty for the OEP to set out in its strategy how it intends to interact with devolved environmental governance bodies, as defined in the Bill. It will promote co-operation between the OEP and devolved environmental governance bodies, and respect the devolution settlements by imposing this duty on the OEP only. Government Amendment 95 complements other measures in this Bill that enable the OEP to share relevant information with equivalent bodies and require it to consult them on any matters relevant to their functions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has outlined the importance of consultation with devolved counterparts in previous debates, and I hope that this government amendment will therefore be welcomed by him, in particular. This is a crucial addition to these other measures, which together will ensure that the OEP and devolved bodies can co-ordinate their functions effectively for the benefit of our environment across the union.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 96 in my name has nothing to do with Amendment 95 but, for the convenience of the Whips’ Office, has been grouped with it.
In this legislation and many other policies, we aim to accomplish substantial changes in people’s behaviour. Particularly when it comes to keeping the heat down, we are faced with immediate disbenefits—things we are asking of people to make their lives worse or different. Therefore, we need to find a way of taking people with us, of explaining to and sharing decisions with them, to have their confidence and mean that they, with us, will take the decisions we need to take. The fundamentals of this are that we should be telling the truth, being transparent and trusting the public. Those are the virtues that I would like to see inculcated into the OEP.
The amendment asks that we gather research and information, because it is hard to find what you want if you are an ordinary member of the public or someone trying to put together an understanding that would allow them to critique government policy, to end up as an informed supporter or to offer helpful suggestions. Secondly, we should make it open, because far too much vital information is hidden behind paywalls. Thirdly, we should make it clear how the evidence supports government policies because, that way, people can see why they should be lining up behind the Government.
Absent that, we will get a lot of policies that sound nice but whose outcomes are suboptimal, and we will lose public support. Take an easy example: recycling. We all sort of want to do it but, when the council turns up outside my door, it smashes the glass into the paper. How is that recycled? Is it recycled or does it just go off to the incinerator? What is the truth? What is actually happening to justify all the effort that I have put in to separating one lot of rubbish from another? I cannot find the answer to that, but it ought to be easy.
Take another example: plant-based diets. We are told they save lives, alleviate hunger, reduce climate change, save water and minimise land use. That makes sense; there are obvious reasons to cut out the middle cow, go straight to the source of the energy and process it ourselves. That way, we ought to have much less impact on the planet. I have been indulging in an experiment, because my daughter went vegan at Christmas, and I record my thanks to Yotam Ottolenghi for making that a process that I have been able to endure.
However, you soon come to notice that milk from a cow is 90p a litre and milk from an oat is £1.80 a litre. If the plant-based diet arguments were right, it ought to be 45p a litre. Some of the difference may be down to rapacious Swedish capitalists outfoxing socially minded British supermarkets, but not that much. The problem is that we are not being offered information on the whole system costs; we are being offered information that cherry-picks things and leads us to make suboptimal decisions.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, in addressing the amendment put forward by my noble friend the Minister, the Committee has today listened to some skilful analysis of the devolution situation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I await his comments on this amendment with some interest.
I want to probe my noble friend the Minister a little more on one aspect of what he sees as the content of his amendment, which refers to
“how the OEP intends to co-operate with devolved environmental governance bodies.”
Like some of your Lordships, I sat in the House as we debated Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act in 1998. The argument ended up being not to reserve the environment to Westminster, but there was still the oversight of all the EU’s environmental legislation to fall back on. That is the situation we face at the moment.
The Government are working on the problems that this now presents. I understand that they have hopes of a legislative consent Motion for their ideas. We foresaw some of this when we debated the Trade Bill in January. The Government were prepared to admit that one route to achieving agreements was to have a number of framework agreements. How many frameworks do the Government expect to have in relation to the environment, and what mechanism are they using to reach agreement on any of them? Are they working on any of these? If so, what stage have they reached? I wonder whether my noble friend could give us some details either now or in writing.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I will make a couple of brief points in relation to Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. First, a system exists that I think would meet what the noble Lord is asking for: I refer, of course, to the guidelines developed by Lord May of Oxford when he was the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser. These guidelines have three core principles governing the use of evidence in policy-making, which is partly what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was talking about. They are: first, seek a wide range of expert opinion; secondly, recognise uncertainties in the evidence; and thirdly, openness and transparency in the use of evidence. These guidelines will be especially important for the OEP because many, if not most, of the environmental issues that it will deal with will be ones where the evidence is contested. People will have strongly held opposing views, or they will claim that the evidence is incomplete or that there is uncertainty.
The answer to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is for the OEP to follow the Government Chief Scientific Adviser’s guidelines. At the same time, the OEP may wish to follow the example of many other public bodies in conducting as much of its business as possible in public meetings so that the decision-making processes can be directly observed and the evidence, as it is being evaluated, can be studied by the public. Does the Minister agree that it would be valuable if the OEP operated under the guidelines set out by the Chief Scientific Adviser?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. As always, his contribution has made a useful addition to the debate and he has put down a useful specific question.
I rise to speak in favour of the ideas and aims behind the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, although I come at this from a somewhat different direction. The noble Lord suggested that this was the way the Government, or the OEP, could lead the public; I suggest that we look at it from the other way around. On many environmental issues, whether you look at the climate strikers or last year’s people’s assembly on the climate, the public have in fact been leading and pushing companies and the Government to act. It is very helpful to the public to have available the information and published material, but rather than thinking about this as us leading the public, let us see it in other terms: as more of a partnership.
This amendment also takes us back to some of our debates on the Agriculture Bill, when we talked about the lack of agricultural extension and of independent advice to farmers. Indeed, a group of farmers I talked to last week were bemoaning the lack of independent advice available to farmers. A great deal of the information that might be collected and put together by the office for environmental protection would also be of great use to farmers. I think here of what the noble Lord, Lord Curry, said on the last group of amendments about regulatory capture. We want this to be available.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, a lot of research is behind paywalls. We are lucky enough in your Lordships’ House to have the wonderful Library; we can ask it to get anything we want, but that is not available to the public. It is a great pity that far too much publicly funded research is still hidden behind paywalls. The research that guides the OEP should be publicly available.
Finally, I turn to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about oat milk. I remind him that the practical reality of our economy is that a great many externalised costs are not paid by the producers or sellers of a product and are therefore not reflected in the price tag. Many farmers are barely being paid, or not being paid, the production costs of their milk, reflecting the economic power of the supermarkets. I also point out that you can of course make your own oat milk, which would cut out the middle person, save you a great deal of money and cut out a great deal of packaging as well.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Minister invited me to welcome government amendment 95, which of course I do and I imagine that, if he were here, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, would do the same. It is particularly encouraging, if I may say so, that this amendment comes from the Government. It has not been necessary for me or the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to struggle to get an amendment in these terms through the House. It is an example of a welcome and increasing recognition throughout government at Westminster that the devolved Administrations really do matter and need to be respected as equal partners in the various endeavours we are engaged in to maintain the integrity and standing of our country. That is particularly so in relation to the environment, where we are so dependent upon each other.
I am grateful to the Government for taking the initiative. This is a welcome amendment and it has my full support.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
I want to make a couple of points about information. Before I was into food, I was a journalist all my life, and I am very aware of how information gets into newspapers; probably 50% of the stories in the press at the moment come from PR companies. Meanwhile, a great many of our APPGs are sponsored by corporate interests that want to tell a particular story. About two years ago I was invited to sit on an obesity taskforce that was set up by an APPG. It was not until we were at the last meeting that we realised the whole thing had in fact been sponsored by Danone. A bunch of us took our names off the report at that point because you do not want to be associated with someone who is actually causing the problem.
I come back to what has been debated in the main today: the independence of the OEP and the type of information that it agrees to have. The issue of the oat milk tells the entire story. This is a company that wants to sell a lot and make a lot, so it tells a story. Whose information are we going to believe? It is incredibly important to remember that the situation with climate change is changing all the time, so all sorts of voices can get pre-eminence and the ones with a lot of money and deep pockets can buy their way into influence and buy and sponsor research. We all know the stories of what happened with the tobacco industry, and the same has been true of the fossil fuel industry. To have unbiased, genuine information from a setup like the OEP, which is genuinely independent, is vital because otherwise, we will always be prey to the types of commercial interests that got us into this problem in the first place.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I shall speak to government Amendment 95 and Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
We welcome Amendment 95, which will require the OEP to set out a clear strategy of co-operation between itself and the devolved governance bodies. The 2021 Scottish continuity Act established Environmental Standards Scotland to carry out oversight functions in Scotland broadly similar to those of the OEP. Furthermore, the Welsh Government have committed to establishing a commission for the environment, independent from the Welsh Government, which will oversee the implementation of environment law in Wales.
Devolution is one of the UK’s greatest strengths but it also presents some practical challenges, which is no doubt one of the reasons why noble Lords have tabled devolution-focused amendments throughout the Bill. Partnership and collective working in matters of common interest has to be the way forward. The Minister outlined the rationale behind Amendment 95 and spoke to some wider devolution considerations in his introduction, but what other steps does his department plan to take to ensure that we strike the right balance between respecting devolved competence and ensuring a joined-up approach to tackling the climate and ecological emergency?
Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, requests the inclusion of a truth and openness policy in the OEP’s overarching strategy, and the noble Lord used the words “taking people with us”. Several colleagues have referenced the need for evidence-based policy-making in other debates on the Bill, and this amendment offers an interesting approach to ensuring that high-quality data, research and information is available not only to decision-makers in Whitehall but also to the public. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, looked at this issue; he mentioned evidence in policy-making and considered a policy of the OEP using the guidelines established by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser.
We are all alive to the fact that addressing climate change is going to require changes and sacrifices in our lifestyles, but if we are to achieve the level of buy-in that we need, the public must be able to have confidence in the policy-making process and the decisions taken by Ministers. While this goes slightly beyond the scope of Amendment 96, I wonder if the Minister could confirm whether he has had any conversations with counterparts at DCMS regarding their efforts, through the Online Safety Bill and other initiatives, to target disinformation on climate change?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions.
Although I welcome the commitment to transparency of my noble friend Lord Lucas, Amendment 96 would effectively cause the OEP to become a data bank. This would weaken its ability to focus on its principal objective of contributing to environmental protection and to the improvement of the natural environment. The OEP cannot simply publish commercially held data, nor can it ignore the sensitivity and confidentiality of certain data which may inform policy-making and make it public. It will be subject to clear requirements set out in existing law, such as the Data Protection Act 2018, which govern access to and protection of information. I highlight that the Bill explicitly sets out that the OEP must have regard to the need to act transparently. However, there may be occasions when the OEP cannot be transparent and make information publicly available, such as during the investigation of a complaint.
The Government support making environmental data open and public where possible: for instance, through DATA.GOV.UK. Defra is also developing a new interactive dashboard to improve access to the open data used in the 25-year environment plan outcome indicator framework. Defra published an update on 11 June which I encourage any noble Lords interested in this area to view.
My noble friend questioned the discrepancy in cost between cows’ milk and oat milk. Although I cannot pretend to know the absolute details, I can remind him that the thesis of the Dasgupta review was reconciling our economy with nature, learning to value valuable things and adding costs to pollution, waste and plunder. That is not the case today, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made very clear in her speech earlier; unfortunately, the consumer often pays twice, over the counter and then through their taxes, or perhaps through a damaged environment. If products reflected the true costs of production, I suspect that the price system would be very different across most products today.
I was asked by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose to write to him about—I have to remind myself what I promised; I am now promising to write him about something and I cannot remember what it was. Yes, it was about the framework agreements that we have made with the devolved Administrations. I will take him up on that offer and I will write to him as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked whether I believed that the OEP should follow the guidelines and guidance of the chief scientific adviser. It is certainly the case that the two should be working very closely together. Whether that relationship should be formalised is a different issue—I suspect probably not. However, I would expect that relationship to be a close one.
Finally, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his kind comments about this amendment.
So I hope I have reassured the noble Lord and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I have had one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of the reasons why he cannot go down the road that I would like him to go down. I suspect that, after I have studied them, I will fully accept them. However, it seems to me that, one way or another, we have to find a way to empower ordinary people to make these decisions and not leave this as something which is happening to them—particularly if, at the end of the day, we will be asking them to pay more for things or to not have things that they have at the moment.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I simply say that I very strongly agree, and that will remain a focus of the Government.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 97. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 97
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(ba) how the OEP intends to determine whether the protected provisions of the REACH Regulation set out in Schedule 20 are being upheld,(bb) how the OEP intends to exercise its enforcement functions where a breach of obligation is found to have occurred under paragraph (ba),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the OEP’s strategy to consider (a) how it will ensure that protected provisions of the REACH Regulation (including the principle that animal testing should only be used as a last resort) are being upheld, and (b) how its enforcement functions may be applied in the case of breaches of protected provisions.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to propose Amendment 97, which—like Amendment 289, which I will also speak to—is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I also give our strong support to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Environmental groups, animal rights charities, health campaigners and the chemicals industry all remain concerned that the Government’s plans for UK REACH put the environment, human and animal health and business interests at risk. The CHEM Trust has specific concerns about whether the Government accept industry proposals for deregulating UK REACH, on which I understand a decision is imminent. Are the Government looking to amend the Environment Bill to allow this, and does the Minister agree that this would effectively make it harder to prevent the chemical pollution of our water, air and the wider environment?
I turn to our Amendment 97. Schedule 20 of the Bill protects the principle of animal testing “as a last resort” and the principle of the promotion of non-animal alternatives. Our Amendment 97 would require the OEP’s strategy to consider, first, how it will ensure that the protected provisions of the REACH regulation, including the principle that animal testing should be used only “as a last resort”, are being upheld—and, secondly, how its enforcement functions may be applied in the case of breaches of protected provisions.
EU REACH requires companies to share data and thus avoid unnecessary animal testing. Under it, animal testing is to be avoided in favour of alternative methods, and tests involving the use of animals can be carried out only “as a last resort”. However, a major challenge in making sure that animal testing has only been used as a last resort and that the promotion of alternatives is applied in EU REACH has been the failure of oversight and enforcement. The European Chemicals Agency, responsible for the EU chemicals testing legislation, has been judged in the past, by the independent EU ombudsman, to be lacking in appropriate action to ensure that the number of animal tests carried out is minimised. This judgment has been acknowledged, as was the agency’s duty to review and prohibit animal tests more effectively in the future. This amendment seeks to ensure that oversight and enforcement of these important principles are included in the remit of the OEP, thus strengthening UK REACH by applying the lessons learned from EU REACH.
However, EU REACH has also minimised animal tests through data sharing and other measures—something that was heavily promoted by the British delegation when REACH was initially created. According to Home Office figures, in 2019, 3.4 million procedures involving living animals were carried out in Great Britain—all, by statutory definition, with the potential to cause
“pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm”.
Importantly, the 2019 figures show a decrease of 3% on the previous year, which is also the lowest number since 2007. So we must not jeopardise this progress.
Many people are deeply concerned about the use of animals in experiments, with 74% of the public agreeing that more needs to be done to find alternatives. Therefore, the regulation of animal research and testing is a significant issue for the UK. The Government must ensure that the public can have confidence that legislation governing the use of animals in science is applied rigorously.
I have talked previously in your Lordships’ House about my concerns that, under UK REACH, the HSE’s lack of access to the full chemical safety data currently held by EU REACH could lead to duplicate animal testing. The Chemical Business Association has said that British businesses do not normally own the testing data required for registrations under UK REACH; it is held by a consortium of European countries. To reuse the data, companies may need to obtain permission from the consortium and would likely have to pay for the extension of rights. If this cannot be obtained, tests may have to be redone to establish safety information, which could involve repeat animal testing.
In the case of new animal tests, a testing proposal must first be submitted and approved, but we have yet to discover what stance the UK authorities, led by the HSE, will take in interpreting the principle of using animal testing only as a last resort. Now that we have left the EU, it is important that domestic accountability is strengthened. We should be seeking to ensure that our standards are the best in the world, while working to influence the EU and other trading partners to raise animal welfare standards.
Amendment 289 would establish a mechanism for reviewing the performance of the HSE in relation to its expanded responsibilities under UK REACH. We have tabled this amendment because the Government have so far failed to demonstrate that the HSE, as the chemical regulator in the UK, will be equipped with the necessary skills and capabilities that at least match what has been provided by the European Chemicals Agency. It is worth reminding your Lordships’ House that the UK chemicals industry has a turnover of £32 billion and represents a workforce of 102,000, so it is imperative that this highly skilled industry is protected. In creating the new UK REACH, the Government have shown insufficient understanding of how chemicals are managed in complex supply chains, with analysis of neither the cost of setting up the new regime nor the additional cost to business. As currently set up, we will worryingly not have the same level of protection from harmful chemicals that we currently enjoy.
Can the Minister set out how the new system will be staffed and resourced to ensure current levels of protection continue, and how that system will be reviewed on its performance and capabilities? Assuming that it will be reviewed, how often will this take place? Who will carry out the review, what will it cover and what action will be taken to remedy any failings or concerns? We need a regulatory system that provides the same levels of protection for human health and the environment that we enjoyed under EU REACH, otherwise critical decisions on chemicals will be made by a body with little experience and with layers of accountability and scientific expertise stripped away.
In a previous debate on this issue, the Minister said he agreed with me that the Health and Safety Executive’s ability to take on the task of the agency is essential to the success of UK REACH, so does he also agree that there needs to be a mechanism to review the agency’s performance to ensure that it is taking on the task to the required standard in order to have confidence that its responsibilities are being properly discharged? There must not be any repeat animal tests, so what guarantees can the Minister give—he is a strong supporter of animal welfare—and how confident is he that this can be ensured and will not just be an undeliverable promise?
The last time I raised this issue with the Minister, he recognised that there are concerns about the duplication of animal testing and, as reassurance, he gave the fact that the last resort principle is enshrined in the Bill as a protective provision. I do not believe that it is a cast-iron guarantee against unnecessary duplicate testing, but if he genuinely believes that the Bill is strong enough and that UK REACH will be capable of working effectively in this area, can he explain exactly how these protective provisions will be upheld and what will happen if any breaches of these provisions are found to have taken place? I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I support Amendments 97 and 289, to which she spoke so comprehensively. I shall speak also to Amendments 277, 281, 282, 294, 295, 296 and 297 in my name.
These amendments are all about REACH—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. REACH was introduced in the EU in 2006 and was not carried over into UK law at the point of Brexit, as were a large number of other EU laws. By mid-2019, some 24,660 animal tests had been performed for EU REACH purposes, equating to an estimated 6 million animals. While it has in the past been necessary to test chemicals on animals, it is not necessary to repeatedly duplicate tests for the same or very similar chemicals over and again. Testing should be kept to an absolute minimum, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, have indicated that they do not wish to speak on this group of amendments. I therefore call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is an interesting group. I will stick to talking about Amendment 281 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Nowadays, there is widespread recognition that animal testing is wrong and should be avoided. The expansion and development of human society has had huge impacts on all sorts of other species. Disruption to their lifestyles has been accidental and deliberate, and has resulted in suffering, death, and even extinction. Millions of animals are still abused every year in experiments that cause great pain and suffering. This is despite significant differences between the physiology of animals and humans, which can mean these experiments are ineffective or even pointless. I am sure that noble Lords know that biomedical researchers have often excluded women from clinical trials, even for drugs only for women, so how much worse to try to model on animals. A lot of non-animal technologies can be used instead, as can human tissue.
We must also not forget the harmful use of animals in education, where millions more animals are killed specifically for dissection and other educational experiments. Just as we would never think of killing a human so that trainee doctors can learn about anatomy, we should not be killing animals for people to learn. Again, technology can replace much of the need for using real animal specimens in education, but where dead animals are necessary, they can be sourced from animals that have died naturally or have been euthanised for humane reasons.
This is all about shining a light on our exploitation of other species and choosing a different course for our future. Hopefully, we are advanced enough to move beyond these barbaric practices and move positively forwards as stewards of the natural world.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Guess what—I am going to argue the opposite.
Dame Sarah Gilbert received a well-deserved standing ovation at Wimbledon today for her pioneering work on vaccines. I echo those cheers and that standing ovation, but I note that that achievement required experimentation on monkeys and mice. I oppose these amendments—a whole range from Amendments 97 to 297 and in between —because, in one way or another, they seek to make animal testing ever more regulated. There is even an inference, by positing it in an animal welfare context and with this emphasis on the last resort, that this vital part of scientific research is somehow a necessary evil that should be abolished and is morally dubious.
The UK system of regulating animal testing and experiments is already the tightest in the world, and researchers complain that they can obtain licences only if they clearly demonstrate that there are no alternatives. Some have to wait so long to secure approval for small amendments to research licences that the research becomes outdated and has to be abandoned. The whole field is too heavily bureaucratised; certainly, no more bureaucracy is needed. I am worried already about the Bill, without it being tightened up by these amendments.
I have long felt queasy about the “reduce” and “replace” elements of the three Rs. Endless attempts at placing restrictions on the types or numbers of animals used in experiments can, I fear, only stifle medical and human safety progress, with their positive benefits for humanity. For the record, and I know this is medical research but I want to remind people of the kind of benefits we mean, the use of dogs to extract insulin to treat diabetes, the experiments on armadillos that helped develop a cure for leprosy, and the wonder drug levodopa used on people with Parkinson’s—if you know anyone who has had that disease and taken that drug, you will know what a wonderful gain it is—would not have been developed without the insights gained from research involving animals. Think of a world without pacemakers, heart transplants, open-heart surgery, safe anaesthetics, polio vaccines and cancer treatments that mean survival rates have doubled over the last 40 years. So many people alive today—in fact, so many in this Chamber—are here only because of the role of animal research in the battle against nature and natural diseases. That is even before we talk about Covid vaccines.
Reducing the use of animals in testing or medical science would be a backwards step. The truth is that, if we are to fully understand and find more treatments for Covid-19, we will need to do more animal research, not less—not reduce the number of animals, but use multiple species. There will be lots of failed experiments, which some will say is a waste, but that is what will eventually mean that we find answers and cures. As outlined in Nature magazine recently:
“Monkeys and mice tell researchers different things about infection, shedding light on factors such as … the immune system or how the virus spreads.”
Whatever the testing is for, we have to say that this is one result of human ingenuity, of life-saving problem-solvers, and it should be celebrated and encouraged.
Instead, there is a faintly misanthropic whiff to this constant demand to reduce animal research, as well as a focus on animal welfare rather than human welfare. We all know how animal rights activists have adopted anthropomorphic language to discredit animal research: mice are “tortured”, pigs are “sacrificed” and dogs are “mutilated”—we have heard about “barbarity” today. This leads to a narrative of scientists portrayed as though they get perverse pleasure from sadistically experimenting on animals.
I am not trying to sugar-coat vivisection or this kind of testing. I know that it involves gore and, ultimately, destroying animals. But this is not wanton animal cruelty; it is driven by a desire to save human life and have a safer society. That is why I have so objected over the years to the way that these scientists and researchers, and the research institutions and the chemical and pharmaceutical companies, whether private or public, have been vilified and harassed—named and shamed in a culture of fear. These scientists and researchers should have nothing to be ashamed of; indeed, I want not only to reject these amendments but to go on the offensive about the moral good of research on animals. If Sarah Gilbert deserves a standing ovation, so do they. I rather feel as if these amendments are a bit of a dispiriting slow handclap.
Let us not get muddled up here. We should not allow rhetoric about animal welfare to stand in the way of human welfare and the alleviation of human suffering or making the world safer. Some may think this human-centric and unsympathetic to animals but, rather, I am rather worried about affording a moral equivalence between animals and humans. I refute the caricature that this equates to indifference to animals.
As it pays attention to wildlife and with its focus on biodiversity, the Bill inevitably also has a focus on animal protection policies. That means our gaze is on animals, but we must resist seeing issues through an animal rights framework that upgrades and exaggerates the capacity of animals, while logically and philosophically down- grading and diminishing the agency and consciousness of humans—capacities that animals do not possess. This careless interchangeability between human and animal rights and capacities has been raised as a problem in relation to the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill by a number of noble Lords.
I hope that the Minister and the Government will reject these amendments and, without rehearsing Cartesian dualism, note that it is precisely human consciousness that allows us to legislate for how we should better organise our relationship with the natural world. It also allows us so much progress and scientific innovation, so necessary to much in the Bill and vital to post-Covid prosperity and health.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I listened to that speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, with great interest. It was a Second Reading speech for the animal sentience Bill, but I do not know that it argues against any of these amendments, which are just about avoiding the use of animal testing except as a last resort. I do not see that contribution as entirely relevant to the Bill, but I am sure it will be repeated in that other Second Reading later in the year.
I take a particular interest in UK REACH because, when I had the privilege of chairing the EU Environment Sub-Committee, we did a number of reports on REACH. Of course, it is not UK REACH at all; it is called that, but it is actually “GB REACH” because Northern Ireland is still part of the single market. UK REACH does not apply to the Province.
With that clarification, I welcome the speeches of all the noble Baronesses and was very pleased to add my name to the first amendment. However, I want to come to something a little deeper and test the Minister on it. We can talk about animal testing being a last resort but also change the bar of where that last resort is. That is probably far more important than this amendment, although I support it absolutely. Duplication of this testing is necessary because of the existence of UK REACH. Given the hard Brexit that we had and the decision to come out of the single market, we had no alternative. Even if we had wanted it, the EU Commission and Mr Barnier would not have liked or allowed it. However, that will cost British business—this is undisputed by the Government—£10 billion, or something like that.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, this debate was always going to raise great passions and I understand the different views on each side of the debate. I thank noble Lords for their contributions, and reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that the Government agree that the operation of UK REACH should be transparent and accountable.
This is why under Clause 29(3) the OEP may give advice to a Minister on any proposed changes to environmental law, including any relevant amendments to the REACH regulation. This advice would be published and the OEP could comment if it thought the Government were seeking to inappropriately amend a protected provision. The Bill protects key provisions relating to the fundamental principles of REACH. I urge noble Lords to look at the very long list in Schedule 20 on page 250 of the Bill. I am sure they have done; this is explicitly outlined.
The Government will not change what REACH sets out to achieve, including a high level of protection of human health and the environment, which is set out in Article 1. Any breach of these provisions’ protected status could be subject to legal challenge, including by the OEP. In addition, any proposed amendment to the REACH regulation must be consulted on, ensuring transparency in the process. Therefore, the Government do not consider this amendment to be necessary.
I turn to Amendment 289, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I hope it reassures the noble Baroness to know that the aims of this amendment are already achieved in Article 117 of REACH, which sets up a rolling programme of reports. Although it is not a protected provision, it is part of UK REACH and it requires reports from the Health and Safety Executive and the Secretary of State in the operation of REACH every five years, starting in 2022 and 2023 respectively. The Health and Safety Executive must publish a report on the operation of UK REACH by April 2022. The Secretary of State must then publish a general report by April 2023. These duties then recur every five years. The Secretary of State’s report must cover the Health and Safety Executive, as the UK agency, and progress towards the development of alternative test methods, including funding provided for that purpose.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about the duplication of testing—as indeed did a number of noble Lords. The Government are very keen to avoid the need for duplication or repeats of animal tests carried out for the purposes of EU REACH. That is why we will recognise the validity of data generated by any animal testing already done. Industry and the Health and Safety Executive must follow the “last resort” principle, so any proposal to carry out an animal test must be given rigorous scrutiny before it goes ahead. Before developing a new alternative for testing for a particular hazard, it is necessary to see whether one is even feasible. An alternative then needs to be developed and scientifically validated. This is done through the OECD to encourage the widest adoption.
On the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the Government share her aim of avoiding unnecessary animal testing, which is why we have enshrined the “last resort” principle as a protected provision in Schedule 20 to the Bill.
On Amendments 277 and 282 specifically, the concept of “read across” from one chemical to a similar one is already encouraged and widely practised in REACH, but it needs to be considered in each case whether it is appropriate and not applied in a blanket manner. For example, reading across from a less to a more dangerous chemical could result in risks to human health or the environment going unidentified. The Bill ensures that amendments to UK REACH are carefully considered through consultation, drawing on the scientific expertise in the Health and Safety Executive and acting with the consent of the devolved Administrations on devolved matters. The Government believe that we should follow those good practices right from the beginning.
On Amendment 281, the powers in Schedule 20 to the Bill to amend UK REACH would enable such targets to be built if that was felt to be appropriate. Any amendments would have to be consulted on and consistent with the aims and principles of UK REACH, as set out in Article 1. The Government consider that this would be the better route if we concluded that targets were desirable.
There is also an important practical issue. There is an accepted scientific process for developing new test methods. Before developing a new alternative for testing of a particular hazard, as I said, it is necessary to see whether one is even feasible. The alternative then needs to be developed and scientifically validated. This process is done through the OECD to encourage the widest adoption.
On Amendment 296, the Government agree that the HSE, as the UK REACH agency, must operate in a transparent manner, including on matters connected to animal welfare. That is why the general duty in Article 109 to adopt rules about transparency has been included among the protected provisions listed in this schedule. But the Government do not believe it would be appropriate to use the protected provisions to freeze the detailed processes that REACH lays down, such as the publication and consultation arrangements contained in Article 40(2).
Similarly, on Amendment 294, Article 13 already contains the powers we need to amend the REACH annexes to replace animal tests with alternatives where appropriate, and the Government do not think it would be sensible to freeze those processes by fixing them in primary legislation.
On Amendment 295, the Government agree with the aim that companies should share data on chemicals to avoid duplicate animal testing and to reduce costs. However, the articles affected by this amendment contain prescriptive detail, such as the speed at which companies should pass information to each other. Again, the Government believe we should continue to be flexible and not remove that possibility by including them as protected provisions.
Finally, regarding Amendment 297, while it may be appropriate to amend the REACH annexes in the future to follow evolving scientific consensus on animal testing, the power to amend them is already contained within REACH itself. It is therefore unnecessary to add an overlapping power in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked me about the resource adequacy of the HSE. It has 130 extra staff and the Environment Agency has had considerable increases in its resources. Defra continues to add resources to both. Probably one demonstration that that resource is adequate is that 9,000 grandfathered registrations have already been notified on to the UK system and 5,000 chemical substances are on it so far. The next deadline is 300 days, which is 28 October, when chemicals not manufactured in Great Britain would come on to the system. I think the consensus is that progress has been even better than we expected.
On enforcement and oversight, UK members of the European Chemicals Agency’s committees frequently pressed the agency to be more rigorous in avoiding the use of animal tests, and we shall work with the Health and Safety Executive to ensure good enforcement of that principle within UK REACH. I add that the use of cell cultures has grown hugely in the past few years and taken over some of the primary testing of animals. Most animal testing is now restricted to medical research and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, stated, it is a strongly regulated market; you no longer see beagles forced to smoke cigarettes. Also, the cost of keeping animals, fortunately, makes keeping them for testing almost prohibitive, in many circumstances.
It always makes me anxious coming to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, because I know what a specialist he is in this field and have read a number of his contributions to SI debates in the past. On his first point, although EU REACH still applies to Northern Ireland, and he is absolutely right that the domestic REACH system regulates the Great Britain market, it also contains some provisions that apply to Northern Ireland businesses to facilitate their access to Great Britain.
On chemicals and the EU trade and co-operation agreement, the Government welcome the friendly co-operation the EU and UK have had on chemicals regulation, which the chemicals annexe will support. The UK’s proposal for a chemicals annexe included an arrangement to share REACH registration data. We worked closely with industry in the UK and EU in developing this proposal but, unfortunately, it was not possible to reach agreement in this area. As the noble Lord will understand, the EU was not prepared to discuss the UK’s data-sharing ask.
UK REACH will retain the fundamental approach and key principles of EU REACH, and the Government are keeping the transition as simple as possible. We have extended the deadlines for businesses to provide all the registration data needed to comply with UK REACH. In trying to minimise the costs and burdens on chemicals businesses, we have developed these grace-period provisions, grandfathering and downstream user import notifications to minimise disruption to businesses and supply chains. We will keep all these timeframes under review. On the TCA, we asked to share information between companies, but this was not included, as the noble Lord will know. On that basis, I ask noble Lords to withdraw or not move their amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for that excellent reply and information but, as we are in Committee, I would like to press the Government on their current view of divergence in regulation, because it has a huge effect on this industry. I also want to take this time to correct myself, in that the cost to the industry is £1 billion and not £10 billion—so we have already saved £9 billion this evening.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I think the current estimate of costs is actually significantly less than £1 billion. I have come to the exhaustive end of my notes on that specific question so, if the noble Lord does not mind, I will write to him.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken the trouble to take part in this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for their support for our amendment and stress again our support for theirs. This is an important issue and it is good that we have been able to work together on it. I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, mentioned the importance of non-animal technologies and those that are in development; we need to push further on this issue.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was in many ways not particularly relevant to the amendments, but I want to say a few things about it. I do not understand why it is wrong to have strict regulation of animal testing and I cannot believe that anybody would support unnecessary duplicate testing, whatever their position on the issue; I agree with her that we do not need unnecessary bureaucracy. The amendment talks about enforcement if protected provisions are seen to have been breached. Why would you want to vote against that? Why is it not right that breaches of protected provisions should be enforced?
It is not a binary decision to be for animal welfare or for human welfare. I am for both, and I hope that everybody would be for both. Let us not get into an argument that you cannot have animal welfare if you are going to have human health; that is just a nonsense.
I thank the Minister for her very thorough response on what is quite a complicated issue. I also feel for her in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, as he has so much knowledge in this area. However, there are still some questions to be answered and I would like time to consider her quite detailed reassurances on this matter. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 103. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 29: Advising on changes to environmental law etc
Amendment 103
Baroness Parminter
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure the OEP can offer advice to Ministers on matters they consider relevant to their remit.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I shall try to be brief but I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 103 and 104, which relate to the Bill’s definition of “environmental law”. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Teverson.
Amendment 103 is about the matters on which the OEP can give advice to the Government, unasked. It is clear in the Bill that the Secretary of State can ask the OEP for advice about
“any proposed change to environmental law, or … any other matter relating to the natural environment”
but, conversely, the OEP can give advice only on
“any changes to environmental law”
and does not have the additional option to provide advice unasked on other matters relating to the natural environment.
This is important because of the definition of “environmental law” in the Bill. Indeed, it is important to look at what the Explanatory Notes say about what constitutes environmental law in Clause 45, because they seem to exclude some issues that I think most noble Lords would wish the OEP to be able to advise the Secretary of State on, unasked. Paragraph 381 of the Explanatory Notes—I think it is 381; I am getting to the stage where I need glasses at this time of the evening—on the definition of “environmental law”, states:
“Another example is planning legislation. Whilst provisions concerning environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment are clearly concerned with environmental protection as set out in clause 42 … most other areas of planning legislation are not mainly concerned with environmental protection, and therefore will not fall within the definition.”
So, according to the Explanatory Notes, environmental law does not include the majority of planning legislation. That is really significant because we are expecting shortly what will no doubt be a very controversial new Bill on planning. According to the Explanatory Notes, the OEP can give advice only on environmental law, and planning is excluded from the definition of “environmental law”.
Equally—I have raised this in past sessions with the Minister, for which I am grateful—the Climate Change Committee can give advice on planning matters freely and without being asked, as it did so well in the case of the impact of the Cumbrian coal mine in driving a coach and horses through our net-zero targets. Again, as I read it, the definition in the Explanatory Notes seems to suggest that the OEP could not give such advice unasked. However, the Minister confirmed to me in those meetings, through his civil servants, that I am wrong in making that presumption. I have therefore tabled this amendment to give him the chance to put on the record tonight—I would like this to be said specifically—that the OEP can give advice, unasked for, on environmental law matters, including planning provisions and major planning applications. This needs to go on the record because, if it does not, there is a worrying lacuna and the only way to get around it is to accept my amendment, which basically would give the OEP the right to advise the Secretary of State on
“environmental law, or … any other matter relating to the natural environment”—
a replica of the Secretary of State’s position in terms of asking the OEP for advice.
My second, slightly shorter, amendment also concerns the definition of “environmental law”, which is absolutely key in governing the OEP’s functions. This matters in the context of Amendment 114, which would remove some broad carve-outs for disclosing information—including the old chestnuts of defence and spending.
I have three issues with the definition of environmental law, which my Amendment 114 seeks to address. The current definition removes legislative provisions dealing with funding and resource allocation from the OEP. That means that the OEP cannot offer advice to the Government on these matters. We know that, in the past, there have been significant concerns over environmental health indicators flatlining due to funding. Indeed, in December last year, the issue was exposed in relation to funding cuts to the EA of 80%. But, as it stands, this definition removes those provisions of information about funding and resource allocation from the ambit of the OEP.
Secondly, again, the Armed Forces are outwith the ambit of the OEP and, as I made clear in the debate on Amendment 78, this is a worrying gap. It is not just about the enforcement of the law; we know that the CCC was able to offer advice to the Armed Forces on meeting climate goals and, again, the OEP would be unable to do this under the current definition in the Bill of environmental law.
Thirdly, the way the clause is drafted suggests that the OEP goes beyond matters overlapping with the Information Commissioner’s Office, which oversees and enforces public authorities’ compliance with the Environmental Information Regulations. It seems to me that that clause excludes from the remit of the OEP important obligations such as the disclosure duties of keeping registers and record keeping to uphold environmental law. An example of such an obligation is those under the Control of Pesticides Regulations, whereby users have to keep records of pesticides they use for five years and make them available to relevant authorities upon request.
In summing up, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether obligations such as those would, under this clause’s definition, fall outwith the OEP’s scope. If there are genuine concerns about the overlap between the OEP and the ICO, why is there not a memorandum of understanding in the same way as has been proposed for the OEP and the CCC? That would seem to be a reasonable response, whereas what we have here is almost a sort of belt-and-braces approach, which goes beyond what is appropriate. So I hope that, in responding, the Minister will clarify the matters I raise in regard to Amendment 103 and ensuring that planning can be something on which free advice can be given, and that on Amendment 114 he will give some clarity about why the definition is as it is.
Environment Bill
Wednesday 30th June 2021
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (30 Jun 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including those in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Clause 29: Advising on changes to environmental law etc
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, explained her Amendment 103 extremely well. I will speak to my Amendment 109. We have Euro 2020, Wimbledon, the cricket and the Environment Bill—how much better could it be for all of us? There is so much pleasure in such a short time.
My Amendment 109 would introduce a new clause into the Bill that is intended to address some extensive governance gaps in environmental law that have arisen because of the UK’s departure from the EU. Amendment 109 places an obligation on the Secretary of State to report to the office for environmental protection “any information” that was previously required to be reported to the European Commission relating to environmental law and its application. This could include, for example, requirements to report on ambient air quality and pollutant emissions or on the implementation of key fisheries rules, both of which were previously required to be reported to the European Commission but are now no longer required under UK law. These are two helpful examples but reporting requirements were removed through EU exit statutory instruments across the whole spectrum of environmental policy areas. Without such a replacement, there will inevitably be a reduction in transparency and accountability, both of which are crucial to the effective implementation of environmental legislation.
To ensure that the amendment does not place an unnecessary burden on either the Secretary of State or the office for environmental protection, the latter must review these reporting requirements
“no later than two years”
after the Environment Bill has passed into law. If the OEP determines that an existing
“reporting requirement is no longer necessary to contribute to environmental protection or the improvement of the natural environment, it must arrange for a report setting out its reasons to be ... laid before Parliament, and ... published.”
The Secretary of State is then obliged to
“lay before Parliament, and publish, a copy of the response”
to the report within three months.
Why is this amendment necessary? The reporting of information relating to environmental law is absolutely vital to ensure transparency and accountability in environmental policy-making and ensure that government and stakeholders can identify and address environmental impacts. Continuity over time in the information being recorded and reported can also help to reveal trends and increase transparency.
However, several requirements for the Secretary of State to report information to the European Commission in relation to environmental law have been lost because of the UK’s departure from the EU and the subsequent adoption of new statutory instruments. This poses a serious threat to the effective application of environmental law in the UK—because we all know that there are quite a lot of people who try to evade these particular laws—and the Government’s ability to achieve their stated aim and manifesto promise of leaving the environment in a better state than that in which it was found.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will be brief. I put my name down to speak on this group expressly to support Amendment 103—because, given our earlier debates on the office for environmental protection and its independence, I want to test the extreme limits of Defra’s control, if there are any. I would have thought that it is a given that Amendment 103 should be accepted. If it is not, that tells us something about Defra’s controlling nature regarding the work of the office for environmental protection. That is the only point that I want to make.
A subsidiary point is that I also support Amendment 114, and, later today, I will also speak to Amendment 114A, which is effectively a fallback position for the amendment in this group.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, Amendment 114 operates in close relationship to Amendment 78, which we debated on Monday, to which I had attached my name. Both amendments address the relationship between the Armed Forces and the Treasury in the Bill and certain exemptions provided to them.
Amendment 78 and our debate on it talked about exemptions for action; Amendment 114 talks about removing exemptions for disclosure of or access to information. The arguments for the Government to hold their current position and not include this amendment are even weaker when we talk about information—because we are not talking about actual action.
However, it is worth going back to what the Minister said in the debate on Monday, which can help to inform this amendment. He said that including Amendment 78
“could restrict our response to urgent threats. Policy decisions concerning defence are often made rapidly, or even in real time”—[Official Report, 28/6/21; col. 579.]
due to “urgent … operational imperatives”. In that debate, we talked about a couple of interesting case studies: a new housing estate and, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned, a pile being driven into a creek because it might assist in the mooring of submarines. Neither of these in any way fits the definition of urgent defence imperative.
However, I acknowledge that there are occasions on which there may be a need to, perhaps, put in some very urgent flood defences or build a pandemic hospital—the kinds of security threats that we are now facing on a regular basis—so it may be necessary to act urgently. However, I come back to that debate on Amendment 78, in which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, cited some detailed legal material, saying that the precautionary principle, which those who are seeking to amend the Bill desire, “already includes proportionality”. Of course, if something is needed for an urgent matter of national defence, clearly it would be proportionate to act as necessary. It would not be unreasonable to then provide information about what damage had been done in terms of defence. I cannot think what one might conceivably claim regarding why information should not be provided about the damage that the Treasury might have had to do to the environment for whatever reason, if one can possibly imagine such a thing.
We are talking a lot today about openness and informing the public about what is being done to the environment. In that context, Amendment 114—I still stand by Amendment 78 in some combination when we get to Report—is essential.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has withdrawn from this amendment, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 103 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Clause 27 attempts to delineate the OEP’s scrutiny and advice functions, but it is too tightly drawn. It is much to be welcomed that the OEP can monitor and report on environmental improvement plans and targets, and on the implementation of and changes to environmental law, but, for the avoidance of doubt, the amendment is necessary to enable the OEP to give advice on any other matter relating to the natural environment. It is a sweeping-up amendment so that if there is some environmental ghastliness that otherwise would not be within the OEP’s ambit, this provision would allow it to take up the issue and give advice. It is a sensible provision which enhances the OEP’s independence and flexibility, and I hope that the Minister can simply accept it.
I also support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, requiring the Secretary of State to report to the OEP anything he used to report to the European Commission. I know that the Government do not want to carry on as if Brexit had never happened, and unnecessary reporting could be ceased provided that it was reviewed by the OEP and an adequate reason was given. However, several areas of data and reporting have already been lost as a result of their no longer being reported to the Commission, including issues of ambient air quality, pollutant emissions and the implementation of some key fisheries rules.
The issues lying behind Amendment 114 have already been aired in the debate on Amendment 78, so I shall not labour them. Environmental protection is indeed as vital as defence and security to our well-being and our very existence. The importance of issues of taxation and spending or the allocation of resources for the environment has already been demonstrated. The exclusions listed in Clause 45 cannot go forward without the OEP being debarred from some key areas. Subsection (1) must also be challenged. Environmental law is there defined as
“legislative provision … that … is mainly concerned with environmental protection”.
Many laws would be not be considered to be
“mainly concerned with environmental protection”,
but they have a big impact on the environment. There is a huge list—I think immediately about planning legislation, transport legislation, energy, agriculture, fisheries, housing and food. I could keep on listing, but your Lordships would be here all day. We need to press the Minister on whether he truly believes that the OEP should be able to consider these issues and not just what is in the tightly prescribed provision in the Bill.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I was pleased to put my name to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Parminter. It seems obvious, as many noble Lords have said, that for the OEP to have the stature that the Government want it should be able to give advice as it sees fit without constraint. Clearly, it will be constrained anyway in terms of its budget, its resources and its capacity so, like any similar authority, it is going to be careful about what it concentrates its resources and time on. That is quite a sufficient constraint on the OEP’s work and what it does. As the legislation says, if the Minister or the Secretary of State want advice in certain areas, it can give it, whatever that area is, yet it is strongly constrained in terms of reports on its own initiative. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, laid out that long list of areas where it would invaluable for the OEP on occasion to give its own opinion unprompted by the Secretary of State. As we have said many times before, the Climate Change Committee, which is respected nationally and internationally, is able to do that, and it uses that power well, responsibly and to effect. I see no reason why the OEP should not be able to do that as well.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I shall speak to Amendments 103 and 114 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and Amendment 109 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—whose final reply in the earlier debate on Monday was very candid.
In normal times, one would hope that something like Amendment 103 would not be needed. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lord Rooker said, it should be accepted; it is a given. The ability of experts to advise Ministers should be central to how government functions each and every day. However, it seems that expert advice does not carry the same weight with certain Ministers as it once did. Amendment 103 is therefore most welcome.
While the OEP will have a specific remit given to it by the Bill, it appears entirely reasonable that it should also act as a general champion for the natural environment. Amendment 103 would clarify that the OEP is empowered also to give advice to Ministers on other natural environment matters. The amendment would broaden the reach of Clause 29(3) by increasing the discretion afforded to the OEP on how it exercises its advisory powers and enable it to advise Ministers on a fuller ranger of matters, improving the evidence-gathering and assessment process on important policy decisions. When the body was first announced, we were told that it would be given licence to engage with and freely challenge Ministers. The amendment would be one means of giving statutory backing to that commitment.
Amendment 109 returns to an issue that has been discussed at length. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made clear, it is about accountability and transparency. The issue was discussed at length during debates on EU exit statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, where references to the European Commission in domestic law and retained EU law were to be replaced by supposedly suitable domestic alternatives. However, in some cases, this has left Secretaries of State reporting to themselves or to bodies over which they have responsibility or, in some cases, not having to report at all. We reluctantly accepted this as a short-term logistical fix, in part because assurances were given that as domestic bodies were established, they would begin to take on some responsibilities previously held by the Commission. Given the challenges to retained EU law, we are not certain that this amendment would function exactly as hoped, although it enables the Minister to clarify how Defra plans to meet its previous commitments and whether it has any plans to allow the OEP to undertake the kind of review envisaged in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause.
Finally, Amendment 114 would remove the “Excluded matters” list in Clause 45 to ensure that the term “environmental law” has the broadest possible application.
We strongly welcome the tabling of this amendment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, whom we wish well, as she has been “pinged” today. We appreciate the case she made at the beginning of this debate.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. Before I start, I would like to wish my noble friend a very happy birthday and thank her for spending it with me on these Benches. That is very kind.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for tabling Amendment 103 and for her compelling speech on Monday. I appreciate the amendment’s intention. The concern is that it could be duplicative, and I would like to direct her to Clause 19, which already places requirements on the OEP to give advice, on request, to Ministers on any matter relating to the natural environment and, on request or on its own initiative, on any proposed changes to environmental law. It builds on Clause 28(2), which gives the OEP the power to report on
“any matter concerned with the implementation of environmental law.”
It is in these areas that the OEP will have the greatest expertise, and that its advisory and reporting roles should be focused. To be clear, this will include planning legislation where it relates to the environment, including environmental impact assessments, strategic environmental assessments and all the measures in the Bill relating to planning. Other bodies, such as Natural England and others, have functions to advise government on matters concerning the natural environment. Amendment 34 would risk duplicating this and directing the OEP away from its core functions.
Turning to Amendment 114, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, Clause 45 is vital in defining and establishing the OEP’s remit, and each of these exemptions serves important purposes. Clause 45(2)(a) excludes the
“disclosure of or access to information”
from the OEP’s remit in order to avoid overlap with the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office. The exclusion of legislative provisions concerning the Armed Forces and national security is important to the protection of the country. Such legislation would concern highly sensitive matters and it is therefore appropriate to restrict the OEP’s oversight and access to information in such areas.
However, public authorities such as the MoD would not be exempt from scrutiny by the OEP in respect of their implementation of environmental law, including in respect of SSSIs and the MoD’s statutory duties in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. It is clear to us—this is a point made by a number of noble Lords—that the MoD, as one of the country’s biggest landowners, has a direct impact on the natural environment. We will need to be absolutely confident that the exemptions do not in any way loosen the MoD’s responsibilities for managing those natural assets.
Turning to Clause 45(2)(c), legislation regarding
“taxation, spending or the allocation of resources”
is developed by HMT and needs to be developed with the flexibility to meet the nation’s revenue requirements. However, the spending of government resources may well be a relevant consideration in the OEP’s review of the implementation of environmental law, and it may refer to this in its scrutiny and advice reports to government. Additionally, legislation relating to regulatory schemes such as the plastic bag levy is not part of the exclusion and is within the OEP’s remit.
Turning to Amendment 109, following EU exit, Defra’s secondary legislation programme ensured that reporting requirements in EU legislation were generally converted into a requirement to publish environmental information online, meaning that information about the environment will be publicly available.
Additionally, when we left the EU our domestic legislation was updated to meet domestic rather than EU objectives. For example, where EU law required the UK to report to the European Commission on pesticides residue monitoring, our domestic legislation now provides for an equivalent national report to be published online and, therefore, to be made public.
I should add that if the Government wished to seek the OEP’s advice on matters relating to environmental law, including on reporting arrangements, it could do so under provisions made in Clause 29.
I hope that this goes some way to reassuring noble Lords that the amendment is therefore not needed. It could serve to blur the lines or even distract the OEP from the core functions it will be required to undertake. I ask therefore that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks and all those who have spoken in this short debate for their universal support for my Amendments 103 and 114.
I listened carefully to the Minister but I have to say that I still do not think he has quite answered the question raised by Amendment 103. He said that the OEP can give advice on matters such as planning—if it is asked. The point behind my amendment is that, as it stands, the OEP cannot give advice on those matters if it is not asked.
When we were debating this amendment late on Monday, I did not make the point—I will make it now—that Environmental Standards Scotland can make recommendations to any other body on matters relevant to its function. It can go right across the piece but, importantly, the OEP cannot, so its powers are narrower than those currently given to the parallel Scottish body. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that this is an indication of Defra’s controlling nature, and I am afraid that I am not satisfied by what the Minister has said. Nor is he prepared to accept the broad thrust of my argument as set out in Amendment 114: the massive carve-out in terms of disclosure of information on the MoD’s spending.
The Minister has not responded satisfactorily to the concerns raised by Members here today or to those raised in the linked amendment, 78, which we also discussed on Monday and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, referred. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we will be returning to this issue on Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 104. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 104
“Penalty notices
(1) If the OEP is satisfied that a public authority has failed to comply with a decision notice, the OEP may by written notice (a “penalty notice”) require the public authority to pay to the OEP an amount in sterling specified in the notice.(2) A penalty notice may not be issued before the earlier of—(a) the end of the period within which the authority must respond to the decision notice in accordance with section 35(3), and(b) the date on which the OEP receives the authority’s response to that notice.(2) When deciding whether to give a penalty notice to a public authority and determining the amount of the penalty, the OEP must have regard to the matters listed in subsection (3).(3) Those matters are—(a) the nature, gravity and duration of the failure;(b) the intentional or negligent character of the failure;(c) any relevant previous failures by the public authority;(d) the degree of co-operation with the Commissioner, in order to remedy the failure and mitigate the possible adverse effects of the failure;(e) the manner in which the infringement became known to the OEP, including whether, and if so to what extent, the public authority notified the OEP of the failure;(f) the extent to which the public authority has complied with previous enforcement notices or penalty notices;(g) whether the penalty would be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.(4) Once collected, penalties must be distributed to the NHS, Mayors for combined authority areas and local authorities for the treatment and research of illnesses related to air pollution.(5) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, set the minimum and maximum amount of penalty.(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is my pleasure to open the debate on this group. It includes some amendments from some very esteemed noble Lords which I will no doubt comment on at the end. While all these amendments take different approaches, what is common is that we all recognise that this Bill will fall far short of what is needed without some significant changes to the enforcement mechanisms. I would not dare to disagree with a group of noble Lords that includes the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Krebs and Lord Duncan of Springbank, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
These amendments can meld into something extremely positive. For example, the proposals by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will significantly improve the judicial process for environmental review. In particular, they remove from the Bill the absurd provision whereby an adverse ruling does not affect the validity of a government decision.
My amendment and Amendment 107A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, take enforcement one step further. Our amendments recognise that there is a whole realm of conduct that goes further than a judge giving the Government a strong telling off, and which may require actual penalties to be issued. Amendment 104 would enable penalties to be issued, taking into account a whole host of factors such as the gravity of the failure, any intention of negligence, and previous failures by the authority. The inclusion of the principles of effectiveness and proportionality makes my amendment wholly reasonable, and is necessary for ensuring that the ambition in this Bill is not trashed by poorly governed public authorities.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, whom it is a pleasure to follow, that the risk of penalty fines concentrates the mind wonderfully. When I used to defend Defra from the attentions of the European Commission in urban waste-water cases, I suspect the prospect was quite useful in concentrating the mind of the Treasury when money was requested for the Thames super-sewer and other mitigations. The Minister will say that no fining mechanism is necessary when the OEP has at its disposal a sufficiently intimidating set of judicially enforceable remedies. In the abstract, he may have a point, but, when looking at the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, said at Second Reading, it is important not to confuse a full set of teeth with a flashy set of dentures. My Amendments 105 to 108 seek, in particular, to equip environmental review, the only route generally available to the OEP, not with dentures but with teeth.
The crucial amendment, to which the noble Baroness has already referred, is Amendment 107. In any case likely to prove contentious, it will be worthwhile for the OEP to pursue environmental review only if strong and enforceable remedies—notably, the power to quash unlawful decisions—are available at the end of the road. Clause 37(8), which is without precedent in any Act of Parliament, removes the court’s power to grant such remedies, no matter how much or little time may have elapsed, and no matter how serious the damage to the environment or public health, unless the court can satisfy itself that the grant of a remedy would not be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person. This is, though disguised in the drafting, a rebuttable presumption against the grant of any remedy at all.
There is a yet further hurdle: the court would have to be satisfied also, before granting a remedy, that a remedy would not be “detrimental to good administration”—although how good administration could be founded on policies and decisions that are unlawful is certainly an interesting conundrum. Take the example of an air quality case: just the sort of systemic issue of national importance that is identified in Clause 22(7) as particularly suitable for the OEP. Let us say that the court hearing an environmental review finds that a public authority has failed to produce legally compliant air quality plans and, to ensure that the law is enforced, wishes to require it to do so. Clause 37(8) would stop it from doing so unless the court was satisfied that no one would be likely to suffer substantial hardship or prejudice as a result. The evidence of one taxi driver who had recently sunk his savings in a non-compliant vehicle would be not only relevant but determinative of the issue, no matter serious the breach of law and no matter how many lives might be saved by a compliant plan. Indeed, even if there were no such evidence, the court could still not grant a remedy without, in effect, proving a negative: that there is nobody out there who could suffer the requisite substantial hardship or prejudice.
Similarly, an unlawful failure to designate a nitrate-vulnerable zone could not be corrected unless the court could be sure that no affected landowner would meet those thresholds. An unlawful permit for an oil refinery would have to stand if the owner had invested on the strength of it, whether in good faith or otherwise. A future judgment that new gas boilers are incompatible with statutory net-zero obligations would be unenforceable too. Irrespective of the benefits, there always would be people with something substantial to lose. In short, the more significant the issue and its environmental impact, and the more it is capable of impacting on private or even administrative interests, the more likely it is that the grant of any remedy will be automatically excluded by this clause.
Of course there will be cases, including some cases decided long after the event, in which a private interest is so strong, and the environmental interest so relatively weak, that a court would be justified in refusing a remedy in respect of unlawful conduct. That is precisely why the grant of remedies by courts of judicial review is, and always has been, discretionary and flexible. Amendment 107 would do no more than replicate that orthodox and unobjectionable position in the context of environmental review. It does not even require the normal remedy of damages to be available. Clause 37(8) places private and bureaucratic interests in the perpetuation of unlawful decisions on one side of the balance, and decrees that even the heaviest public interests will never outweigh them. The twin attributes of justice are her scales and her sword; Clause 37(8) would remove them both. All we ask if that she should be allowed to keep them, so that public authorities can be kept to their legal obligations in this most vital area.
Amendment 108 would give the OEP an alternative to environmental review by opening up a wider range of cases in which the OEP could pursue the established route of judicial review. Clause 38(1) uniquely handicaps the OEP as a claimant in judicial review by requiring it to surmount two extra hurdles of seriousness and urgency—nobody else faces those. By removing at least the second of those hurdles, which was only inserted in the Commons, we would go some way towards redressing the OEP’s disadvantage and putting it on the same footing as any other interested group or individual.
Amendments 105 and 106 address further points on environmental review. The point of 105 is to reduce the scope for procedural game-playing by lawyers. It is the nature of things that unlawful practices may spread, or be repeated, during the course of the OEP investigation that is a precondition for the commencement of environmental review. It is surely sensible that the scope of any environmental review should not be frozen at the time, months or even years earlier, when the investigation began. If later conduct raises the same issues, there should be no obstacle to putting it before the court. I hope the Minister will agree with that, and also that Clause 37(2) is too narrowly drafted for this subject to be adequately dealt with by assurances from the Dispatch Box.
Amendment 106 focuses on the statement of non-compliance, a concept introduced to the law by Clause 37. As the department has accepted in its FAQs, published on Monday, such statements may have reputational or political effects but are not in themselves a legal remedy. So they are not a prize to which the OEP is likely to feel justified in devoting its limited resources. This amendment would remove the most obvious statement of their legal powerlessness—that they do not affect the validity of the conduct in respect of which they are given—but would not, I freely accept, be a substitute for the remedies whose full application would be restored by Amendment 107.
Finally, and in response to a concern I raised at Second Reading and in person, the Minister has been good enough to write in an all-Peers letter that it is the Government’s view that OEP complaints and enforcement functions will not affect the rights of other persons to bring legal challenges against public authorities by way of judicial review. It would be the final irony if the imperfect mechanisms of environmental review were to be advanced in the courts by public authorities as a reason for withholding access to what remains, at least for now, the gold standard of judicial review. I accept that such decisions are ultimately for the courts, but the Government’s view is significant and I would be grateful if the Minister could repeat his assurance from the Dispatch Box so that it appears in the official record.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble Lord. I support the amendments in this group. I join my noble friend the Minister in congratulating my noble friend Lady Bloomfield on her birthday; I am sure there is nowhere she would rather be celebrating her birthday than with us this afternoon. Her support on the Bill is greatly appreciated.
My starting point is what my noble friend has said on a number of occasions: that we are seeking to achieve a regime whereby we replicate, as closely and as effectively as possible, the regime to which we signed up with the European Union. I go back to Britain in the 1980s, when I was working as an adviser; an A-grade woman, and a woman administrator in the Conservative group in the European Parliament, was quite a thing in those days. Noble Lords may recall—the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, recalls only too well—that the United Kingdom had a terrible reputation as the dirty man of Europe, with the dirtiest waters, some of the dirtiest rivers and some of the dirtiest beaches. Many maintain that change came not just by signing up to high-reaching directives, such as the EU water directive—I pay tribute to the Secretaries of State for the Environment at the time—but also the massive investments that water companies made over successive years and, obviously, the sterling efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who made sure that he held the water companies’ feet to the fire.
I am concerned that there will be no real teeth. I hate using that word because I went to the dentist recently and it brings back too many memories of that, but I think it is a good word to use. I believe that one reason why the European regime has been so successful in holding water companies, chemical companies and agricultural processes to the fire is because it had very real sanctions. I therefore pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for their amendments. Mine, as the noble Baroness said, goes a little further. It says:
“In the event of a severe breach of environmental law, financial penalties may be imposed.”
This echoes a lot of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
The offending subsections of Clause 37 include subsection (7), which states:
“A statement of non-compliance does not affect the validity of the conduct in respect of which it is given.”
They also include subsection (8) in particular, which goes further:
“Where the court makes a statement of non-compliance it may grant any remedy that could be granted by it on a judicial review other than damages, but only if satisfied that granting the remedy would not … be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person other than the authority, or … be detrimental to good administration.”
My noble friend the Minister has to put our minds at rest this afternoon and show that it should not really be just the courts that are left to impose the penalty. If the OEP is to be worth its weight in gold, which I hope it will be, it has to have the power to implement the decisions that have to be taken when holding public bodies to account—it is extending to public authorities for the first time—and would mirror the powers that currently exist under the European Commission, which is the body that we are told the OEP is meant to replicate in fulfilling our environmental sanctions post Brexit.
I am grateful to the Bar Council for its help in preparing my amendment. As I have said before:
“The requirement that the breach be severe to justify a financial penalty is noted. It is assumed that this is to ensure that a financial penalty be the exception rather than the rule”.
So, it should not just be a minor infraction; it should be a major infraction and a severe breach. Also, this is
“in the context that the OEP’s power to apply for an environmental review is already on the condition that it considers the authority’s failure to comply to be serious. To that end, it might be less open for debate as to whether it is severe or serious if the court’s discretion were wider, and therefore based upon all the circumstances of the case, but to be exercised where those circumstances are exceptional.”—[Official Report, 28/6/21; cols. 562-63.]
In making an argument to reject Amendment 107A, my noble friend has to give us the alternative that there will be very real and immediate powers. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will say, if the OEP were to impose a penalty, it would be more or less instantaneous. Going to court means that there will inevitably be a delay, so the spillage and the damage could take more effect than if we had the OEP imposing the penalty, which is my preferred route. I hope that I will get the support of the House for Amendment 107A.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 105, 106, 107 and 108 in this group. Indeed, I raised the issue of Clauses 37(7) and 37(8) at Second Reading and made it clear that I, as a non-lawyer, was relying on the Bingham Centre’s rule of law analysis of this part of the Bill. I am going to leave the experts—we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—to deal with the legal flaws. I just want to give a couple of examples that Second Reading did not allow because of the time limits.
The first is the culling of sea-birds in the Ribble estuary. The case of RSPB v Secretary of State in 2015 concerned the decision by the Secretary of State to grant permission for a cull of sea-birds. The Court of Appeal ruled that the direction to cull was not consistent with the objectives of managing their population. Under this Bill, the statement of non-compliance would declare such a cull not in compliance with environmental law but it would not stop the cull. What would be the use of such a declaration? A paper remedy is no remedy at all.
A second, more recent example, concerns Manston Airport. Permission to use Manston Airport was given by way of a particular kind of statutory instrument: a development consent order, or DCO. The DCO was contested and the Secretary of State conceded that it had been made unlawfully. The planning court quashed the DCO, meaning that it had no legal effect. Under Clause 37(7), notwithstanding it was unlawful, the DCO would remain valid.
The third example, which I will not go into in detail, concerns the case of Dover District Council v CPRE Kent. This regarded a proposed development in an area of outstanding natural beauty. The Supreme Court quashed the permission. Under Clause 37(7), there would be nothing to prevent it going ahead.
Clause 37(8) also presents problems with the rule of law, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said. A local authority could give a developer the right to clear woodland to build houses. In so doing, the local authority could be breaching environmental law. The developer will have spent money on paperwork and planning. It may become non-compliant at an environmental review but, because the developer has spent money and expects to profit from the development, the development must go ahead. This is absolutely crazy. According to the Bingham Centre, this introduces
“a new ‘polluter doesn’t pay’ principle into environmental law.”
This is a new normal: unlawful actions by a public authority remain valid; it restricts the awards of a remedy by the court; it requires a court to endorse unlawful action if quashing that action would hurt a person who stands to benefit from it. The Minister must have some really good, detailed answers to these points and the others he is going to hear this afternoon—far more satisfactory than what he has managed to conjure up so far on the Bill. He must appreciate that there will be chaos on Report as the Bill gets torn apart.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and speak to the same amendments.
If the Bill is to be effective and to work, there are two main areas that need change. The first is clarity in relation to all the duties imposed because without clear duties, interlocking targets, interim targets and environmental plans, there is no effective concrete law that can be applied.
The second area where it has changed is enforcement. On Monday we had a useful debate on the independence of the OEP. Today, we turn to a second aspect of enforcement: the remedies that must be available if court proceedings are required. I very much hope that the independent strength and force of the OEP, together with clear duties set out in the Bill, will mean that recourse to courts is rarely necessary. However, that may be a pious hope because it is obvious that in this area there are immense conflicts of interest between those looking at the long term and those who seek to protect short-term or other interests. It seems to me, therefore, that an amount of litigation and enforcement action taken through the courts is inevitable.
I believe that view must be shared by the Government because why, otherwise, would they seek to constrain two important aspects of our common-law tradition? The first is to curtail the judicial function and the second is to curtail the discretion of the enforcer. I will deal with each aspect in turn but, unless changes are made to this part of the Bill, I entirely agree with everyone who has spoken about teeth. I will not attempt to describe the kind of teeth required, only to say that they must ensure that the Bill is not a long series of statements but will actually work for future generations.
I will now deal with each amendment in turn. I will deal with them briefly and in the order in which they are set out, not as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, did, but I entirely agree with him that the critical amendment is Amendment 107. Amendment 105 changes the provision in the Bill that seeks to stop proceedings at a particular point in time being brought together. I find this very difficult to fathom. It is a very inefficient way of dealing with things, apart from being unjust. A court always likes to have all the relevant cases in front of it so that it can do justice. I ask the Minister: why do the Government wish to impede justice in this respect?
Amendments 106 and 107 can be taken together because they deal with the consequences of a decision by the court that what has happened has not been lawful. It seems to me very difficult to understand how a Government who believe in the rule of law—and I believe this Government firmly believe in the rule of law—wish to say that there are to be no consequences of a failure to comply with the law. That is very difficult to understand. However, much more serious, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and others have pointed out, is the restriction on remedies. I have no doubt that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its very able lawyers are well aware that, from time to time, in several cases, judges have to deal with circumstances where the rights of other people are affected or there is a question about good administration. A judge then takes, for example, the prejudice to the rights of certain people on the one hand and balances it against the considerations on the other. That is an ordinary judicial function.
The Bill seeks to take that function away from a judge by imposing a restriction that requires a judge to be satisfied that if one single person would suffer hardship or prejudice to his rights, that means the court cannot do justice. I ask why. To my mind, it is a very undesirable attack on the way in which traditionally in this country we have approached matters of judicial review of government action. Until now, the judges have been trusted. It is a remarkable fact that, although there are complaints from time to time that far too many decisions are overturned on judicial review, the general effect of judicial review and the knowledge of the consequences of the remedies has been to improve good administration. The Government are successful in the overwhelming number—a percentage in the high 90s—of cases. I therefore wonder: what is driving the Government in this case to curtail the doing of justice by judges? It seems to me that there is no reason whatever for it. Surely, they can trust the judges on this aspect.
The last of these amendments is to the provision that seeks to curtail the right of the OEP to bring judicial review. Why take away its discretion? Do the Government not trust it? Surely, with an agency that is independent and to be chaired by a person of the calibre of the chairman designate, it is very difficult to understand why a Government wish to restrict its discretion for the future in bringing cases. They must also appreciate that if a judicial review has brought late, the judge can refuse a remedy. There is the lock of the discretion of the trusted OEP, with judicial discretion as a backstop. Why do the Government need more? We should trust our common-law traditions and leave matters to the discretion of the judiciary and to the discretion of the enforcer.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great please to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I have put my name to Amendments 105, 106, 107 and 108, together with my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich, my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank. As a mere lay man on legal matters, I have little to add to the points made so beautifully by my noble friend and my noble and learned friend. However, it would be hard to argue against the view that the OEP, if it is to be an effective enforcement body, needs to be able to wield a big stick, even if the stick is rarely used. As it stands, the Bill gives the OEP a stick more akin to a matchstick than a knobkerrie, cudgel or shillelagh.
I am very grateful to the members of the Defra Bill team for having spent two sessions with my noble friend Lord Anderson and me trying to explain why Clause 37(8) biases the scales of justice against protecting the environment and in favour of commercial interests that might harm it. Three arguments were put forward. First, environmental review will take some time to reach the court stage as it passes through the two earlier stages of an information notice and a decision notice. Therefore, a third party may have already committed a great deal of resource to a project before it comes to court and it would be then unfair to stop the project in its tracks. Secondly, it was said that the OEP has wider powers than those covered by the European Commission and court and therefore needs to have its teeth blunted. Thirdly, in some cases, for instance planning approvals, giving environmental protection too much weight might cut across other government priorities.
I do not find these arguments at all persuasive. For instance, the argument that the environmental review process is so slow that a third party could be heavily committed begs the question of whether the design of the whole process needs to be reconsidered, as Amendment 108 proposes, rather than using Clause 37(8) as a sticking plaster to rectify the problem. As it stands, it is a bit like a manufacturer making a chair with legs that are too long and then selling it with a requirement that the customer cuts the legs down before use.
Defra officials have also produced a very helpful note summarising their arguments for this part of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred to a few minutes ago. The note makes it clear that one of the Government’s concerns, perhaps even a major concern, is that the OEP might get in the way of the planning system. My noble friend Lady Boycott referred in earlier debates to instances where housing developments could cause serious harm to valuable habitats. Perhaps a powerful OEP would be able to discourage or stop these developments—but if it did, would that be a bad thing? It certainly would not be for the species that depend on those habitats for their survival.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, before I speak to the amendments, I apologise to my noble friend the Minister for including his name in what I said about the Forestry Commission on Monday. It was quite of wrong of me to do so, and I apologise to him for that. He has confirmed that he does not agree with me, in any case.
As I turn to the amendments, there is now very little for me to say. The Bill has been savaged by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, a former Lord Chief Justice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern will doubtless similarly savage the existing wording.
My concern is that the OEP must be not only independent but seen as such, and it must be authoritative. If it is not, it is not going to work; it will get into disrepute. The Bill as it stands does not help in seeking to achieve the goals that we all want. This takes me, finally, on to the question of financial penalties. I know how effective the threat of financial penalties has been on the Government, but I actually see little point in the OEP being able to fine the Government, because it comes out of one pocket and goes straight back into another pocket to be recycled. It is not the threat that the Europeans had of a financial penalty on the Government. There has to be a better way of making certain that the OEP’s decisions have the cudgel that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has withdrawn, so I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendments 105 to 108 and to endorse all that the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Krebs, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said about them.
Rolling up multiple instances of misconduct into a single application, as Amendment 105 seeks to permit, makes obvious sense. There are limits to the extent that rules of court may go to promote that objective, although this is certainly something that the courts would like to do. Amending Clause 37 in this way will significantly improve the process, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said in introducing this group, and it will also avoid abuses. Therefore, I warmly endorse this amendment.
Clause 37(8), which seeks to restrict the discretion of the court to grant a remedy, raises the threshold on what the court may do too far. Removing that restriction is what Amendment 107—the crucial amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said—is all about. Along with others who have worked with judicial review in practice, I regret what the Government are proposing. I understand the points made in the Defra note about innocent third parties and the effects of delay in some cases when issues come to court, but the courts themselves have no difficulty in taking points of that kind on board and making allowances for them. The flexibility of judicial review, which is one of its strengths and ought also to be part of environmental review, must be preserved.
Clause 38(3) about the urgency condition, which Amendment 108 seeks to remove, is another fetter on the jurisdiction of the courts which is hard to justify, as others have said.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said to me one day years ago, I think shortly after he entered this House as Lord Advocate and began to see what Governments can achieve by legislation, “legislation is a blunt instrument”. I have never forgotten that remark. All too often legislation has unforeseen consequences. His wise remark serves as a warning to legislators not to trespass too readily into areas of law and practice which depend on the exercise of judicial discretion, and this is such an area. The point is that while legislation lays down rules, only other legislation can change those rules, and they are rules which the court must obey. By contrast, the common law which judges apply can and does adapt itself as case law develops. That is its strength and what judicial review has been doing for decades. That is why it is much more sensitive to the demands of each case and the kinds of problems that the Defra note refers to. It should not be impeded in the way that the Government are seeking to do in these clauses, and that is why I support these amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Although she is in her place, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, is not participating in this debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, when amendments are supported by noble Lords of the calibre of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, a renowned scientist and environmentalist in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and a former Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank—if I were the Minister, I would roll over and accept them. I hope he will do just that. I cannot add to the lucid case made in support of Amendments 105 to 108 by those noble Lords I have mentioned, other than, in layman’s terms, to add my voice of concern about the proposed restrictions on judicial discretion to grant remedies when it is found that there has been a breach of environmental law on an environmental review and the limitations on the OEP’s powers to bring judicial review proceedings.
The proposed statement of non-compliance is risible, since the public body can publish a response but carry on regardless, with whatever it has done wrongly remaining valid and in place. This is not a toothless remedy; it is no remedy at all and will bring the OEP immediately into disrepute. To make matters worse, a judge cannot issue a stronger remedy if it would
“be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person”
or
“be detrimental to good administration.”
We have heard cases from across the environmental spectrum from previous speakers. Can the Minister tell the Committee how this provision can possibly work, as there is bound to be an individual or group who could be shown to have suffered some adverse impact? It is called life, I think.
Environmental review is supposed to complement rather than replace judicial review, but the Bill allows the OEP to use judicial review only where an urgency condition has been met:
“to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or to human health.”
Other similar bodies have access to judicial review at their discretion, and that cannot be denied to the OEP without it becoming ineffective in its enforcement role.
Amendments 106 to 108 would enable the OEP to exercise at least some effective powers to hold government and public bodies to account for compliance with environmental law. Personally, I would also give the OEP whacking great powers, as outlined in Amendment 105 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. There is nothing like an eye-watering fine of the scale that the European Commission used to apply as a last resort to change the mind of a government department or an agency that has gone off-piste.
I have chaired a regulatory body that attempted to regulate government bodies and the Government themselves, and I tell the Committee that it is not easy. If you do it with rigour and toughness, the Government hate you and take revenge. If you do it in a toothless way, the public lose confidence in you and take revenge. It is difficult enough with a full set of tools in the toolkit. Unless these amendments are passed, the OEP’s toolkit will be significantly bare.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I add my voice in support of Amendments 105 and 107, and I shall speak to those amendments together. My right reverend friend the Lord Bishop of Oxford would have spoken to them, but is unable to be here, so I am glad to be able to speak and endorse what other noble Lords have said.
From this Bench, we welcome much of the content of the Bill, and we believe deeply in the importance of the good stewardship of creation. We recognise the need for global solutions to an international challenge and that any solutions will take leadership and require harmonising regulation on a global scale. As others have said, it is essential that the new OEP be given the appropriate teeth—not dentures, perhaps jaws—to hold business and government at all levels, national, regional and local, to account.
As drafted, the Bill centralises power and control into the Government’s hands rather than entrusting the powers to the regulator. If we truly want to be taken seriously as an international trailblazer for environmental legislation, we ought not to be afraid of creating a robust regulator. It would be a signal of confidence by the Government in their own programme to equip the regulator with the powers it needs to be properly effective. Although I recognise and applaud the passion with which the Minister has championed the Bill so far, if the Government are not prepared to support these amendments, I should like to hear more from him about how the OEP will be so equipped. Simply stating that it will be independent does not make it so. Given that the new OEP’s resources will be significantly less than its predecessor body, the new regulator will need to be more targeted and strategic about its activities. However, Clause 37 will significantly restrict the power of the courts to grant remedies, and I believe that the powers detailed in Amendment 107 will be essential for the OEP to do its job effectively.
In the year we are hosting COP 26, we should be showing the world that, even if we are to miss our climate goals, as the Committee on Climate Change has suggested we will, we have put in place a body that can genuinely help us to get the rest of the way to the target and beyond—especially when facing the tricky balance between competing commitments made in trade deals, environmental protection and agricultural production.
We know that the window to make a meaningful impact on climate change is closing. We need the Bill to be as fit for purpose as possible from the very beginning. I hope that the Minister will agree that an independent and effective OEP needs to have proper powers to hold to account, and I hope that the Government will support these amendments.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments and support in detail all that has been said by noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. I want to ask a rather fundamental question. The environmental review can be taken on only where the OEP considers that, on the balance of probability,
“the authority has failed to comply with environmental law, and … it considers that the failure”
is “serious.” That is the start: a failure
“to comply with environmental law.”
Subsection (6) states:
“If the court finds that the authority has failed to comply with environmental law, it must make a statement to that effect (a ‘statement of non-compliance’).”
That is to say that the court has held that the authority in question
“has failed to comply with environmental law”.
It goes on to state:
“A statement of non-compliance does not affect the validity of the conduct in respect of which it is given.”
What does that mean? That means that the conduct in question cannot be a breach of the law. It is a failure of environmental law, yet it is not a breach of the law. Is that another way of saying that environmental law is not a law at all, and that planning law must prevail? Is that really what this is saying, or can my noble friend explain to me how you can have a law which has been breached yet the conduct is not regarded as improper?
It is a simple question that supports all these amendments, if answered properly. There is an underlying feeling that environmental law is to be a grade below some other laws so that, although you fail to comply with it, you can still be all right. That does not accord with our understanding of law—certainly not mine for a considerable period. I do not see how it can work that you can have a piece of legislation that describes something as law—environmental law—yet it is not law that, where you breach it, renders your conduct wrong.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a delight to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who is in many ways the embodiment of wisdom in your Lordships’ House. How good it is to have him back with us and speaking as vigorously and to the point as he always does.
I cannot begin to rival the expertise or knowledge of the noble and learned Lords who have spoken, but shall give my noble friend the Minister a secular analogy. When we enter this Chamber from the Prince’s Chamber, we have in front of us that great classical sculpture by John Gibson of Queen Victoria. It is flanked on either side by the figures of Justice and Mercy. The figure of Justice holds in her hands, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, reminded us earlier, the sword and the scales.
Would my noble friend Lord Goldsmith seriously think, as he entered the Chamber, of removing that sword and those scales? Because that, metaphorically, is what he is proposing to do this afternoon if he does not accept the spirit of these amendments. It is palpably absurd—I refer to the interesting contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—to have an Environment Bill that has as one of its slogans, “The polluter need not pay”. It is absurd. Can my noble friend not recognise that absurdity?
I have said before in these debates that it is essential that an environmental Bill should command the support of Members in all parts of your Lordships’ House, particularly one that is meant to stand the test of not just some time but generations. We cannot have a Bill enacted that, in effect, does what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay has just said and contradicts one of the fundamentals of English law.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith will do what I urged him to do when speaking to an amendment on Monday. I said that because it was so important that the Bill should command the support of your Lordships in all parts of the House, he should convene some sort of round table and talk to us all. There is an answer to all these conundrums and problems that we are highlighting, because we all support the basic premise of the Bill. However, if we support that premise and intention, we cannot allow the Bill to go on to the statute book so fundamentally flawed as it is at the moment. So I say to him again, “Please talk to those of us who wish you well, who wish the Bill well, but who can never lend support on Report to a Bill that is so riddled with absurdity”.
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con)
My Lords, I begin by drawing attention to my interests in the register, notably the chairmanship of the National Forest.
I was pleased to put my name to Amendments 105 to 108, because they are necessary and they make the Bill better. We have heard echoed by a number of noble Lords how that can be achieved and I hope that the Government hear that. In many ways, this clause is like a Monet painting. It looks fine from a distance, but the closer you get the more the detail seems to disappear. What we need now is clarity and for that detail to be recognisable. Non-compliance must affect validity. That is a simple statement of fact. The beneficiary of an environmental deterrent or damage cannot escape sanction because he is materially affected by the sanction. That cannot be a useful way of moving forward. The remedies available must be a deterrent. If they are not, the system will be gamed. Individuals will find ways through, between and under, and they will be able to make a mockery of what should be a very important institution.
The OEP is a successor to a body that was able by its threats to bring about fundamental change in how environmental laws were enforced—and it made the environment better, safer and healthier by doing that. The successor body must be able to do the same and have available to it each of the elements that can allow it to achieve that outcome. That is why I was very pleased to put my name to these amendments.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for these amendments, which expose the fundamental flaws in the proposed enforcement powers of the environmental watchdog. We support all the amendments, particularly Amendment 107. As others have said, lawyers in this Chamber have eloquently made the case, so I will merely reflect on two points.
First, the Government have said that they want the OEP to be world-beating in its role. Yet a cursory review of its remit, as opposed to that of the body in Scotland, Environmental Standards Scotland, suggests that that is absolutely not the case and that the powers of the OEP are far more prescriptive than those of Environmental Standards Scotland, which has the power to take the steps that it considers appropriate—I repeat, the steps that “it” considers appropriate—to secure public authorities’ compliance with environmental law and how it is implemented or applied. So, if the Government want the OEP to be a world-beating watchdog, they need to look at the options rather more carefully in order to ensure that that is delivered.
Secondly, on Amendment 107, which seeks to remove the restriction on the ability of the court to grant remedies, such as squashing orders, where that could cause severe hardship, we agree very much with the noble and learned Lord, Lords Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who said that we should trust the judges. As it stands, the Bill fetters the discretion of the judiciary and radically alters the balance of power in favour of the Executive.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked: who bears the brunt of this weight in the change in the balance of power? He rightly reflected that it is nature—but, equally, it is the people of our country. It has been a fundamental cornerstone of British democracy that people have a right to environmental justice and to hold the Government to account. It is also a right guaranteed to the British public, given that we are signatories to the Aarhus convention. Therefore, as it stands, unless these amendments are accepted, we the British public will have weaker rights to environmental justice than we had previously under the European Union. We therefore urge the Government to accept these amendments and to ensure that the OEP has the robust powers that it needs in order to be—and, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, to be seen to be—an effective and robust environmental watchdog.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, first, I am grateful to the noble Lady, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling Amendment 104. It enables us to have a discussion about what penalties are appropriate to ensure compliance with environmental law and to ensure that breaches are dealt with appropriately.
We agree that, as the Bill is currently worded, issuing decision notices has nothing like the impact that we previously enjoyed in the EU, whereby Governments could incur substantial fines. As the Bill stands, decision notices are not binding and it is not clear that these would be an effective way in which to remedy failures to comply with environmental law. We believe that the OEP should have much broader powers to make judgments, case by case, about what an appropriate remedy should be, including making amends and repairs and, in some cases, paying a financial penalty. I rather liked the rather creative proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that the revenue from those fines could then go to the NHS.
A more substantial point about financial penalties is made in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. She gave an excellent insight into why these are necessary. We also agree with her that these decisions need to be enforceable and to send a clear message that would dissuade other public bodies from similarly breaching the law. The remedy should also require the public body to make a public declaration of the steps that it will take to put the matter right.
I know that the Government have consistently argued that financial penalties are not appropriate within the UK, as that would simply transfer money from one government pot of money to another. But we have to face the fact that it was a considerable deterrent in EU law and that nothing yet proposed in this Bill has anything like the same deterrent effect. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, penalty fines concentrate minds. Meanwhile, he and other noble Lords have all, in a powerfully co-ordinated way, taken apart the judicial processes in the Bill and exposed their weaknesses. They have made the case much better than I ever could. I am grateful to the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and the legal analysis offered from ClientEarth for setting out in some detail the failings in the judicial clauses of the Bill.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions and assure them that the Government are committed to establishing the OEP to effectively hold public authorities to account, and have provided for an enforcement framework which will allow it to do so in a manner appropriate to our domestic context.
I shall begin with Amendments 104 and 107A, tabled respectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. In our domestic legal system, provision for a system of fines is unnecessary because of the strict requirement for public authorities to comply with court judgments and the stronger legal remedies available. I will come back to this in a moment. Fines play an important role at the EU level, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, explained, because the Court of Justice of the European Union has no other tool by which to bring about compliance with its judgments. Unlike our courts, it does not have the ability to impose mandatory court orders directly on public authorities. If a member state does not comply, the Commission can only bring the case back to court some years later and seek a financial penalty against the member state.
Incidentally, financial penalties under the EU framework were pushed as a compliance mechanism by the UK Government when the UK was a member of the EU. Given the nature of the European framework, we felt that it was necessary at the time to ensure that no member state could simply ignore the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
By contrast, under our proposed framework, if a public authority took the extraordinary step of failing to comply with the stronger remedy of a binding court order, the OEP would be able to bring contempt of court proceedings. Being held in contempt would have serious implications and could not be ignored, as noble Lords know. There are clear requirements in the Ministerial Code for Ministers to comply with the law, including court orders. I emphasise this point. Having heard my noble friend Lord Cormack, I think that this may be an area that he has perhaps not fully understood. The prospect of a fine pales in comparison with the risk of being held in contempt of court.
I also note that the amendments would go further even than allowing the court to impose a fine where an earlier judgment had not been complied with. One amendment would grant a power to the OEP itself to impose fines, and the other would grant the court a power to issue fines, effectively as a punitive step. The Government consider that both of these options would be inappropriate. Amendment 104 would in effect allow the OEP to superimpose its own decisions in place of those made by authorities appointed by Parliament itself. The OEP would be able to prematurely sanction public authorities, without reference to the courts, and with no appeals mechanism through which this decision could then be challenged.
Incidentally, the European Commission cannot directly fine member states, public bodies, or private bodies for environmental infractions, as a number of noble Lords have implied. Only the Court of Justice of the European Union has this power, and only if a member state has failed to comply with an earlier judgment.
Additionally, Amendment 107A would grant the court a power to issue fines, effectively as a punitive step rather than to bring about compliance. This is not the role of environmental review or the OEP.
Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I thank him for his conversations on this subject with myself and my officials. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I would be very keen to continue those discussions if he is willing, as I hope noble Lords will appreciate I have been throughout this process. Before I go into the specifics of his amendments, I will explain why we have designed the OEP’s enforcement framework in the way that we have, and why it is so important.
The OEP’s enforcement framework must be considered in the round. It delivers numerous benefits as an additional—not a replacement—route through which alleged instances of non-compliance will be addressed. Our proposals increase access to justice by allowing anyone who has been affected by, or is aware of, an alleged breach of environmental law by a public authority to make a complaint to the OEP free of charge. Notwithstanding the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, this matters, given the costs of action outside of this proposal and outside of this new system.
By liaising directly with public authorities to investigate and resolve alleged serious breaches of environmental law in a targeted manner, the OEP will be able to drive systemic environmental improvements. Wherever possible, this will be without the need to resort to costly and time-consuming litigation. In many ways, therefore, the OEP will be fulfilling a similar role to that carried out by the European Commission in the EU infractions process, but with a significantly wider remit and the ability to act directly against public authorities.
The vast majority of EU infraction cases are resolved in a similar way to how we expect the OEP’s enforcement framework to operate: through dialogue, not in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The cases taken by the EU Commission are also intended to drive systemic environmental improvements by clarifying the law and dealing with ongoing failures, and this is the role that we have in mind for the OEP. Our new framework will lead to better outcomes for complainants, the public and the environment. It is right that as many cases as possible are resolved through this route.
There has been a great deal of discussion of Clause 37(8) in this debate, but it must also be right that we have adopted an approach which ensures fairness and certainty in these provisions. This is entirely consistent with other forms of legal challenge in our domestic justice system, where, for instance, provision for strict judicial review time limits demonstrates that relying on judicial discretion alone is not sufficient.
Turning to the detail of Amendment 105, the court should be asked to examine issues only where the OEP has given the public authority adequate opportunity to respond. That is only right and appropriate. Active discussion with a view to resolving the issue would take place in the course of an investigation and through the service of an information notice. Where necessary, this would then be followed by a decision notice. Amendment 105 from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, would therefore circumvent this process, limiting the benefits that this new system could deliver. Noble Lords will note that it would still be possible for the OEP to put evidence to the court regarding actions by a public authority related to conduct described in a decision notice. The court would then have the flexibility to consider this in relation to remedies.
Turning to Amendment 106, the OEP’s enforcement framework will drive systemic environmental improvements and deliver better outcomes for the public and the environment. It will allow the OEP the time and space to resolve issues directly with public authorities through investigations and its notice processes. Litigation will, of course, sometimes be necessary, but as a last resort rather than as the default or the norm. This is entirely consistent with the approach taken in EU environmental infractions, which is focused on addressing ongoing non-compliance, not trying to overturn decisions years later that have been reasonably relied on by individuals. It is as a direct result of this extended enforcement process that some safeguards are required to avoid the negative effects of decisions being undone potentially many months after they have been taken. Clause 37(7) does this.
However, a statement of non-compliance is none the less an important means by which the court can clarify the law for future cases. Given that the court will have ruled on the correct interpretation of the law, this will ensure that public authorities avoid future breaches and will prevent any ongoing non-compliance, which is ultimately the aim of the OEP. The EU infractions process is also exactly that: it seeks to address ongoing non-compliance, rather than undo specific local decisions made years previously. We want the OEP to be a forward-looking organisation, driving better environmental outcomes for the future.
In response to comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, I want also to reassure noble Lords that the existence of the statement of non-compliance does not in any way limit the granting of remedies by the court. A statement of non-compliance is not itself considered a remedy. Subject to the important protections in Clause 37(8), the court will have full discretion to grant normal judicial review remedies. This includes quashing orders, prohibiting orders, mandatory orders and declarations.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is reassured that we have carefully considered how best to balance this provision to ensure that the OEP and environmental review will be able to drive meaningful environmental improvements, while also ensuring that there is not an open-ended ability to overturn decisions potentially years after they are made. As such, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.
Turning to Amendment 107, environmental review by its nature allows time for information and decision notice stages. This will enable the court to make orders outside of the normal judicial review time limits. Judicial review time limits are to ensure certainty and provide a fair process that protects the rights of third parties who act reasonably on the decisions of public authorities. These very strict time limits are set out in the Civil Procedure Rules at Part 54. Rule 54.5 specifically provides that these time limits may not be extended, even by agreement between the parties. If judicial discretion alone were sufficient to protect fairness and ensure certainty, why, then, would these time limits be necessary?
The Government consider it entirely necessary to recognise the unique context in which environmental reviews will occur and protect third parties in this way, just as others did in the past when establishing the judicial review procedure in law. It is not a novel approach to protect such rights in legislation. Indeed, this provision is an extension of the position for existing challenges: under Section 31(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and Sections 16(4) and (5) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the court has a discretion to refuse relief in such circumstances.
The protections in Clause 37(8) make it possible for the OEP to have a more collaborative, but potentially extended, process of investigation and notices, which will enable issues to be resolved more effectively in the interests of the public and the environment. But to be clear, it is also not the case that these safeguards will be triggered in all cases. Indeed, the Bill steers the OEP to prioritise cases with national implications, so individual local planning decisions affecting third parties are unlikely to be considered. The safeguards provided by Clause 37(8) will not be relevant to most cases that the OEP will pursue. A requirement to change future policy or how legislation is to be interpreted will not trigger the safeguard. After all, no-one is entitled to demand that government policy be fixed for ever more.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to this debate, particularly to the many noble and learned Lords who gave very powerful arguments in support of the amendments we have been discussing. I certainly believe that they have made some very strong cases. I was particularly interested in the comment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, about the two levels of law, environmental and other ones. That is pretty fundamental. We have had a lot of discussion about penalties, enforcement, fines and the relationship with the ECJ, and whether fines are important or whether reputational damage is perhaps worse. There is also judicial review, which I will not go into now.
I am sad that it appears that the Minister has rejected all the arguments in these amendments. If they get through in Report, they will make a much better Bill than we have at the moment. I was really impressed with the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that there needs to be much more round-table discussion on this before the next phase. If not, I foresee big problems on Report. The most important thing is that the House and Members from all sides achieve something that we can all be proud of. From listening today, I certainly am not proud of it at the moment, but I hope that the Minister will reflect on this and organise something before the next stage.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. It is absolutely not the case that I or the Government have rejected all the arguments put forward today, or indeed in any of the debates we have had. This is a lengthy process of scrutiny, discussion and debate and, as I have said many times, it is unlikely that a Bill that begins this process will end it in exactly the same form. I am as keen as anyone in this Committee—probably keener than most people in this Committee—to ensure that the Bill is as good and strong as it possibly can be. That is why I am very keen to continue discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and many other noble Lords on their areas of expertise.
The environmental review is a bespoke and additional jurisdiction, not a replacement vehicle. This is additional—for the court to hear claims outside the usual time limit for judicial review or statutory review. As I said during my speech, the court retains all available remedies where decisions are challenged by way of judicial review within the existing time limits, including, where appropriate, by the OEP. I hope that addresses the noble Lord’s concern.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Given the strength of feeling in the Committee this afternoon, I hope my noble friend might agree to meet the authors of the amendments before us. I come back to the point that many have referred to from my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. We are left with the impression that an environmental law is set out before us in the Bill but that a breach of that environmental law does not amount to a breach of the law. That is unsatisfactory.
I also press my noble friend on his comment that rather than have a fine, which would be punitive, it is better to have a compliance effect such as holding the company—it could be a chemical company or a water company—to be in breach through the OEP applying for contempt of court. I am just trying to think how long those proceedings would take after the horse has bolted and the stable door is left open for the damage to carry on. I would still prefer the options in either Amendment 104 or, ideally, Amendment 107A of leaving financial penalties on the table.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her comments. I hope I addressed fines and why the prospect of being held in contempt of court is a far greater concern for a Minister than the prospect of the department that Minister belongs to being fined by a Government and the money being recycled through the same Government.
I reiterate that the system we are replacing is not one that can fine those chemical companies or even local authorities—it can deal only directly with member states—so the remit here is far greater than the remit of the system being replaced. I understand that we may have to agree to disagree, but I refer my noble friend to my argument in relation to fines earlier in the discussion.
On her first point, I am of course very happy to have meetings with any number of noble Lords to discuss these issues, as I have throughout this process.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments, especially about continuing dialogue and revisiting this; that is incredibly important. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. It is obvious that we all think there are problems with the Bill. I hope that not just the Minister is listening but the Government, and that they understand the depth of concern we are expressing here.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, called my previous summing-up speech “candid”. At first I thought that was a compliment, but then I thought that it actually sounds like something out of “Yes Minister”, when the civil servant says: “Yes, very brave, Minister—very candid.” I hope I am candid, but at the same time I try not to be rude—I do not always succeed.
I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, however tentative, and thank him for his examples. Quite honestly, I wish I had asked him to present my Amendment 104. I think he would have made a superb job of it, and I look forward to him using his teeth on Report. Quite honestly, if it comes to a challenge between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, my money is on him. He has my full backing.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering—I sympathise with her visit to the dentist and hope she is feeling better—is right to say that our amendments take things forward. I will be keen to push this on Report.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, used an extremely good phrase about working for future generations that I wish I had used. That is absolutely crucial when we are dealing with this Bill. It is not just for now, the next six months or the next few years but for future generations. He was also quite generous when he said that the Government believe in the rule of law. I have huge respect for the noble and learned Lord, but I am not sure that is true. I think the Government talk about the rule of law but do not actually observe it; that is my observation of how they behave. We must trust the judges, as he says.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for whom I have huge respect, said that the office for environmental protection has to wield a big stick. That is absolutely right; it has to have the authority and the power to achieve all sorts of things. He also felt that Amendments 104 and 107A were a step too far, but I do not see why that is a valid argument. Quite honestly, giving up money hurts, and somehow we have to make it punitive.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that the OEP has to be independent and authoritative; that is absolutely right. He also said that financial penalties can be effective but then suggested that, because the money was recycled, perhaps it was not that effective. Again, I disagree. It is not only the pain of the penalty but a visible example of the fact that the Government are wrong.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his support. He emphasised the value of case law—something that was used a lot when we were in the EU—where the Government are really held to account.
The lay woman’s view from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is extremely valid and very cogent. I thank her for her support.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester talked about leadership and COP 26. The fact is that we need an Environment Bill that will look good on the statute books when we get to COP 26, or our Government will be seriously embarrassed. The fact that the OEP will have fewer resources than the preceding body is a matter of huge concern. She also said that the window for action was closing, which is absolutely true, not just of this Bill but of all our actions on the climate emergency. At the moment we are seeing endless examples of very unusual weather patterns, whether in Canada or over much of Africa. We have to understand that we have to act urgently.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, pointed out the illogicality of the Bill—I really enjoyed that—and the fact that environmental law is seen as a grade below other law. That is absolutely true. I think Defra has much lower status than other parts of the Government, and that is a terrible shame. It should be involved in absolutely every part of government.
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, with his customary common sense, support the polluter pays rule. Of course polluters have to pay and the Bill has to stand the test of time. He said that it is “riddled with absurdity”. I wish I had said all this; it is much tougher than what I said.
The noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, freed from the shackles of collective responsibility of his ministerial post, has joined our forces—I welcome him—and spoke strongly about the need to give real teeth to the new system of environmental protection. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her support of Amendment 104. She made the very valid point that the Scottish body is more powerful. Why would we do less than our Scottish cousins? The idea that the Government are using the term “world-beating” alongside the words “office for environmental protection” here in England is ridiculous.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 108A. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division, must make that clear in debate.
Clause 42: Confidentiality of proceedings
Amendment 108A
Lord Rooker
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would exclude from the prohibition on disclosure in Clause 42(1)(a) information obtained by the Office for Environmental Protection under Clause 26(1).
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
In moving Amendment 108A, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group, all originally tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Wills, who regrets that he is unable to be with us today. The first four refer to Clause 42, and the final one to Clause 45.
My main concern is the effect of Clause 42 on the right of access to environmental information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004—the EIR. Clause 42(1) prohibits the disclosure of several classes of information by the office for environmental protection. These are: information provided to the OEP to assist it with its functions by a body with public functions under Clause 26(1); and specified information about OEP enforcement action, including any information notice or decision notice it serves, any related correspondence with an authority, and information provided to it by the authority.
Clause 42(2) describes the circumstances in which disclosure to the public will be permitted. These are: if the body supplying the information, the OEP or authority, consents—but this does not apply to an information notice or a decision notice—or if the OEP has concluded that it intends to take no further steps in relation to the matter. That is set out in subsection (2)(h).
Clause 42(3) prohibits disclosure of certain information by public authorities, particularly those which are the subject of OEP enforcement action. Clause 42(4) provides exceptions to the prohibition. None of the exceptions to the prohibitions under Clause 42 permits disclosure for the purpose of complying with the EIR or the Freedom of Information Act.
However, the Explanatory Notes set out an entirely different view. Paragraph 365 says that Clause 42
“does not override the EIR which will still apply to the OEP and other public bodies. The OEP will be required to consider requests for disclosure of information made under the EIR on a case by case basis, including assessing whether any appropriate exception will apply.”
Paragraph 366 adds:
“This clause will also not override or disapply other existing legislative provision on public access to information such as the Freedom of Information Act 2000”.
This second statement is plainly wrong. Section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act exempts from access any information whose disclosure
“is prohibited by or under any enactment”.
This is an absolute exemption to which the Freedom of Information Act’s public interest test does not apply. Any statutory prohibition which applies to the information overrides the FoI right of access.
The position under the EIR is more complicated. Regulation 5(6) of the EIR states:
“Any enactment or rule of law that would prevent the disclosure of information in accordance with these Regulations shall not apply.”
Prior to Brexit, that would have guaranteed that a statutory prohibition could not undermine the EIR right of access, as the regulations implement an EU directive. The supremacy of EU law meant that it could not be set aside by domestic law. That principle no longer applies.
The EIR are now retained EU law. As I understand the position, from various briefings and from our own discussions, it is that, following the implementation period—IP—completion day:
“The principle of the supremacy of EU law does not apply to any enactment or rule of law passed or made on or after exit day.”
That is in Section 5(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
“So domestic law passed after IP completion day will trump provisions in retained EU law that are of EU origin and which would have benefited from the principle of supremacy before IP completion day”—
that is the legal opinion given out by firms such as Gowling WLG.
The Bill’s prohibitions on disclosure postdate the implementation period and are clearly incompatible with the EIR rights of access. So long as the prohibitions apply, they appear to override the EIR right of access to the information concerned. Let us take an example. The OEP will be prohibited from disclosing any information supplied to it by a body with public functions under Clause 26(1). This requires such a body to provide information to the OEP if it asks for it in connection with its functions. Substantial classes of information could be affected, given the OEP’s broad functions. These, of course, include monitoring progress towards improving the environment, meeting environmental targets and implementing environmental legislation, as well as advising Ministers and investigating failures by public authorities to comply with environmental law.
Let us suppose that the OEP receives a request for the underlying data on which it has based a statement about air or water quality. If that information has come from a body with public functions, it will be subject to the prohibition. The OEP could disclose this after it had decided to take no further steps about the matter—but when would that happen? Monitoring is an ongoing process. The publication of an annual monitoring report under Clause 27(7)—which is unlikely to contain the complete monitoring data—will not mark the end of the OEP’s involvement. The problem revealed by the monitoring may persist for years, endangering human health or the environment. The OEP may need to advise the Minister, perhaps repeatedly, to address the matter. It may need to investigate any failure to comply with environmental law. The more serious the problem, the longer the prohibition will continue to prevent disclosure—an absurd situation.
The information, of course, might be disclosed if the body supplying it consents; but it may not do so, particularly if the information shows that the problem is the result of its own failings. The withholding of such information would be a serious blow to the public’s right to know, to informed public debate and to public confidence in the OEP. It is almost inconceivable that such data could be withheld under the EIR. To do so, an authority would have to show that disclosure would “adversely affect” a specified interest, consider whether the public interest required disclosure, and apply
“a presumption in favour of disclosure”.
If the information concerned emissions, significant EIR exceptions, such as those for commercial confidentiality or the interests of a person supplying information voluntarily, would be disapplied altogether. How does a blanket prohibition on disclosure, which takes no account of the public interest, advance environmental protection? And by the way, I realise that a member of the public could go with an FOI request direct to the body concerned, but how do they know what the body is going to be? That is the point: we will not know unless people are told.
The same obstacle would apply to information which an authority had supplied to the OEP in the course an OEP investigation. It could be disclosed only when the OEP had decided to take no further action or the body supplying the information consented. Again, this contrasts this with the EIR approach. EIR regulation 12(5)(b) allows an authority to withhold information if disclosure would
“adversely affect the course of justice, the ability of a person to receive a fair trial or the ability of a public authority to conduct an inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature”.
The Information Commissioner’s guidance highlights the “very wide” scope of the “course of justice” limb of this exception, which it says applies to information about law enforcement investigations or proceedings and civil and criminal investigations and proceedings. This is how information the disclosure of which might undermine law enforcement is protected by other regulators, including the Environment Agency, local authorities, the Health and Safety Executive and the police. To withhold information, they must show that disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice and that, on balance, the public interest favours confidentiality.
In 2017, the tribunal that deals with EIR and FOI appeals ruled on a request relating to a factory at which a fatal explosion had occurred. It held that a request for the findings of an earlier investigation into the factory should be denied because the information was likely to form part of the prosecution case, and media coverage of that investigation would have compromised the remaining police interviews and risked jeopardising a fair trial. However, in a 2007 decision involving a fatal outbreak of food poisoning, the tribunal found that disclosure in that case would not affect the trial. It commented:
“A blanket refusal to disclose all potentially relevant information may well not be justified. A public authority … ought to give careful consideration to the potential effect on the criminal proceedings of the particular information being requested ... but if, on a sensible reading of the documentation in question, its disclosure would not adversely affect the prospects of a fair trial, then the fact that the information has some connection with the subject matter of a prosecution will not be sufficient justification for nondisclosure ... on the special facts of this case, the disclosure ... would not have adversely affected the accused’s ability to have a fair trial.”
Amendment 108A would remove the reference to Clause 26(1) from Clause 42(1)(a). Information provided to the OEP by bodies with public functions could then be disclosed on request, subject to the EIR exceptions. Amendments 108B and 108C would permit disclosure for the purpose of complying with the EIR or FOI Act or subject access under data protection legislation. This is what the Explanatory Notes say is already the position. If so, the Government should have no objection to stating that on the face of the Bill. If the prohibitions in fact override EIR right of access, the UK will be in breach of Article 4 of the Aarhus convention, which requires the UK to provide a statutory right of access to environmental information. It does not permit information to be withheld on a class basis. The public interest in disclosure must be taken into account and exemptions applied in a “restrictive way”.
Clause 42(7) addresses a separate issue. It refers to the information to which Clauses 42(1) and 42(3) would apply, disregarding the exceptions to these prohibitions. The clause provides that, where information is “environmental information”, it will be considered to be held
“in connection with confidential proceedings”.
This would bring it within the range of an exception in EIR Regulation 12(5)(d), which states that
“a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect ... the confidentiality of the proceedings of that or any other public authority where such confidentiality is provided by law”.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I entirely share the concerns expressed with such clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I am a total devotee of freedom of information; indeed, I managed to get a Second Reading of my Freedom of Information Bill in the House of Lords on 10 February 1999, rather in advance of the Government’s own. As the Minister knows from our previous discussions, I am also a total devotee of openness. Both those concerns of mine are engaged by the Bill as it is now written.
When it comes to environmental information, we ought to be more open, not less. Environmental information is so much a public matter and of such widespread individual public concern that we should not be looking, simply for the convenience of the system, to hide it away. I very much look forward to the Minister’s explanation of why the Bill is written as it is.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I hope to speak quite briefly on this issue. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rooker for spelling out the case so thoroughly and for raising the important question of transparency. He has rightly underlined the importance of open government and of the OEP being seen to act in the public interest. That is particularly true on environmental matters, where in the past there has been a tendency to cover up environmental damage and pollution, and those accused have deliberately drawn out proceedings to delay prosecution.
As it stands, the Bill contains two prohibitions on disclosure of information. The first appears to override the existing right of access to information under the environmental information regulations. The second appears to contravene the Aarhus convention, the international treaty that underpins the EIR.
Under the Bill, the OEP has a clear obligation to monitor progress in environmental protection and investigate complaints of serious failure by public bodies, but it seems that the OEP could not disclose information obtained for these purposes unless the supplier of the information consented. Similarly, information obtained during the OEP’s enforcement activity would be kept secret until the OEP decided to take no further action. That appears to be much more of a blanket ban than the current provision of the EIR, which limits disclosure only if it would
“adversely affect the course of justice”.
The Explanatory Notes take a different view, claiming that Clause 42 is compliant with the Aarhus convention, but it creates a caveat based on a “confidentiality of proceedings” exception. It is not clear how that will be defined.
To avoid any confusion on the important issue of public access to information, and to protect the OEP from accusations of unnecessary secrecy, it makes sense to clarify in the Bill that the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and connected freedom of information Acts take precedence. We therefore welcome the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Wills that have been ably moved by my noble friend Lord Rooker. I hope the Minister will see the sense in these amendments, which would provide useful clarification of our obligations under national and international law.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his introduction. He is right to emphasise the importance of transparency, a point made equally well by my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
I reiterate the position on information disclosure for the OEP. The Government have been clear that the environmental information regulations and the Freedom of Information Act will apply to information held by the OEP and public authorities. The Bill does not in any sense override that legislation. The OEP would have to consider any request against the relevant legislation on a case-by-case basis.
The OEP will assess whether any exemption or exception to the relevant regime applies to the information. If so, it will consider whether a public interest weighing exercise is required under that exemption. If a public interest test is required, it will carry out a balancing exercise before deciding whether the public interest requires that the information should be disclosed or withheld.
Turning to Amendments 108A to 108D, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, although I agree that it is important that the OEP operates transparently, it must be allowed the discretion necessary to operate effectively. The OEP’s enforcement framework has been designed to resolve issues as effectively and efficiently as possible. To do so, it is important to have a safe space where public authorities can confidently share information and allow the OEP to explore potential pragmatic solutions before issuing formal notices. The noble Lord’s proposals would effectively remove that forum, meaning that public authorities might prefer to advance to more formal stages where information disclosure exemptions may apply due to confidentiality of proceedings. That would undermine the framework and result in slower resolution and poorer value from public funds.
On Amendment 114A, Clause 45(2)(a) excludes the disclosure of or access to information from the OEP’s remit. These matters are explicitly excluded in order to avoid overlap between the remit of the OEP and that of the Information Commissioner’s Office. This is further clarified in paragraph 383 of the Bill’s Explanatory Notes. The existing drafting of this provision allows greater flexibility to ensure that overlaps are avoided. Not only does it allow the OEP and courts to decide on the meaning of the exemption to the OEP’s remit on a case-by-case basis; it accounts for any future changes to relevant legislation that may cause overlap between the two bodies. The Information Commissioner’s Office will still have the remit to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.
I hope that answers the noble Lord’s questions and I ask that he withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has spent just three minutes on this crucial part of the Bill. I will not try to respond now; I will take advice on what he said, but we will no doubt come back to this issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We come to the group beginning with Amendment 110. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 43: Meaning of “natural environment”
Amendment 110
The Earl of Caithness
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, we change topics. We leave behind the OEP, important though that was, and move on to Chapter 3, “Interpretation of Part 1”, which is equally crucial to the success of the Bill. I am extremely grateful for the support for my Amendment 110 from my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Clause 43 relates to the meaning of “natural environment”. It begins by saying:
“In this Part the ‘natural environment’ means”
and it lists various things, but there is a glaring loophole or error in the Bill because it misses out the soil. My Amendment 110 seeks to insert, after “habitats” in Clause 43(b), the words “including the soil”. Habitats depend totally on the soil. It was the 32nd President of the United States of America, Franklin Roosevelt, who wrote to all the state governors, after the terrible Dust Bowl there, that:
“A nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.”
The destruction of soil is a worldwide problem but it also affects the UK. Many countries in the world have the same problem. We have not looked after our soil in the way that we should and we are now paying the price for that.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
It is always a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Caithness. In many ways, my Amendment 112, which I am speaking to, echoes exactly what his is and in some respects may be regarded as superfluous.
My amendment is a simple one that merely adds the word “soil” to what the natural environment means. As we know, the Bill currently states that
“the ‘natural environment’ means—(a) plants, wild animals and other living organisms, (b) their habitats, (c) land … air and water, and the natural systems, cycles and processes through which they interact”.
As we have just heard so eloquently from my noble friend Lord Caithness, however, it misses out what I—and I am sure many other noble Lords—feel is the very core of our natural environment. Too often soil, which is pivotal to biodiversity and a functioning environment, is considered as an afterthought or as an inert substrate. It needs to be specifically referenced to ensure that targets and set policies are developed and funding applied. The lack of such an approach means that we may not deal with issues such as soil health, which is generally acknowledged to be in pretty poor shape, as we have just heard.
Soil health problems in the UK’s 700-plus soils vary across types, regions, geography and weather. No clear figure exists for the health of the UK’s soils, but a 2020 review estimated that only 30% to 40% of Europe’s soils are healthy. We can be confident that soil degradation is a huge problem across the UK and that urgent action is needed. Average organic matter levels are declining, especially in arable soils. As my noble friend Lord Caithness said, soil was inserted into the Agriculture Act and it is very important that we put it in this Bill too, because it is critical for agriculture, biodiversity and other reasons.
Organic matter is critical to soil health, biodiversity, productivity and carbon storage. UK soils store an estimated 10 billion tonnes of carbon, dwarfing the 0.2 billion tonnes stored in UK vegetation. In 2013, soil carbon loss was estimated to amount to 4% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, higher than for many industrial and energy sources combined. Losses appear highest from peat and arable soils.
Soil erosion remains a critical problem. A 2020 review of studies found that 16% of arable farms had soil erosion so high that it was a threat to future food production. Increases in growing maize is a major problem. A survey of over 3,000 maize-growing sites in south-west England found that 75% of fields could not let rainwater in deeper than the upper soil layers, such that a heavy rainfall could wash the soil away. Sedimentation—linked to soil erosion on land—is a major problem in 5% of UK rivers.
We must not forget that peat soils are widely damaged. Around 8% of deep peat soils in the UK are being wasted, eroding or are bare. Upland peat soils are damaged from nitrogen deposition, overgrazing, drainage and, of course, burning. Lowland peat soils suffer rapid erosion from extraction and pump drainage for cultivation. Cultivated deep peat in the lowland fens, where a third of England’s fresh vegetables are grown, is also rapidly eroding. As peat soils have dried out, the land has sunk, exposing it to flooding from rising sea levels caused by the climate crisis. Many peat topsoils will disappear within decades unless they are rewetted so that peat formation can rapidly build them up again. Soil life has suffered.
Unlike terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, our soil life has not been well monitored. However, we know that many of the chemical actives applied to farm soils negatively affect soil microbial functions and biochemical processes, altering soil communities and diversity. Combined with ploughing, reducing crop diversity, acidification and losses in organic matter—a key source of food—soil life is being impacted. Research suggests that reduced soil life can affect crop growth, development and disease incidence, potentially resulting in a negative cycle of more agrochemicals being needed.
Only today, in a timely contribution, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend Philip Dunne, published its report Biodiversity in the UK: Bloom or Bust? The report highlights the importance of soil in its summary, where it states as one of its recommendations:
“We support the recommendations of the Natural Capital Committee that the development of soil indicators should be fast-tracked; that a shadow target for soil health should be established urgently; and that a legally-binding target for soil health ought to be established as soon as monitoring data allows. Healthy soils should be a priority outcome for the Environmental Land Management Schemes, so as to encourage farmers to adopt beneficial agri-environmental practices.”
The simple addition of a word would ensure that soil is properly considered as a priority alongside air, water and biodiversity within environmental plans, and of course by the OEP.
The amendment from my noble friend Lord Caithness is probably superior to mine, but I am not fussed about that. I am rather simple; I just like one word here and there. But, whatever it is, the Government have to take serious note and insert “soil” into the Bill.
Finally, before I metaphorically sit down, I also support Amendment 113, which has yet to be spoken to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It would ensure that the marine environment is included. I have a slight difficulty on whether it is necessary when talking about marine wildlife to particularly include marine mammals. I think they should be included anyway in the whole general thing, but I will leave that for others to discuss. I hope that we can insert “soil” into this Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and I am grateful to him for his support in principle for Amendment 113. I pay huge tribute to his work and his interest in birds—of the feathered variety—whereas I have to confess that water is my element. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support for Amendment 113. I thank the Marine Conservation Society for its support and briefing as well.
Why is Amendment 113 necessary? The Bill at present makes only a passing reference to the marine environment. I wonder why that is the case, particularly as our seas represent over 50% of the environment of England. Anyone who has even a passing interest in the work of David Attenborough on plastics in our seas and oceans will realise how it has captured the public imagination, in this regard.
My noble friend Lord Caithness spoke eloquently on why soil should be included, as did my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. In his Amendment 113B, my noble friend Lord Caithness goes on to say why
“terrestrial … marine, and … other aquatic ecosystems”
should be included. I believe that Part 1, and indeed the Bill in its entirety, is relevant to the marine environment, and I would welcome the greater clarity of putting “the marine environment” into the Bill, in this regard.
I also acknowledge that, in replying to a Parliamentary Oral Question either a week or 10 days ago, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith acknowledged that there is a “tension”, to use his word, between inshore fisheries and offshore wind farms. So my question to him is: how will that tension be eased and resolved if we do not place, as I have chosen to phrase it here,
“the sea, the marine environment and maritime wildlife, sea mammals, flora and fauna”
on the face of the Bill?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, because they have proposed additions to the definition of the natural environment. When I started looking at this, I thought, “Well, everything’s covered anyway”. In debates on many previous Bills, Ministers have always said that they do not like lists because you always leave something out of lists, and that is serious. But the arguments from the three noble Lords who have spoken indicate an obvious concern that water and soil are not in fact included in this definition. I hope that the Minister, when he responds, will confirm that they are, and maybe even add them in.
My small addition is to suggest that “ecosystem” should be included as well because it covers everything that is in paragraphs (a) to (c) of Clause 43 but also soil and the maritime area—I shall come on to water later—and, I think, it goes wider. On the role of ecosystems, the definition that I found included this:
“A community is created when living and nonliving components in an environment are in conjunction with each other.”
The components, including “biotic and abiotic components”, “interact as a system” to form an ecosystem. So, the word “ecosystem” covers everything. I am not suggesting that the Minister should leave out anything that is there at the moment or not include soil or water, but I think that there is an argument for having something that talks about the conjunction between them and the way they work together. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s comments on that.
I also want to speak briefly to Amendments 194AB and 194AC in this group, which are in my name. They also cover the issue of ecosystems but relate to the condition of planning permissions in Clause 92. I think that “water” should also be included in the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and maybe “rivers” as well. That is something we should discuss.
A week or two ago, I came across an example that illustrates why this is quite important. I understood that the Port of London Authority had applied to extend the jurisdiction—that is, ownership of or responsibility for—of its water, as I suppose it is, by changing the definition from a limit of mean high water to mean high water springs. Many noble Lords may think, “Well, what does that matter?” In terms of the maritime definition, it is actually a height difference of about 50 centimetres. When you have a river wall, like we have out here, 50 centimetres is probably neither here nor there, but I am told that the extent of the River Thames—the tidal part of it—covers 190 miles of riverbank. On the bits that are pretty flat, as opposed to vertical walls, the extension would have allowed the PLA to extend its planning development potential quite dramatically. There was a big campaign against this at the last general meeting of the PLA; in the end, it withdrew it. Obviously, I welcome that, but it does indicate the difference between and the challenge of biodiversity and ecosystems and the planning condition.
I have one more example. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about offshore wind farms and things like that. A similar debate, which occasionally I get involved in, goes on regarding the role of marine conservation zones and what the boating and yachting community think that it wants. One is environment and the other is leisure. I got quite involved in debates about whether it is possible to have a marine conservation zone in the south-west, or even around the Isles of Scilly, to prevent any ships going there unless somebody had changed the route. This was all resolved, but it is an example of the importance of keeping biodiversity and ecosystems in mind when it comes to planning issues.
I am sure that we will talk about that much more, but this has been a very useful little debate. I hope that, when he comes to respond, the Minister will add in some of these extra suggestions to what we have in paragraphs (a) to (c) at the moment. I also hope that, if he says that he cannot do so, he will tell us why.
Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]
My Lords, I would like to say a word or two on behalf of soil and in support of Amendment 110 from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
We are often told how much of the earth’s surface is covered by water and how we must take care of it—and so we must. However, we are told less often that the remainder of the world is covered largely by soil—or was, until we decided to spread concrete and tarmac over huge sections of it. That includes motorways, airports, houses and factories—even putting slabs over our own front gardens so that we can park our car. This has taken huge quantities of soil out of commission, with deeply damaging effects on the environment. A layer of concrete not only creates drainage problems by removing the soil’s ability to absorb water, causing the massive problems of run-off and flooding; it also sterilises the soil, cutting off oxygen from all living organisms beneath it. Nobody has yet tried to measure what the cumulative effect of this is but it will be huge.
Soil that has remained untouched for long periods of time is hugely beneficial to all kinds of flora and fauna. Sadly, it is all too rare. This is why our ancient woodlands are so very precious. Although it may not look it at first glance, soil structure is relatively fragile, ranging as it does from heavy clay through loams to sandy soils, and from acid to alkaline. Its health is valuable not just for growing crops and grass to graze but for supporting countless other organisms, some beneficial and some less so. All were held in a natural balance before man’s intervention.
Soil’s value to agriculture and the importance of keeping it in good health were first recognised formally by the great agricultural reformers of the 17th and 18th centuries, most notably Turnip Townshend and Coke of Holkham. The Norfolk four-course rotation was introduced; it varied the types of crops grown over a four-year cycle, sometimes allowing land to lie fallow. The practice of nurturing the land persisted until relatively recently when the pressures to produce more and more from the same acreage grew, with spectacular results. Some cereal crops have increased fourfold, but with this intensification has come a change of attitude to the soil. It is simply—and to some extent understandably, with modern technology—seen purely as a medium for growing crops. Systematic rotation has long since gone. The same crop is sometimes taken off the same land year after year. Spraying against pests and diseases has become regular and routine. To turn the clock back would be very difficult, although some organic farmers are now trying.
Food is essential but many would argue that it is much too cheap. A bottle of milk can still cost less than a bottle of fizzy water. Supermarkets, incidentally, have a crucial role to play in this regard. The proportion of our income that we spend on feeding ourselves has dropped hugely. The old links that customers made between production and consumption have long since been broken, although locally grown produce is increasingly popular. New government environmental policies are forecast to take 21% of land out of agriculture. Arable land and grazing, once carefully drained and cultivated, is going to be turned into marsh and swamp. Where the food lost will come from, nobody has yet told us.
These are very difficult issues requiring much thought, but they will have to be faced one day. Otherwise, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, our soils will simply, through infertility, disease or flooding, no longer be able to provide what we expect and have too long taken for granted. If I may, I, too, wish to quote what President Roosevelt said in 1937 in response to the huge dust-bowls that had been created in America; the noble Earl has already done so, but I think that it sums up the situation. He said:
“A nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.”
That says it all.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I once again refer to my interests: I chair the Cawood group, which has laboratories and analyses raw materials, including soil, and I am a trustee of Clinton Devon Estates.
Amendments 110 and 112 propose that “soil” is included in the meaning of the “natural environment” in Clause 43. I fully support the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, who has just spoken. I do not mind which amendment is adopted, but, in my view, the positioning in Amendment 112 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, flows more naturally in the text, following the listing of “air and water”.
The key issue is that “soil” is listed as a key component of the “natural environment”, and it is unbelievable that it is not already included in this definition. How can
“plants, wild animals and other living organisms”
be included, when they cannot exist without depending on soil? Soil is as crucial as air and water and fundamental to support life on earth. The natural world depends on it.
When the Minister responded to Amendment 11 in an earlier debate, he rejected its call to have “soil quality” as a priority area within the Bill on the basis that to do so would involve setting a target and that the definition and descriptor of “soil quality” were still not resolved and were a work in progress. It would not be the first time that the definitions underpinning a Bill were incomplete, and that is no reason not to have it included. A definition of satisfactory soil quality that supports sustainable food production, identifies the essential microbial organisms and life within the soil, and determines the level of organic matter to optimise carbon sequestration will be agreed. This will be resolved.
From current analysis by Cawood, I know that the level of sequestered carbon varies enormously from field to field, never mind farm to farm or region to region. It is essential that we address this opportunity and realise the carbon storage potential that the soil offers. Indeed, in the light of climate change, we would be failing in our responsibility if we did not do so. I encourage the Minister to seriously consider introducing an amendment on this topic before Report to save time, in view of the weight of opinion in support of this subject.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Curry, with his deep scientific knowledge of agriculture and soils. I declare my interests: my family runs a livestock farm and owns a series of SSSIs in two areas of nature reserves.
In this clause, we get to define the extent and, where necessary, the boundaries of what we want the Bill to influence. On soils, I support my noble friend Lord Caithness’s Amendment 110, which is necessary because the government strategy for carbon sequestration is considerably dependent on the soil and peat. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will respond positively to either of these amendments.
I will produce a quote from a rather different angle: 300 years ago, in Gulliver’s Travels, Jonathan Swift expressed the old saying that
“whoever could make ... two blades of grass … grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country, than the whole race of politicians put together.”
That was in his day. This has inspired our farmers for 300 years. To me, it is an environmental principle, but in the Bill the Government have given us as their environmental principles a set of prohibitions, protections and penalties.
The judgment, from the measures contained in the Bill, is that that earlier principle has now gone too far. The protections listed will be necessary, but we need to be sure that our purpose is not simply to put all the processes of the countryside into decline. It would be nice if someone could come up with a phrase that would draw all our aspirations together and point the way forward. The outcome will hang on the wording in these clauses and what we interpret as the meaning of “natural environment”.
I support Amendment 113, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the others who have signed it. This draws our attention to the whole marine biosphere, an area that is under great threat at the moment. It is essential that this is not overlooked. The various marine organisations are still drawing up their inventories of what is in the natural environment at present, and a great deal of expense and research will have to be dedicated to that area. I too served on the EU Environment Sub-Committee that my noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned, and I contributed to the work that was put in. There are huge areas where we have hardly any information.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh spoke of the importance of the marine area to the UK. In December, Scotland published its latest marine assessment report, which has to be updated every three years and which, in turn, covers an area six times greater than the Scottish landmass—so biodiversity is a very important field for that Administration.
At the same time, the Bill will incorporate the policies of species abundance and the encouragement of biodiversity. We have spent so much time discussing targets. Given the role that mankind has taken upon itself over the centuries, targets are necessary. The Secretary of State can introduce almost unlimited targets under the Bill, but Clause 3 has a number of subsections that must be observed if the Secretary of State wishes to reduce them.
However, there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to pay any attention to taking actions if a crisis develops when one element becomes prolific or threatening and the need to cull numbers requires some urgency. The nearest experience that I have had did not have the urgency in question: it was decided that the deer population in the huge Queen Elizabeth Forest Park, which is next door to me, was well above what was good for forestry purposes and that it should be reduced to four deer per square kilometre. They then set about culling 4,000 deer out of this area, which is not something that I would readily support, but it was a necessary management action and is an indication of what might be required if proliferation becomes extreme. In the spirit of the Bill, it will always be preferable to employ nature-based solutions, but, if diseases or threats to biodiversity occur, we must be prepared to act in whatever way will be effective.
My noble friend Lord Caithness’s second amendment raises the important question of defining biodiversity. “Biodiversity” in the Bill seems limited to the abundance of species, particularly in Amendment 22, moved by my noble friend the Minister on day 2 of our deliberations. Amendment 113B would mean that attention could be given to how far biodiversity should be supported.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to offer the Green group’s support for all the amendments in this group, which have given us the opportunity of an important debate about what we are trying to save, what we are trying to protect and what we are trying to improve.
Amendment 110, in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Shrewsbury, and my noble friend Lady Jones and myself, proposes that soil be regarded as a habitat. I will address it with Amendment 112 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, that it perhaps does not matter so much where “soil” appears; it needs to appear somewhere. I would suggest that a very simple solution which the department could implement easily would be to go through the Bill and look everywhere where “water” and “air” appear and add “soil”. I doubt that there would be many problems when one looked at the result. We are of course revisiting our debate on day 1 of this Committee—which now feels like quite a long time ago—about Clause 1 and an amendment in my name which would have added soil as an important target. It needs to be in all these places.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, will forgive me if I pre-empt a little what she is perhaps going to say, but it is so important that it needs to be highlighted. I saw that she was speaking to the Secretary of State at Groundswell. During that discussion, it was said that soil health was perhaps the most important thing and would be the focus of the sustainable farming initiative. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us more about that; it would be very interesting. The Government themselves identify soil as a huge priority. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and many others have said, we are talking about how the Agriculture Act and the Environment Bill fit together. The Agriculture Act provides directions on the methods of action; this Bill judges how successful it has been.
I have circulated to a number of noble Lords—I realise that I neglected to circulate it to the Minister, for which I apologise and I will fix it shortly—a briefing paper that I received from a number of farmers, academics and farm advisers on the difficulty of being paid for results in managing soil health. It makes an argument for payment for practice instead, with the three key things identified as minimising soil disturbance, maximising soil cover and maximising diversity of cover. All are clearly good things to work towards, but we need to measure how the results come out, and that has to be in the Bill.
Following the coverage from Groundswell, there was a lot of discussion and excitement about work done on worms. There is perhaps an argument for the number of worms per square metre being a very good measure. I am not putting that forward entirely as a serious proposal although it is certainly something to look at, but I would point the Minister to the publication last week of a volume entitled Advances in Measuring Soil Health, edited by Professor Wilfred Otten from Cranfield University. It is a real sign of how much this field is moving forward. That brings me back to our discussion on Clause 1, when the Minister, in arguing why soil should not be included in the clause, said that
“the Government are working collaboratively with technical experts to identify appropriate soil health metrics … it is a complicated business”—[Official Report, 21/6/21; cols. 94-95.]
and that they were looking to develop a healthy soils indicator as part of the 25-year environment plan. This is a matter of extreme urgency and focus, as identified by the Secretary of State; it cannot wait for something off into the far distance. A great deal of new work is available now; a great deal of ideas are available now. The first metric that we end up with may not be perfect, but we need a metric, and if that needs to be improved in future, so be it. It could be dealt with by regulation, as the Government so like to tell us.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I support the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, as well as that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, about soil, that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about ecosystems, and that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, about the oceans.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is absolutely right: I did interview the Secretary of State last week, who talked extensively about how the Government saw soil as a key part of future strategy and as being at the heart of both the Agriculture Act and the Environment Bill.
The thing about soil is that it is very small in our eyes, but in the soil’s eyes it is of course a factory and it has been described as a factory. In a tea-spoon of soil, you will probably get some thousands of species, some millions of individuals and about 100 metres of fungal thread. This is a world of major complexity and, every second that we are alive, this factory is performing a function that none of us could do. No scientist could take sunlight, air and all the nutrients in the soil and produce leaves, which produce trees. Look around this Chamber: everything in here, apart from the quarried stone, has come from a plant, has come from the soil. This leather has come from an animal that has fed on a plant; the carpet, probably from Axminster, and some sheep; my clothes; everything. Yet we call it “the dirt beneath our feet” and we stomp on it.
Once I got the image of a factory into my head, and the notion that there are all these people pulling levers and rushing up and down hills, it struck me that it was like being in a city, but a city on a completely different scale to how we live, so of course we ignore it. What has gone so tragically wrong with the soil in recent years is not so much the tinkering around but the deep ploughing and then the addition of heavy chemicals. It strikes me that you could think about it as like living in Homs or somewhere like that. Your buildings get bombed every other day or, in the case of the soil, two or three times a year. We have decided, since the green revolution of the 1950s, that deep ploughing was a really good idea because it let in the air. It was extremely fallacious science that is now completely accepted not to be right.
Look at agroecology. Where I was with the Secretary of State last week, we saw new devices that slice through the soil like pizza cutters, dropping in individual seeds, making minimal disruption and, as a consequence, needing minimal fertilisers and producing strong, healthy plants that also support biodiversity. We have done so many things wrong it is quite impossible to start to count them: the monocrops that kill the culture; the deep ploughing; the addition of chemicals—it is really astonishing—but the soil is truly phenomenal. It is the most amazing stuff. Give it a break, and it will come charging back with great health. I have to say to whichever noble Lord it was who said how long it takes to regrow, it really does not; it is really amazing. It will knit itself together, start co-operating and start not only giving us back the goods and services we want, but at the same time taking down the carbon.
As the noble Lord, Lord Curry, said, it seems quite astonishing that soil is not in the Bill, along with air and water; it should be. History is littered with examples. I do not know whether any noble Lord has been to Leptis Magna. It is a desert, but it is not that long ago, in the big history of things, that the Romans used to get three harvests a year from Leptis Magna. That is why they wanted north Africa. They had the most sophisticated systems for bringing water from the mountains; they had an amazing market with marble and they kept the water in tanks underneath to keep the vegetables cool and then they overfarmed it. But it was fine then, because they just packed their trunks—I do not know whether they had trunks then—and got on their oxen and went somewhere else, because there was always somewhere else. There is not anywhere else now. It is the same as when the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, says, “There is no such place as away.” You throw it away: where is that away? As Greenpeace says, we throw away our plastic and it ends up in Turkey. We throw away something and it ends up in that awful albatross. That makes my heart break too. We have to respect and adore these particular things.
The thing about the soil is that there are a lot of “don’ts”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, says, “Don’t deep plough”, “Don’t put fertiliser on it”, “Keep cover crops on it.” Soil wants that; soil wants to work. We have to find intelligent ways to pay for this; we cannot just expect people to do it and not get anything back. They will get it back in advanced crops without having to pay for chemicals, but that will take a bit of time. Yes, indeed, people are using earthworms as a measure, but it is still a bit clumsy and a bit inexact. It is kind of fun, but there are some more sophisticated things that we can do.
I want to quickly address the necessity of understanding things as ecosystems. I do not know how many noble Lords know of Dr Suzanne Simard, but she is a Canadian forestry professor at British Columbia University. She grew up in the forest, became a logger and a forestry expert and at the age of 20 she was put to work by a forestry company in the north-west and her job was to clear-fell and then plant pine. After a bit, she looked at it and thought, “Why are these things dying over huge acres?” That was when we thought, “Survival of the fittest: get rid of everything else and everything will grow”, but in fact they died. They did not do well, they sort of struggled and some of them just fell apart. What she realised, and what she has now written about and become the world expert on, is that there is an extraordinary interconnection that goes on underground. We are only just beginning to learn about it. A tree will help out another tree if it is in trouble. It will send extra nutrients. It is quite magical. In the same way that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was moved about the albatross, I am extremely moved about the power of the soil. I feel very strongly that it has to be at the heart of the Bill.
Finally, on the question of the oceans, not only did I see the Secretary of State last week, but the week before I saw the Minister for Food and Farming. We were in the West Country at an event and she was on her way to Brixham. She said to me, “This is going to be tricky, but 80% of the fish that comes in comes from bottom trawling.” Bottom trawling is just like ploughing: it is smashing through someone else’s home with absolutely no regard for those who live there. We would not smash through a field of cattle, just wipe them out and throw them all over the place; that is what we do every day. Some in this Chamber will have seen “Seaspiracy”. It is not a pleasant watch. You get the sense of how many fish get sacrificed in the by-catch. Please, Minister, find a way to put the sense of ecosystems and soil absolutely at the heart of how we assess our environment and take care of it, because we will fail otherwise.
Lord Cormack (Con)
It is a very real privilege, and I mean it, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Hers was a splendid speech—one of many we have heard this afternoon—and she was so right in her references to bottom trawling. I may be the only Member of your Lordships’ House who sailed, in the old days, in a deep-sea trawler. I was the candidate for Grimsby at the time, in 1965, and I went up to the north coast of Norway in a trawler. That was proper fishing. It was fascinating, and the men who were there were among the bravest I have ever known. I represented a mining constituency later. That is another tough and appalling job, but at least the miner went home to his bed each night. The trawler-man was out for 18, 21 or 24 days, and it was extraordinary. That was what convinced me, and I have always been convinced, that we must look after our marine environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who has put his name to my noble friend’s amendment and who will be winding up on it for his party, is bound to be sympathetic and enthusiastic. Of course, he chaired that session of the EU Environment Sub-Committee to which my noble friend Lady McIntosh referred in her speech. We heard some fairly disturbing things that day. Anybody who has watched “Blue Planet” knows that the isolated, moving incident of the albatross, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, referred, is just one of a million examples. It was a very graphic and good example, but there are so many—all of them caused by the careless distribution of our detritus across the world.
I am sure many noble Lords will know about Operation Neptune, where the National Trust sought to buy many miles of our coastline. It has been an operation that has lasted for some half a century now and has been extraordinarily successful. It has succeeded in preserving some of the most beautiful of our coastal areas—many of which, incidentally, were rather badly despoiled during the pandemic by careless visitors and worse than careless visitors. If we want to preserve our coastline, we must also preserve our marine environment, so I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith will accept this amendment with enthusiastic alacrity or, if not, call a meeting to devise an amendment that he can accept with enthusiastic alacrity, because this, again, will come back on Report and we need to get it right.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare two interests—one as a member of the Commission on Food, Farming and the Countryside, and the other in the mental well-being of the Minister. We are picking on him and I feel deeply sorry for him, because he is between a rock and a hard place. This is another example of an amendment that, in a normal world, he would simply accept and we could all go home happy.
I support Amendments 110 and 112, which rightly specifically include “soil” in the definition of the natural environment. As other noble Lords have said, we have already touched on the importance of soils during our debate on a previous amendment. Indeed, many of our older Members of the House will remember Kenneth Williams who, in character, used to say in response to any question at all, “Arr, the answer lies in the soil.” He was right. However, for a period, with the exception of the organic movement, soil came to be regarded as nothing more than a handy medium for holding plants up, especially crops. It was nothing more complex. Of course, the pendulum has now swung and it is generally acknowledged that soils are complex ecosystems with huge importance for a whole range of things such as carbon storage, flood alleviation, crop health, biodiversity and water quality. Other noble Lords have gone through these.
It is true to say—the Commission on Food, Farming and the Countryside very much supports this—that agroecology and restorative agriculture, which focus on the importance of soils, are going to be vital components of the future of farming and food production. Of course, the mycorrhizal elements of soils are the telegraph systems for trees and plants and are capable of warning colleague trees and plants many metres away of attack by something nasty, so that they can prepare to repel boarders. Basically, soil is pretty cunning stuff. However, it has been the poor relation in terms of environmental action and safeguarding in the past, and more than one-third of the world’s soils are degraded. That is no less the case in this country, with factors such as erosion, sealing, compaction and contamination causing this deterioration.
I very much welcome the 25-year environment plan highlighting the need to manage all the UK’s soils sustainably by 2030. Signalling the importance of soils in environmental protection ought to be the purpose of including soil in the definition of the natural environment in this Bill. It is not just a practical step; it is a signalling step of the fundamental importance of soil.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry, reminded us that one of the reasons given by the Minister for not including soil was that to include it would require a target and the science was not there yet to do that. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said that we need a soil metric now and it does not need to be perfect. I very much agree with that. Indeed, that has been endorsed today by the report from the Environmental Audit Committee in the Commons, which stressed the need for the rapid development of soil indicators and for a shadow target to be established urgently in the meantime.
We are going to need soil metrics for a whole variety of purposes, not least because soil is going to be fundamental to the environmental land management schemes. Let us get on with it and establish a metric. It will not be right but it will be something, and it will be a huge signal of the importance of soils in this section of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is not taking part in the debate so I call the noble Duke, Lord Wellington.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 112, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. As other noble Lords have said, Amendment 110 has very much the same purpose.
In Clause 43, in defining what is meant by “natural environment”, mention is made of “land”, “air” and “water”, but I really do think that the Bill would be much improved by including “soil”. All scientists tell us how much the quality of soil has been degraded in this country in recent years. There is an increasing risk of erosion from flooding. There is an increasing occurrence of compaction caused by the regular passing of heavy agricultural machinery. There is a decline in organic matter in the soil, brought about by modern farming methods and the use of chemical fertilisers, insecticides and herbicides. I am sure that the new environmental land management schemes will indeed encourage farming methods that will avoid this steady and continuous degradation. Let us hope they will go further and encourage and support farming systems that restore soil quality. However, in the meantime, I encourage the Minister to accept either Amendment 112 or Amendment 110, which would demonstrate that the Government intend to take very seriously the question of soil quality and to include it in the various proposals to improve the natural environment.
I turn briefly to Amendment 194AC in this same group, which deals with biodiversity gain in planning. Of course, I would be minded to support any improvement in biodiversity in rivers and lakes as a result of any new planning application. I must say that I am doubtful whether it can really be practical to place on all developers an obligation to demonstrate on each occasion a biodiversity gain in water. Surely, connection to a wastewater system that will not create any increased risk of sewage discharges in the adjacent river system should be a condition for all developers. The most important point for improving aquatic biodiversity is to reduce in the short term and eventually eliminate discharges that pollute our rivers. Therefore, although I know it is well intentioned, I personally could not support Amendment 194AC.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, we have had some really good literary contributions. My favourite was probably about Kenneth Williams from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone; we also had a number of others. When the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, talked about the dust-bowl, I thought of when I was quite young—an A-level student, I think—and I read John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath. Even today, that brings back an image. I could see that novel as a movie in my mind about that dust-bowl during the depression of the 1930s in middle America where, because of soil erosion and degradation caused by wind, there was a huge exodus in the United States to urban areas and a failure of the farming system and those ecosystems. That is a lesson for us.
One of the things that struck me when the 25-year environment plan came out—that was what, five years ago?—was that, at that moment, it seemed the Government had suddenly discovered soil for the first time. The great advocate at that time, who particularly seemed to have discovered soil, was Michael Gove, the then Environment Secretary. I ask my Liberal Democrat colleagues to put their ear muffs on for a moment: I thought that Michael Gove was an absolutely excellent Secretary of State for the Environment because he brought all these issues to the fore. He had guts, he was bold and I am sure that, if he were still in the position, we would have rather a bolder Bill than we have before us at the moment. Needless to say, I was less keen on the rest of his career, so I will stop there.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, was absolutely right about the breadth of what we mean by soil. Piedmont soils are something we have to be incredibly careful about in this country. I was privileged, two or three weeks ago, to see peat restoration on Bodmin Moor, which was brought about by a consortium of organisations—public and private sector and water companies—as part of bringing back a huge area of peatland to hydrate that whole area. I always thought we had enough rain in Cornwall to keep the whole of the ecosystem going, but you could see the degradation there. That team had worked in Dartmoor and further north and west as well. This is really important. Whether the Minister says soil is somehow included in these definitions, it is absolutely clear that it is right to give it the emphasis by including it within these definitions. I was thinking of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and Gulliver’s Travels, which I had not noticed, I must admit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, used the word “urgent”. The 25-year environment plan is brilliant in terms of laying out the issues and what we need to do but the implementation of so many of these things has not been good, as the Audit Commission pointed out strongly. Urgency is something that we can maybe put back into this Bill now. Many Members—including the noble Lord, Lord Curry, who is well known for his agricultural knowledge and experience—have come out strongly on the need to do that.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. It has clearly demonstrated the strength of feeling about the need to improve Clause 43 to resolve the omissions in the definition of the natural environment, which we have all been looking at. In many ways, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, summed it up when she said that we need to decide what we are trying to save, what we are trying to protect and what we are trying to improve. She gave a very moving example of why this really matters.
When the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, introduced his amendment he talked about the glaring hole in the Bill. I think everyone would agree with him, and with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. Both amendments talk about the need to include soil in the definition of “natural environment”. Headlines have warned us that the state of our soil is now a serious threat to the environment and to our ability to grow crops, but we also know that good-quality soil can help to save the planet. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, just mentioned Michael Gove, who, when he was Defra Secretary of State back in 2017, said that
“no country can withstand the loss of its soil and fertility.”
He was correct.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, talked about the huge importance of the health of our soil, and how it is critical for our biodiversity and the future of our agriculture, because we fundamentally rely on it. Soil produces 95% of our food, be it the crops we eat or the grasses and other plants that feed our animals. It also stores an extraordinary amount of carbon —three times the amount in the atmosphere and twice the amount in trees and forests. Although soil can store—or sequester—carbon, we also know that it can lose it when it is degraded. The loss of carbon in poor soils contributes to the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which we know is one of the main causes of climate change.
It has been estimated that there could be 50,000 species of microorganism in just 1 gram of soil. Crucially, this rich “soil web” of underground life creates an open structure. It allows rainwater to seep into the ground, storing moisture for plants and crops to grow well, even in times of drought. It also prevents flooding, which is an important function of global warming. Further extreme and uncertain rainfall is becoming more prevalent in the UK. As someone who lives in Cumbria, I am all too well aware of this.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, talked about the amount of topsoil we lose every year—3 million tonnes. He rightly said that we simply cannot afford to continue in the way we are. He also made the important point, as did other noble Lords, that the Environment Bill and the Agriculture Act need to work together to get the outcomes we need.
As we have heard, the Environment Bill currently lists land, air and water, and the natural systems, cycles and processes through which they interact, but there is no specific mention of soil. We on this side of the Committee believe that this is an important omission, so we support the amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, to specifically include soil in the Bill.
We have also been debating the extent to which the marine environment is provided for in the Bill and how it is not clear enough. The marine environment must be seen as an integral part of the process of environmental conservation. Our legislation includes substantial activity to enable environmental protection and conservation to take place in these zones, but, as other noble Lords have said, this is not always effective enough. So, in addition to the need for the marine environment to be included in the Bill’s scope, Clause 43 needs to be amended to make it explicit that the “natural environment” includes the marine environment.
Amendment 113 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, would expand this definition. I thank the noble Baroness for her clear explanation of why the amendment is needed. The contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, was also very powerful as to why we need to look after our marine environment. The Explanatory Notes indicate that the definition extends to the marine environment, as well as to terrestrial and water environments, but although Explanatory Notes are often helpful for providing information as to intention, they add nothing whatever to, or take nothing away from, the actual legislation in front of us. For legal clarity, we believe that this should be stated in the Bill. For this reason, we support Amendment 113.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley talked about why biodiversity gains should also include water. The links between the water sector and biodiversity involve the impacts of the sector on biodiversity and the benefits the sector can receive from the ecosystem services—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that I have now said “ecosystem services”—provided by biodiversity. The water sector really should have a direct interest in safeguarding biodiversity both for its own use and for that of others. Well-functioning ecosystems—forests, grasslands, soils, rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, aquifers; I could go on—all influence the availability of water and its quality. They are also vital to meet water management goals such as water storage and flow regulation, filtering, and flood and drought protection, among others.
I am sure that the Minister has heard the strong support for the amendments, particularly for the inclusion of soil, although the marine environment is just as important. I look forward to hearing from him.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. This first definition of the natural environment is deliberately broad, and includes both the living, such as plants and wild animals, and non-living, such as land, air and water, elements of the environment. To be comprehensive, it also includes the natural systems, cycles and processes through which the elements of the natural environment interact. The difficulty is that if we were to add to the Bill matters already covered by the definition it would cast into doubt anything not specifically included. However, I hope that I can provide reassurance on all the points raised by noble Lords.
I agree with the intent behind Amendments 113A, 113C to 113E, 194AB and 194AC from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Clearly, our environmental governance framework must protect the ecosystems that make up our natural environment. Clause 43 makes it clear that the systems, cycles and processes through which the elements listed in paragraphs (a) to (c) interact are a fundamental part of the natural environment. This definition therefore already includes ecosystems, as referenced in the Explanatory Notes at paragraph 371, page 59. Regarding Amendments 113C to 113E, as the Bill’s definition of environmental protection refers back to the definition of the natural environment, it is also not necessary to specifically mention ecosystems in Clause 44.
Regarding Amendments 110 and 112 from my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Randall respectively, the Government of course recognise the fundamental importance of healthy soils to a thriving natural environment. Both my noble friends made powerful cases. It may not be the most glamorous of environmental subjects, but it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of soil. I was struck by the teaspoon factory analogy from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which I have no doubt will stick with me.
I will make a couple of points. Outside of the Bill, a number of big levers are being introduced that will have a direct bearing on the health of our soil. A number of noble Lords mentioned the environmental land management system—a shift away from, in effect, subsidising the conversion of land to farmable land, no matter the value of that land beforehand, to a system where all payments are conditional on the delivery of public goods, such as restoration of the soil and good management generally of ecosystems.
In addition, our tree action plan is backed up by the £640 million Nature for Climate fund, a major part of which will be encouraging landowners, through very generous incentives, to either plant up or naturally regenerate land either side of England’s waterways, with a view to boosting the biodiversity value of these already biodiverse and valuable places, but also to slowing water and cleaning the water that eventually makes it into our waterways in numerous different magical ways. In addition, we have our peatland plan, which we will debate at another point.
My noble friend Lord Caithness asked me to answer his question about the research being conducted by Defra into soil reconstruction. Although I cannot give him a detailed answer now—I will ask my colleague, Rebecca Pow, to write to him with a proper answer—I can say that today we are publishing details of the first options under the sustainable farming incentive, which will be open to farmers eligible for the basic payment scheme. We have decided to start with soil health since, as so many noble Lords said, that is where everything connected with successful farming begins.
Regarding the Environmental Audit Committee report—I apologise, I cannot remember which noble Lord mentioned it—we are developing a healthy soils indicator, a soil structure monitoring method and a soil health monitoring scheme to help land managers and farmers track the health of our soils over time and the impact of some of the policies I just mentioned.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate of just over an hour and a half. I have to say that I was saddened by my noble friend Lord Framlingham: when he started talking about how much soil had been lost to development, he did not mention HS2. We know my noble friend’s thoughts on HS2, and I thought that might well be top of his list—but it is in there too, I am sure. I have received a lot of support for my amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge; I do not really mind whose amendment wins at the end of the day. The important thing is that we get it in the Bill.
I am very grateful for my noble friend the Minister’s reply to me. There were some very good things in what he said, and we seem to have hit a good day to discuss soil, with the announcements that are going to be made by his fellow Minister. As for his final remark to me, that soil is already covered in the Bill as it stands, that is the same reply we had during the passage of the Agriculture Bill. We put soil on the face of that Bill and this Bill must tie up with it.
The brief from the department has a strangely familiar ring, even though it was 25 years ago. I seem to recognise quite a lot of the wording my noble friend used.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned the good work done on soil by my right honourable friend Michael Gove, who was Secretary of State. I think it would be wrong not to mention the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in this debate. I remember that when my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble was taking the Agriculture Bill through, he referred to the “Krebs amendment” when it came to soil. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is not with us.
This leads me to a general point. My noble friend the Minister said that the “business end” of a Bill is done on Report. That never used to be the case in this House. We used to divide a lot in Committee, and we got rid of a lot of amendments that way. I am really very worried about this Bill now. There has been no ground given by my noble friend, and we are not even halfway through the Bill. I have no doubt that we are going to be under very severe time constraints on Report and at Third Reading because of the urgency to get this Bill on to the statute book before 1 November and the COP in Glasgow. We are, in effect, going to have a guillotine put over our heads, and there is an awful lot of stuff coming back. I tell my noble friend that this amendment is coming back too. I say to him and my noble friend the Whip: there must be some way we can progress this slightly better than by leaving everything to Report. I want a good Bill and I want the House to work well. I am not trying to be obstructive, but the way it is going will cause a lot of problems in September and October. I think there is a better way for us to get the Bill going at the moment.
With that, I thank everybody who took part. I thank my noble friend but, again, warn him that I will be back with this amendment. In the meantime, I will discuss it with my noble friend Lord Randall to see in which of the two places in the Bill it ought to go. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 113F. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 45: Meaning of “environmental law”
Amendment 113F
“(c) has regard to the provisions of the Aarhus Convention (UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters which entered into force on 30 0ctober 2001).”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful, my Lords, and I will not test the patience of the House to any great extent.
I have taken the precaution of sharing the briefing I have received from the Bar Council, which has helped me in preparing this amendment, so I hope my noble friend may be able to consider many of the technical details at more leisure than we have this evening. This debate, although not dissimilar, is different from our earlier debate on the group of amendments starting with Amendment 108A. It is really to ask a very simple question of my noble friend as to why previous incarnations of the papers preceding the draft of the Bill indicated that we might be incorporating the Aarhus convention into the Bill. There is disappointment, particularly among legal practitioners, that it is not now included.
I should declare an interest that I studied at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, although not environmental law. I embarked on a thesis looking at anti-trust and competition law in the European Union, particularly joint ventures. That is my unfinished masterpiece, to which I shall no doubt return.
Clause 45(1) limits the definition to “any legislative provision” which
“is mainly concerned with environmental protection, and … is not concerned with an excluded matter.”
The Aarhus convention, despite being concerned with environmental issues, justice and information, obviously does not fall within the term
“mainly concerned with environmental protection”.
So the amendment I have put before the Committee this evening might make better sense if it read as I have set out on the Order Paper, but with allowance at the end for
“any subsequent legislation that supersedes it or incorporates its provisions.”
I will not rehearse all the benefits of the Aarhus Convention, but highlight just one or two. As I mentioned, the Government seemed to indicate that it would be incorporated. There are many reasons to do so. The convention adopts a rights-based approach in its Article 1. It sets out minimum standards to be achieved and prohibits discrimination against persons seeking to exercise their rights under the convention. The main thrust of the obligations contained in the convention is towards public authorities, which strikes a chord, as the Environment Bill is for the first time extending responsibilities to public bodies.
The convention includes institutions of the European Union including, inter alia, the European Commission, the Council and the European Environment Agency, and it sets out access to environmental information, which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, set out in some detail, so I shall not rehearse that. Finally, in addition to access to justice in environmental matters, I am very taken by the fact that, under the Aarhus convention, the UK is required to complete a national implementation report every three years.
I thank the Bar Council for setting out what is important to sign up to the Aarhus convention. Can I tacitly assume that we are applying the Aarhus convention, otherwise known as the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, which entered into force on 30 October 2001, or can I draw the conclusion that the Government have turned their back and do not intend to apply that convention for the purposes of the Bill? This is intended as a probing amendment to find out the legal status of the Aarhus convention—I am using the Danish pronunciation, obviously—for the purposes of the Bill. When those few words, I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, briefly, I offer my support to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and thank her for tabling it and for sharing the very useful Bar Council briefing. I shall just draw a couple of points from that and make an additional point of my own.
One point to draw from that briefing is that there is a broad definition of environmental information within the Aarhus convention. The briefing rather weighs on some of our earlier debates, noting that it includes a non-exhaustive list of elements of the environment: air, water and soil. It also includes cultural sites and built structures, which very much weighed on a debate on day three perhaps—it all blurs—but one that we had earlier on the inclusion of culture within the frame of the Bill, for which noble Lords on all sides of the Committee strongly argued.
I also wanted to draw attention to the other point of the Aarhus convention, which says that
“public authorities may not withhold information, except for”—
and then follows what one would think of as a fairly standard list of exemptions. There is a very important restriction on those exemptions, which is that
“commercial confidentiality may not be invoked to withhold information that is relevant to the protection of the environment”.
Given the level of privatisation of so many aspects of our management of our environment—water companies come to mind most clearly, but there are many others—that may be a very important protection to ensure that this is fully included and complied with. It is worth noting that we are talking about an international convention to which we signed up, but we have recently had a lot of encounters in which the Government do not seem to regard themselves as being bound by international law and matters to which they have signed up.
My final point is the real, life-and-death seriousness of this. I shall refer to a case to which many people, including my noble friend, have referred to previously, which is the tragic death of nine-year-old Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. I want to quote just one sentence from the coroner’s conclusion, which said:
“There was a lack of information given to Ella’s mother that possibly contributed to her death.”
Very often, when people are thinking about information about the environment being available, they are thinking in broad public health terms—they are thinking of campaigners, whom the Green Party is often supporting, fighting big issues. We are also talking about matters of life and death, and people being able to protect themselves and their children if information is available to them.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for allowing us to have this brief debate. She has rightly raised the fact that the OEP should have some continuing role in monitoring and factoring in our obligations under international environmental law. These obligations, including Aarhus, still exist despite us leaving the EU—and these are not technical questions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, as just illustrated so vividly. If the Government are not minded to accept this amendment, it would be helpful if they could spell out how the role of the OEP and its enforcement functions with regard to our international obligations will appear in the Bill. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s response.
However, since I have the floor, I briefly echo the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about all the business on the Bill ending up at Report. I just say very kindly to the Minister that, in the past, it has been a much more iterative process. It is really not very helpful that the Minister seems to be giving us a blanket no to all the amendments we are debating. Normally, there is a little more give and take. Everyone has their own way of doing things, and he must develop his own style, but I fear that he is storing up more problems than is necessary at Report if he does not take the Chamber with him. This might just be a matter of tone, but I give him just a little helpful advice about how we might proceed.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for Amendment 113F and reassure noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to the important aims of the Aarhus convention and fulfilling our obligations under this agreement.
The definition of environmental law in the Environment Bill has been designed with the primary purpose of defining the scope of the OEP. The OEP’s remit is to oversee the implementation of domestic legislation, rather than international law. Separate mechanisms exist to regulate compliance with international agreements.
Where the OEP determines a complaint to be outside its scope and considers that the complaint is regarding a failure to comply with the convention, the OEP would be expected to advise the complainant to approach the Aarhus convention compliance committee. This committee considers complaints related to obligations under the Aarhus convention, which is international law, and submits recommendations to the full meeting of the parties.
I assure my noble friend that where the provisions of the Aarhus convention have been given effect in UK law and meet the definition of environmental law, they will fall within the remit of the OEP. The OEP will consider which legislation falls within the definition on a case-by-case basis.
There are, of course, areas in which, appropriately, provisions implementing the convention may not be included in the OEP’s remit. For example, under Clause 45(2)(a) provisions on the
“disclosure of or access to information”
are specifically excluded from the definition of environmental law and therefore from the OEP’s remit. This is to avoid overlap with the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office, as we discussed in one of our earlier debates. Amending the definition as proposed would therefore result in confusion, including over the functions of the OEP and the Information Commissioner’s Office.
In response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on air pollution, Defra makes air pollution information available through a range of channels. It also informs a network of charities, including the Asthma UK and British Lung Foundation partnership, the British Heart Foundation, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and the British Thoracic Society, when elevated air pollution levels are forecast to ensure that information reaches the most vulnerable. It will not be bullet-proof or foolproof, but the attempt is there and the mechanism is there to provide that information to those who need it. More broadly, there are several ways in which the public can access air quality information, including through mainstream media, air quality alert systems and dedicated websites, such as those of the UK air and health charities and numerous campaigns. There are a number of alert systems, including in Manchester and London, that people can sign up to, often funded by local authorities. As I say, this is not a bullet-proof or foolproof process. Like everyone in the Committee’s, my heart goes out to Ella’s family. What happened to her absolutely needs to be the basis for all kinds of lessons learned and adds another layer of urgency to the work we are doing through this Bill in relation to air quality.
This group concludes the governance part of the Bill. I have appreciated the interest of all parties in the Committee in this important part of the Bill. I conclude by reaffirming that my door is open to continued discussions on these and other essential issues.
Before I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment, I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. There are plenty of areas in which I expect the Bill will improve, but it is not within the gift of a Minister unilaterally to decide which amendments should be accepted. I do not think there is any doubt in the department I work for that there are areas in which the Bill can and should be improved. Plenty of very helpful amendments and suggestions have been put forward by the Committee. With that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I move to the mover, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all those who have spoken in the debate, so movingly in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I welcome the opportunity to have pressed my noble friend in this regard.
I will revert back to practitioners at the Bar Council to ask whether they are completely satisfied with this. From their briefing, my understanding is that there are already similar exclusions in the Aarhus convention. I congratulate my noble friend on his pronunciation. I am extremely impressed and I think we will be speaking Danish together before we even know it. There are similar exclusions to our own freedom of information as exist under the Aarhus convention.
The subsection (2)(a) to which my noble friend referred is a blanket exclusion about which I have some fear. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, highlighted that we need to be very clear about what is being excluded. If it is information that could make a life or death change to someone like the parent of Ella, it is very important that we are cognisant of that and try to work within the law as much as possible.
I support both my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I am grateful for her support for the sentiments behind this amendment. When my noble friend Lady Bloomfield and I joined, which was the same year, it was around the time that the procedures here changed. I welcome the fact that in Committee we can have much more probing and lengthier debates, but there was possibly some merit, on a case-by-case basis, to disposing of some of those amendments that could possibly be accepted by the Government or easily disposed of either way, rather than storing up problems when the Government have given us such a tight deadline, as they have. If we can work together and find a middle way on this, that would be very helpful indeed.
With those remarks and the fact that I will go back and take further advice from the Bar Council, I am delighted to have had the debate but beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 119. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 119
“(1A) When making regulations imposing producer responsibility obligations, the relevant national authority must have regard to the public interest in such obligations being operational by 1 January 2024.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that the new packaging producer responsibility system is in place for the beginning of 2024, given that the final compliance year of the current package will end on 31 December 2023.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we now move on to the next part of the Bill, dealing with resource efficiency. I very much look forward not only to the coming debate on my amendments but to the debates on a number of groups in the days to come. For now, in moving Amendment 119 in my name, I add my support to the other amendments in this group.
Amendment 119 is simple but important. It adds to Schedule 4 the requirement that a new extended producer responsibility scheme should be introduced by 1 January 2024. It sounds technical, but it is a fundamental part of delivering a circular economy.
This new charging system will place a powerful onus on manufacturers to ensure that they design their products so that they can be re-used, dismantled or recycled at the end of life. It will move waste up the hierarchy and cut down on the unnecessary use of resources. It will ensure that they pay the full cost of disposal of their packaging, which will encourage them to cut down on unnecessary packaging, and it will provide additional charges for materials which cannot be recycled. It will include requirements on labelling to ensure consumers are clearly directed as to how to dispose of the item. It would also, potentially, provide additional charges on producers of materials which are routinely littered. It would indeed ensure that the polluter pays. I know these issues are very dear to the hearts of your Lordships. Incidentally, I tabled a number of Written Questions last week about the absolute scandal of Amazon destroying millions of items of unused stock simply because they did not want to pay to store them. I hope a scheme such as this would catch Amazon in its net as well.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, there can be few more unpleasant jobs than clearing fatballs and wet wipes out of congested sewers. It is done underground, often in sweltering conditions. It is a terribly hard job, and in many ways it should be quite unnecessary.
In my amendment—which the Minister and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, might agree could be a point at which the Minister will actually say, “I agree and I will do something”—I have simply written that people who sell wet wipes and other non-flushable items should, as was done with tobacco advertising in the early stages, be obliged to print on their packaging the words “Do not flush”. This is not a revolutionary amendment. It is one that I know the water companies would greatly welcome. I am a great critic of the water companies in many respects, but it would help them in their task.
It does not seem to me that the amendment would move any great laws. It would just mean that the Government has to tell people who sell non-flushable items such as baby wipes that on each package there should be the words “Do not flush”. I myself have looked at several packages. On some you can find the words printed very small while on others you cannot find them at all. I think the Minister might welcome this opportunity to get up and say, “Yes, that’s a good idea. I will take it away and look at it.”
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. We have a history of working together that goes back many years. I think the last time was to do with Railtrack, which is a million miles away from Amendment 120A, which I shall speak to today, concerning septic tanks and their management.
I have some experience of this, going back a while to when I was a much younger married man with a small family who had moved into a rather old but pleasant Edwardian house on the edge of the country. When there is a sewer in the main road outside, naturally one assumes that one’s house is connected to it, but I discovered one morning, when an unexpected hole appeared in the back lawn, that there was no mains drainage at all, but a septic tank. As I say, I was a young man with a family and not a lot of money, and I had to get a second mortgage in order to pay for the drainage works to connect up to the sewer in the road and explain to my friends and neighbours that it was I who had caused traffic lights to be put up to cope with the construction works.
That is not to say that I have a particular bias against septic tanks—an issue that we will return to later in the Bill—but this amendment is to do with something very similar to my noble friend Lord Bradshaw’s point, which is that caustic household cleansers, when used too liberally, or even at all, you might argue, to cope with the cleansing of waste into septic tanks in domestic homes, can cause damage. What can happen so easily is that chlorine-based or similar bleach-based domestic cleaners prevent the tanks from functioning at all, and the result can be that you end up with little better than open defecation. So the purpose of the amendment is to try to reduce, and in due course eliminate, the discharge of untreated or poorly treated sewage into our rivers, watercourses and aquifers.
This occurs mainly in rural communities that remain—as I found out to my cost—unconnected to mains sewers, and are reliant on septic tanks and cesspits. Those are often inefficient and poorly maintained. Not only can septic tanks poison our rivers, streams and other watercourses as a result, but in areas with chalk aquifers they can poison the groundwater as well, often causing irreversible long-term harm.
Elsewhere in our European continent, several countries have not only banned this form of drainage but replaced it with more sensible and rational mains drainage systems. I would like to think that we would be trying to catch up with them. I therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I completely share her frustration, and agree with pretty much every word that she said. All the amendments in the group are concerned with the application of extended producer responsibility for single-use plastics, particularly those that are highly polluting in our sewers, such as wet wipes and—as we will hear later from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—nappy liners. I support all the amendments in the group.
There cannot be a better example of “out of sight, out of mind” than sewers. People simply flush all sorts of things away and give no thought as to the consequences. The water industry tells us that wet wipes make up 90% of the material in fatbergs, and because they do not break down, they cause 300,000 blockages every year, at a cost of around £100 million. That is money that the water industry could spend in far more productive ways—dealing with leaks, for example, or investing in water-saving schemes. Fatbergs also cause flooding in people’s homes, and pollute our rivers. As well as wet wipes, other products are routinely flushed, despite not being suitable, including nappy liners, sanitary products and condoms, which also lead to clean-up costs and add to both micro and macro-pollution.
There is an urgent need to develop a strategy and a legislative framework for dealing with this, and we must start immediately, with more public education and awareness campaigns. This can start the business of behavioural change and, crucially, it will start to help people understand why the more drastic measures that are needed will have to be taken. It is amazing that volunteers give up their time to clean beaches and rivers—and when they do that, it helps to raise awareness, as well as removing the pollution. But volunteers are no substitute for the serious measures that are needed.
There are many consumers who want to do the right thing, but the problem is that they do not always know what the right thing is. I agree with my noble friend Lord Bradshaw that we need clear labelling on product packaging to help improve the level of appropriate disposal of those products. At the point of sale, including online, packaging and advertising should identify products that contain plastic and do not comply with the water industry’s standard for flushability, Fine to Flush. Clear instructions are needed—“Do not flush”—with appropriate advice on waste disposal options.
Finally, clean-ups of blockages should be funded through graded financial penalties commensurate with the damage caused by the product. Products containing plastic should incur the highest penalty, followed by products that do not, but which also fail to meet the Fine to Flush standard.
The Government urgently need to provide clarification and detail about the schemes they will introduce under extended producer responsibility and the powers in the Bill. Their coverage, their delivery, the methods of consultation and the anticipated financial flows all need to be developed quickly. Action should be targeted on those areas where the most environmental damage is caused. The objective of my Amendment 124 is to provide some urgency, and to ensure that the Government have to bring such a scheme forward. That would give the industry, and to some extent consumers, a very clear direction of travel, and it sits very well with Amendment 119, which would introduce the statutory start date.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is not only producers who have to have regard to resource efficiency; it is also the Government. It is really important in devising regulations in this sort of area that we look at the overall effect of what we are asking people to do and, in particular, what we are asking companies to do to make sure that the end effect of what we are regulating is an improvement and not a disimprovement.
We have seen, for instance, in the case of washing machines and dishwashers, regulations regarding their use of energy, but we have done nothing to regulate how long these machines last. If you are replacing a machine every five years because it has fallen to bits, that surely is part of the resources being consumed by the process. It ought to have been part of the regulations and something that we should look at. We will come to this question when we look at deposit return schemes.
If we are instituting a deposit return scheme on something where we already collect 85% efficiently, and it is only the remaining 15% that are causing problems, then by creating a system that puts a lot of extra costs on society in recycling the existing 85% in a different, less efficient manner, we are not achieving an overall benefit. What is sauce for the goose is very much sauce for the gander.
Looking at the other amendments in this group, I think that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would result in regulation that was extremely resource efficient. The small one-off costs for producers after that would lead to a very substantial reduction in costs for the sewerage undertakings. That is what we ought to be aiming for: a good, big overall benefit. We should not be looking at little bits of the process; we have to look at the benefits and the costs that will be imposed by the regulation as a whole.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak to my own Amendment 128, which goes back even further into the depths of this Bill to Schedule 6. It is a probing amendment in many ways, and very mild, just to tease out where the Government stand on this. Although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said so well, this seems to be a very technical area, these issues are absolutely essential in making the future circular economy, and everything we want in terms of resource efficiency, actually to work and become public friendly—and the way that it faces the public becoming friendly as well.
It comes down to labels. We have had some mention of labels already, particularly from my noble friends Lady Scott and Lord Bradshaw. What I am trying to get at here is that there are provisions, rightly, for the Secretary of State to be able to make regulations about such things as labels on products, but what it does not do is suggest that there should be some consistency about that labelling so that we all find that interface useful, friendly and usable.
I am thinking of two other areas in particular. When I put the laundry into the washing machine at home, there is the occasional garment that I do not have a clue how it should be washed. So what do I do? I look at the label on the garment that has all those little symbols that tell me how I should wash this—at what temperature and all that sort of information. It might tell me not to wash it at all, but to dry-clean it instead. Over the years, I have got to know those symbols. Everybody else has: they are actually fairly international rather than national; I am not even asking for them to be international. Through that, we get to know what we should do.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who mentioned electrical appliances. Whether it be a dishwasher or a dryer, they also have labels that give an energy efficiency rating. That has been so successful that we have had to reinvent or restate what the most efficient levels are, because people have got to know them and simply go for green rather than red.
This amendment is merely offering a suggestion to the Government. It would give the Secretary of State the power to ensure that labelling on goods in the system that will become part of the circular economy is consistent, so that everybody gets to understand the symbols and they are therefore effective. We should not have a wide range of different labels from different manufacturers, or different systems, which would confuse consumers. In labelling, we need consistency, good design and systems that have been tried and tested, and last. As, I think, my noble friend Lady Scott said, this will make sure that people who want to do right can achieve that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I rise chiefly to speak to Amendment 292, which appears in my name and has the backing of the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I thank them all for their support and note that a number of other noble Lords would have signed this amendment had there been space.
I was simply going to speak to my amendment, but I must briefly and strongly commend Amendment 119, which was so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, highlighted in a previous group that I had focused on the word “urgent” a lot. With this amendment the noble Baroness has really driven home the need for urgent action. We have a plastic and waste-choked planet and nation that cannot take any more: it cannot take the volumes we are imposing on it every day.
Amendment 292 is about nappies. That might sound like a minor issue but I hope that by the time I have finished, noble Lords will understand that it is not. Before I begin, I declare my position as vice-president of the Local Government Association, since that will become relevant. For full transparency, I declare that I have worked on this amendment with, and many noble Lords will have received briefings from, the Nappy Alliance, which represents makers of reusable nappies. Supporting a green industry and working with it is not something I am going to make any apologies for, but I think it is important we acknowledge such ties and where the resources come from.
On average, each single-use or disposable nappy generates 550 kilos of carbon dioxide throughout its whole lifecycle, from production to disposal. From birth to stopping using nappies, an average child will use the equivalent of 15,000 plastic bags and half a tree in fluff. This is why the Local Government Association is relevant: at a local level, single-use nappies account for some 4% of residual waste in England. That is 3 billion nappies each year, and it costs local authorities £600 million a year to dispose of them. When such nappies are sent to landfill it takes 300 years—roughly 12 generations—for them to break down. Incinerating them gives rise to significant carbon emissions and local air pollution levels, an issue we keep coming back to. This is where my amendment links to that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw: single-use nappies often end up contaminating waste for recycling because of misleading labels and consumer confusion. Many people do not realise they contain plastic, and think they are a kind of paper.
By way of contrast, reusable nappies use 98% fewer raw materials and generate 99% less waste. They save the equivalent of 17 plastic bags per day. Here, I think I need to dispel some misunderstandings. As we have seen in many other areas of health and environment where there are powerful industry interests, there has been a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about environmental impacts and comparative environmental impacts. In March 2021, in a report I would be happy to share with any noble Lord who is interested, the United Nations Environment Programme published a comparison between single-use nappies and reusables. It concluded that reusable nappies had a lower environmental impact across all trial scenarios when compared to single-use nappies.
Michael Gove seems to be coming up a lot this evening. Back in 2018, he did actually suggest that disposable nappies might be banned. In a very rare occurrence, I am not going to go as far as Michael Gove did in 2018. When people are travelling or when there is a new babysitter, for example, there may be an argument for the occasional use of single-use nappies, but it should not be the norm.
This brings me to some other aspects of the amendment that really start to address how we change the situation. There are some really good local authority small-scale practical schemes that are helping people change to using reusable nappies and get away from single-use nappies. Often, they are based on nappy libraries—frequently run by volunteers, most usually women—which have a range of nappies that families can try out. People can see which ones are suitable before they spend money. Many local authorities—by no means all and by no means extensively—offer schemes that can help families to purchase reusable nappies. The problem is, of course, that when you have a new and growing baby, you need a set of nappies, which is a big initial outlay beyond the reach of many people. Subsection (8) of my amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations for a levy to be paid by nappy manufacturers to fund a scheme to help people use reusable nappies. We are talking about ensuring that people can afford to buy them and that they have access to understanding and knowledge—nappy libraries also share information about how to use nappies and what the best ones are.
There is a comparison here. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talked about energy labels on packaging, and that is partly what this amendment calls for. But in fact, it is a bit like cigarette packets, for which we have labelling and pricing that acknowledges the cost of the product that applies to all of us.
So, I strongly commend this amendment to the Minister. I point out that I have probably been approached by more noble Lords on this amendment than on any other I have tabled—and I have tabled some with very wide-reaching effects. This issue is of great interest to people for many reasons. One, of course, is something I am sure we will be referring to a lot in the next few hours: litter. There is a big problem with litter from single-use nappies. It is a deeply unpleasant thing. I am sure most noble Lords have been volunteer litter pickers in some form or another, and it is not a pleasant thing to encounter when doing that.
What we are talking about here is changing things to make life better. It is about the kind of systems thinking that I very often refer to. This is the Environment Bill, and when we talk about the environment people ask if we can we afford the cost of this or that measure. If we can help most families to use single-use nappies, that would save them, on average, £11 a week. That is a lot of money to many families—money that could be spent on healthier food or on taking off some of the stress and pressure. This amendment has environmental and social benefits: it is a win-win. If the Minister is being pressured to offer some yeses, here is an easy win.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to speak briefly on this group and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who spoke eloquently and forcefully on single-use nappies. Of course, it is not just at the beginning of life that people use nappies; there is the similar and even greater problem of incontinence pads, if we dare call them that, for the third age, so I can see where the noble Baroness is coming from.
If he will permit me, I will congratulate my noble friend Lord Goldsmith and the Government on drafting and including Clause 49 and Schedule 4 in the Bill. I press him on the sentiments behind a number of the amendments, particularly Amendment 119, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and which presses for the introduction of a timetable. The explanatory statement says:
“This amendment aims to ensure that the new packaging producer responsibility system is in place for the beginning of 2024, given that the final compliance year of the current package will end on 31 December 2023.”
All who have spoken and will speak in this debate are very concerned about our inability to address producer responsibility. I worked very hard for this during my 10 years as a Member of the European Parliament.
We all seem to pick up on the end of use, and we have all these recycling issues. If you buy perfume or aftershave for a present, you think you are gifting someone what looks like a really nice present, but, when you watch them open it, the contents are of course absolutely tiny, and you think it must be something to do with the marketing of it. Is there some way that we can use the provisions that are set out in the Bill?
What is the government position on labelling? The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, gave a very good example about garments, and I know that there are others that we could use. Has the department done any work on this? I accept the concerns addressed by many, including my noble friend Lord Lucas, who spoke about resource efficiency. Has the department done any costings on this?
In speaking to his Amendment 120 this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned a concern, which I share and support him on, about wet wipes being put down the toilet, which causes so much cost further down the chain, as we know. We do not need regulations to ask manufacturers to do this; it is a case of education and asking them why they are not doing this in letters that we can all read. So I press my noble friend to say what work has been done on labelling and the education of consumers. We should not let producers slip away from their responsibilities in this regard. I wonder what the cost of such labelling would be—or would we micromanaging and micro-legislating if we were to ask my noble friend to address this?
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 120, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. No one who saw last April’s “Panorama” programme on the state of our rivers could possibly not support this amendment. That picture of what initially looked like a sandbank in the River Thames but was in fact a huge pile of wet wipes and other plastic-fibre sanitary items was simply disgusting to me. I do not think that that is an overreaction on my part.
In evidence given to the Commons’ Environmental Audit Committee, one witness—one assumes that he was an expert and knew what he was talking about—addressed plastic-fibre wet wipes, stating:
“every day 7 million wet wipes ... are flushed ... down the toilet”.
There were also
“2.5 million tampons, 1.5 million sanitary pads and 700,000 panty liners”,
all currently with a varying degree of plastic content. They do not dissolve or break down but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, have to be raked out of the sewage treatment works and sent to landfill.
The flushing of these products is already illegal. I believe that they can now all be produced without plastic content; in other words, to a “fine to flush” standard. They can now be produced in materials which are equally effective, but which can and do break down within the sewage system, like paper. So I make a plea: the Government should look into this issue and then, I hope, announce a legal end date for the production of all sanitary goods that are not produced to a flushable standard. In the meantime, as Amendment 120 proposes, we should ensure that all the current products are clearly marked as non-flushable.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the next three speakers on the list—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott—have withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for the fact that I was not able to speak at Second Reading on the Bill. I wish to speak to Amendment 124 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market. I hope the House will allow me to use this amendment to probe with the Minister not the disposal of single-use plastics but the banning of them, and the aspirations of the Welsh Government to do just that.
To understand the drive towards such a ban in Wales one has to understand that the pursuit of sustainable development is central to the Senedd’s devolved powers. It is expressly mandated as a core aspiration of the Welsh Ministers under Section 79 of the Government of Wales Act.
Like most countries throughout the world, Wales has its concerns about the prevalence of single-use plastics and the pollution they cause in our cities and towns, on our beaches and in our seas. In 2019, the Great British Beach Clean weekend organised by the Marine Conservation Society found an average of 322 plastic items per 100 metres of beach it surveyed, while in its 2018-19 street cleanliness survey, Keep Wales Tidy found fast-food litter on 20% of the streets that it surveyed across Wales.
The Welsh Government want to use their powers to ban 19 types of plastic items. As well as hoping to ban plastic-stemmed cotton buds, the Senedd wants to ban plastic cutlery, plastic plates, plastic beverage stirrers and plastic straws, as well as food containers and beverage cups made from expanded polystyrene. This is all very sensible—so sensible that our wonderful catering facilities in the House of Lords had already achieved all this before the pandemic struck. Obviously, where the House of Lords leads, Wales is keen to follow.
The problem is, of course, the impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, which would mean that any single-use plastics permitted or imported into the rest of the UK could still be sold in Wales, in effect negating the Senedd’s aim. In January of this year, the Counsel General for Wales sought permission for a judicial review of the position but the application was denied on the basis of prematurity. I believe, however, that the Court of Appeal has granted permission to appeal the Divisional Court’s decision and that a hearing will be listed in due course. I do not expect the Minister to pre-empt any decision that the Court of Appeal may come to. Can he say, however, whether he or his civil servants have had any discussions with their opposite numbers in Wales on single-use plastics, especially following the election of the new Welsh Government in May, and whether we are any closer to clarity on the situation?
Finally, I want to refer to an excellent article by Dr Richard Caddell, a member of the Wales Governance Centre in Cardiff and a senior lecturer in law. Writing in FTB’s Environmental Law Blog and highlighting the problem Wales faces, he concludes:
“The widespread concern over marine plastics … may potentially persuade some UK regulators to upscale their environmental ambitions to meet those of other devolved actors, in order to stave off this particular constitutional conundrum.”
These are wise words. I find the phrase “the upscaling of environmental ambitions” particularly elegant, providing, as it does, a rather elegant way forward. Rather than insisting on asserting the letter of the law or resorting to the courts, employing a strategy of wholesale upscaling of environmental ambitions could, perhaps be more effective.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I have campaigned long and hard on the horrors of plastic waste, the need for biodegradable alternatives and the deficiencies of the UK local authority recycling system and its inconsistencies. It was a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys. Of course, the Welsh Government did some pioneering work on plastic bags, although I think we need to maintain a single market across the UK.
I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister is making progress in these areas, as we can see from several provisions in the Bill. I also agree with concerns expressed today about wet wipes, nappy liners and discarded masks. However, I am disturbed by the wide-ranging powers we are now discussing. Since there is so little specification in the Bill of what they will be used for, and barely a glimpse of the cost-benefit of individual measures, we are essentially being asked to put our faith in Ministers, subject to the odd debate on affirmative instruments. Against that background, I make three points, the first two of which apply to several of the schedules.
First, has the Minister considered a much simpler and economically more robust alternative approach, which is a simple resource tax? Why cannot plastic and waste be taxed in a simple, linear way, like petrol and landfill, discouraging use rather than creating a common agricultural policy-like array of schemes and exemptions? Even someone relatively well informed, such as myself, cannot find their way around all the different proposals. What study of such levies has there been, including the effect on business and consumers, to pick up what my noble friend Lord Lucas was saying?
Secondly, what is the plan to publicise these various schemes as they are adopted? Is there already a consumer website where they can be studied and one’s obligations and risk of penalties understood? If they were taxes, one could just go to HMRC. There is nothing practical and up to date on the Defra website that I could find: everything is very legalistic and bureaucratic. Is such a user-friendly website planned for such measures? Perhaps I can offer help.
Thirdly, on Amendment 292 on reusable nappies, I have to say that I was one of the last mothers in this country to use terry nappies for my four children, as I dislike the waste represented by disposable ones, and my views go back a long way. But I know that, like one-stop shopping, disposable nappies have been a godsend to working mothers and fathers. I am not against some simple standards so that people know what they are buying, and allowing the promotion of washable nappies processed at home or through house-to-house services of the kind I encountered in Vermont. However, I fear I cannot support this highly regulatory and restrictive amendment. I encourage the proposers to think again and come back with something much simpler and easier to justify on Report.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to add my voice in general support of these amendments. It is always a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, with her rapier-like perception of how we might do things better and differently. I commend the usual channels on what is probably a very appropriate grouping, but it does cover a huge area of concern.
On Amendment 119, moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I certainly agree that setting a deadline for producer responsibility is necessary and that we need to force the pace. We have been waiting too long and, without the pace being forced, I fear that, quite literally, the can will get kicked further down the road.
On Amendment 120, from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, I have a sense of déjà vu here. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, a revulsion at things such as the Whitechapel fatberg. I also declare a proprietorial interest as an owner of private drainage systems. I have long prevailed upon tenants, holiday visitors, ordinary visitors and my own offspring not to put unsuitable things in drains, not least that product that noble Lords will recall claims to kill all known germs, including, I should say, the useful flora of any septic tank. These are among the things that we have to tell people not to use in private drainage systems.
In fact, many of these items, whether solids or fluids, should not go into foul drains of any sort, whether municipal or private. I agree that clear instructions on things such as nappy liners and wet wipes merely confirm to me that the information needs to be simpler, waste disposal more intuitive and the general public better informed. However, in moving to make this more rigorous, we can help by forcing the process of substitution with flushable alternatives, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.
I noted the laudable campaign of the Nappy Alliance in Amendment 292, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Of course, as we have heard, nappies are only part of the problem and many other sanitary products are involved, but I would say that I tread carefully here. However, as an experienced user of drain rods and high-pressure drain flushing systems, I support the general thrust of these things with considerable fervour.
Earlier in Committee we had a discussion on single-use plastics. Again, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and her Amendment 124, that we need to force the pace on publishing a scheme for dealing with this. It is very much down to the Government to produce that.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, reminded us in a very timely manner that resource efficiency must be one of our overarching touchstones in considering this. There has to be a degree of proportionality. We have to know what strategically we are getting at so that we can look at the thing in microcosm. I very much support that.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on labelling, brings in a vital part of providing better information on products of all sorts and—this is perhaps where one of the low-cost things might come in—generating cultural change. I think there are many willing members of the public up and down the country who, with better information and knowledge about the adverse effects of these things, would willingly and voluntarily move in the right direction. We need to try to tap into that. Personally, I am tired of searching for information on contents and potential hazards and for container recycling codes which are often badly printed or covered up by something else and so on. It would be very easy to do a great deal better.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, referred to out of sight, out of mind. There is one thing that has always worried me. Certainly, in my youth it used to be the standard advice that if you found a bottle in your late Uncle Fred’s garden shed, but the contents were not clear because the label had fallen off, you put it down the loo. That should not happen because there are some quite dangerous chemicals floating around. There needs to be better information about what to do with that.
When we talk about householders taking things to recycling places where they can be disposed of, please let us make sure that there is enough capacity and that they do not have to do what happens in one household recycling depot near me, which is that you have to go on the web and make an appointment to go there, otherwise you will not get in.
There are many things that we can do. On plastics, I am a great believer that the throwaway society is wrong. I am a great user of previously used plastic containers for all sorts of things. I obviously recycle the ones that I do not use, but some of them have been perfectly good substitutes for things that I would otherwise have gone out and purchased, and they last for many years—as containers for garden purposes, for property maintenance and so on. If some plastic items had a second or even a third life available to them, we would go some way to not requiring so many to be purchased in the first place. However, in general, I very much support the thrust of these amendments.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too support Amendment 124, so ably explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and agree on how urgent it is for the Secretary of State to publish a scheme for disposal of single-use plastics, and to have that done within a time limit that reflects the sense of urgency that we have heard from so many noble Lords today. I also support many of the aims of the other amendments in this group.
These amendments touch on everyday family life. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, explained, anyone who saw the “Panorama” programme a few weeks ago would surely wish to support policies that can help to stop the build-up of fatbergs and pollutants which are already so damaging to our sewers and rivers. The figure of 7 million wet wipes being flushed down our toilets each day, without people generally even realising the damage they are causing to the environment and our sewers—they do not even give it a second thought—is something that this Bill may have the opportunity to address. Making sure that there are clear warnings on such products and that these parts of a household’s normal weekly shopping are both identified as being as damaging as they are and, ultimately, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, replaced by biodegradable alternatives which do not cause that same damage are issues which I believe have not yet filtered through into the public consciousness. Given the work that we have done, we understand them—I declare an interest in that my son works in a company involved in replacements for plastics—but extending responsibility for this issue so that everybody becomes aware of it rather than just those in the know could help significantly to produce a step change in consumer behaviour and stop plastics clogging up so many riverbanks, sewers, landfill sites and other areas.
Taxation is clearly an option. Through the price mechanism, it would make sense—I believe that we are coming to this in a later group—to ensure that the most damaging plastics, which have caused significant damage already, are more punitively taxed so that consumers are less keen to use them. In that regard, I add my support to Amendment 128 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on consistency in any framework of public warning messages that potentially will be introduced to help public awareness. However, ideally, as I said, in the not-too-distant future the best option would be for those products that contain plastics that last for potentially thousands of years and do so much damage to be replaced with options that do not hang around and pollute our environment in the way people are currently doing without quite realising the extent of the damage.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, this group concerns packaging and single-use items. I shall speak in support of Amendment 292 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. All the amendments in this group have a degree of urgency.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, spoke passionately to Amendment 119, which would ensure that producer responsibility for new packaging is in place for January 2024. I have spoken before about the need for producer responsibility on plastics and I fully support the amendment. The noble Baroness is quite right to emphasise the need for producer responsibility to be implemented without delay. After all, there has been extensive consultation. I am obviously more impatient than the noble Baroness, since I would have chosen an earlier date. However, I accept that manufacturers should be allowed time to change their practices and that this cannot be achieved overnight.
My noble friend Lord Chidgey quite rightly raised the issue of those households with septic tanks, a large percentage of which will be in rural areas. For the septic tanks to function as designed, chemical cleaning products and wipes should not be used and should be phased out nationally. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on this point.
My noble friends Lord Bradshaw and Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, would require the Secretary of State to publish a scheme by December 2021 on the disposal of single-use plastics. This urgent timeframe meets with my approval. Wet wipes are causing tremendous problems and should not be left to volunteers to clear up.
My noble friend Lord Teverson’s Amendment 129 provides part of the answer for the Government. If all products were adequately and clearly labelled using a consistent format that the public could easily recognise, they would be more likely to read the information and take notice. This commonly approved and consistent design cannot be in 6 point font on the very bottom of the package. It will need to be of sufficient size for the purchaser to easily read on the front of the package, rather than having to hold it up over their heads to read what is on the bottom, which often happens when the package contains wet food.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised built-in obsolescence in household goods such as washing machines. Redundant white goods are extremely difficult to get rid of.
My noble friend Lady Humphreys spoke about the use of single-use plastics and the role of the Welsh Senedd, which wants to ban 19 types of single-use items, including plastic cutlery. The Senedd is concerned about the impact of single-use plastics coming over from the rest of the UK into Wales.
Amendment 292 is definitely not on a glamorous subject. There is no doubt that disposable nappies are extremely convenient. I wonder whether there is a Peer in the Chamber, including the Minister, who has not changed the nappy of a baby at some stage. My mother bought me two dozen terry nappies when I was expecting my first baby. They lasted until my second child no longer needed them and they still had a life in the garage as cleaning cloths. There were disposable nappies around, but they were costly and so were used only when we went on holiday. My granddaughter was kitted out with reusable nappies—a very different kettle of fish from the terrys of my day. They had a set of poppers, which meant they could fit a range of sizes, and were extremely colourful.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate. It is a rare area of almost complete consensus—the shared horror at the horrific legacy our throwaway culture has left us and every society on earth. I think the World Economic Forum said that by 2030, if trends continue, there will be more plastic in the world’s oceans, as measured by weight, than fish, which really is almost unimaginably horrible to think about.
The resources and waste provisions in the Bill introduce much-needed reforms to tackle waste of all kinds and increase our resource efficiency. The measures look across the product life cycle, from design to use to end of life, ensuring that we are maximising our resources and adhering to the waste hierarchy.
I thank noble Lords for their amendments. I will begin with Amendment 119, for which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Our recent consultation on extended producer responsibility for packaging committed to the implementation as soon as possible and proposed a phased approach commencing in 2023. These are, rightly, major reforms—almost revolutionary, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggested—and we need to listen to those who are going to be impacted by them and ensure that they are able to adapt.
I am pleased that stakeholders have welcomed the measure, such as the Food and Drink Federation, which said:
“Food and drink manufacturers want to be accountable for the packaging they place on the market and an effective and cost-efficient system has the potential to be an enabler for increased investment in recycling infrastructure.”
We are currently analysing responses to the consultation and will publish our response as soon as we possibly can. We also remain committed to introducing these reforms as quickly as we can. But, unfortunately for those, like me, who are impatient for this change, the system is such that, because we are introducing individual schemes, and because those schemes have a significant impact on products and the producers of those products, each one of those schemes needs consultation and will require an SI. There will be process, and that process is largely unavoidable.
All I can tell the noble Baroness and others who support the amendment is that I and my colleagues in Defra are committed to doing this as quickly as possible. We want to go as quickly as we can, but we also want extended producer responsibility to be extended as far as it possibly can. We want an extensive programme, because we recognise that extended producer responsibility, taken to its logical conclusion, is a really significant part of the solution if we want to get to a zero-waste or circular economy.
On Amendments 120 and 120A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Chidgey, respectively, the Government echo the concern around the Committee surrounding the damage caused to sewerage systems and the wider environment by the incorrect disposal and abundance of wet wipes and the use of inappropriate cleaning products, a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. Small sewage discharges from septic tanks and small sewage treatment plants in England are already regulated under the general binding rules, which specifically state that the discharge from septic tanks must not cause pollution of surface water or groundwater.
Nevertheless, I assure the Committee that we have a number of additional possible routes to tackling this issue through the Bill. Powers in Schedule 5 to the Bill could require wet-wipe producers to pay for the disposal costs of discarded and used wet wipes. Schedule 6 allows us to mandate for wet-wipe producers to put information on packaging regarding their correct disposal, including “do not flush” directions or clearer alternative text on products not suitable for those with a septic system, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey. I would like to advance progress in this area as well, as quickly as possible. That ambition is shared by all my colleagues in the department.
Closely related is Amendment 292 on nappies, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The powers that we seek in this Bill will enable us to act, if necessary. We explicitly outlined this on page 161 of the Bill’s Explanatory Notes to make it clearer in response to discussion on this important issue in the other place. We have also commissioned an environmental assessment looking at the waste and energy impacts of washable and disposable products. This will bring our evidence base up to date, putting us in the best possible position to decide what action to take. That report will be published within a matter of months and certainly this year.
The noble Baroness is right to highlight this. She almost apologised at the beginning on the basis of it sounding marginal, but, as she pointed out, it is not. The amount of residual waste that is made up of used nappies is staggering. Clearly, we must move to a situation where the incentives are such that people by default use genuinely biodegradable alternatives, if they have to use disposables, or even better, washables, although they come with inconvenience that not everyone can accommodate. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, I believe that I was dressed in throwaway nappies as a child. It was a long time ago—it feels even longer after a few weeks trying to get this Bill through the House—but we were all guilty, without a doubt, and we need to see a shift in the right direction. We have in this Bill the tools that we need to foster that shift.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for Amendment 124, which calls for a scheme in relation to disposal costs of single-use plastics. Clause 50 enables regulations to require those who place specified products on the UK market to pay disposal costs. While the clause could technically be used for a scheme on single-use plastics, the Government are already undertaking a lot of work to reduce the prevalence of single-use plastics and, therefore, do not think that a specific scheme under Clause 50 is necessarily the right course of action. Instead, Clause 54 provides powers for charges to be applied to any single-use item containing plastic. We also have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to prohibit or restrict the use of certain substances. Noble Lords will know that last year, we used these powers to restrict the supply of single-use plastic straws, stirrers, cotton buds, et cetera. In May, the single-use carrier bag charge was doubled to 10p.
In answer to questions put to me by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Humphreys and Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, we have the tools to extend that ban, and very much hope that we will extend it, because clearly straws, stirrers and cotton buds need to be a start, not an end, if we are to phase out the use of unnecessary single-use items. The consultation that I mentioned earlier covers proposals to ensure that businesses pay the full net disposal costs of all packaging, including single-use plastics.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe raised a number of issues and appealed for a cleaner and simpler system. I sympathise with her. We are bringing in a tax system so that products which are made without a threshold of recycled plastic will be taxed a virgin plastic tax, which, I hope, will stimulate the market for recycled plastic.
However, in addition to that, I do not think it is possible through taxation to get to where we need to get to. That is why extended producer responsibility is such an important part of this, as it requires producers to shoulder the full lifetime cost of a product. Equally, no matter how sophisticated extended producer responsibility, or the virgin plastic tax that I mentioned, and some of the other measures that we have talked about today, may be, there is no escaping the need for bans in certain circumstances. That is why we have introduced some bans, and we will certainly be introducing more.
On Amendment 127, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, before making regulations under the powers in Clauses 51 and 52 and Schedules 6 and 7, the Government will consult stakeholders as appropriate. As part of this, the Government will carry out and publish impact assessments in accordance with standard practice and the requirements of the specific provision. I hope that the noble Lord is somewhat reassured by that. I note his return to the theme of transparency, and bringing the public with us, and he is right. That is a challenge that we need to bear in mind every step of the way. The impact assessments that I just mentioned will cover the resource efficiency benefits of the proposed regulations, having regard to the underlying environmental goals of these provisions.
Finally, on Amendment 128, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the existing provisions in Schedule 6 already allow us to include requirements about the design of labels, and in exercising these powers the Government will encourage the use of clear and consistent labels that consumers will be able to recognise and act on. That, of course, will include information on whether a product is recyclable. The precise design of future labels or other means of communicating product information will be subject to further policy development, including evidence gathering, analysis and consultation with all the obvious stakeholders. So I hope I have been able to provide clarity and some reassurance to noble Lords, and I ask them to withdraw or not move their amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I have had one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, so I call the noble Baroness.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I must be the most unpopular person in this House today, and I must apologise. I failed to tell the Whips which amendments I wished to speak to, so I was left off the list. However, I did add my name to Amendments 119 and 292, and I am speaking only because the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, in particular, asked me to, as she is unable to be in the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whose name is also on Amendment 119, also cannot speak . I want to make the point that it is not only the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who very much wants these amendments to be taken seriously. So forgive me, and I shall speak as briefly as I can; I have crossed out all sorts of bits.
Amendment 119 refers to paragraph 1 of Schedule 4. I have a significant concern about the wording of sub-paragraph (1), which is not dealt with directly in the amendment. It says:
“The relevant national authority may”—
not “shall”—
“make provision for imposing producer … obligations”.
As the Minister made very clear in his response, this leaves Ministers with lots of tools, but there is absolutely no assurance that they will use them.
We know that our Minister—indeed, our Ministers—need important issues to be on the face of the Bill. Otherwise, they will be steamrollered by other Ministers elsewhere, and prevented from doing really important work. This is not trivial; it is important.
Having raised that issue, I want to speak in support of Amendment 119. I think that it was the Minister, on day 1, who made the point that responsibility for superfluous plastic packaging or other waste generally lies squarely on the shoulders of producers—and I think we all know that. I realise that packaging is only one form of environmentally damaging plastic product, but many producers bury their products in a sea of plastic. The great benefit of Amendment 119 is that it focuses on the regulations, which would affect a lot of producers—but, even more importantly, it gives us a target date by which the regulations should be in place: 2024.
As others have explained, Amendment 292 is all about dealing with the appalling consequences of single-use nappies on the environment. Having had four children, and used terry nappies for all four of them, I was a bit shocked—believe me—at the idea of moving away from single-use nappies. But the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has set out very clearly the damaging effect of those nappies on the environment.
While understanding the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—from my perspective as a user of these other things—I have been introduced by the Nappy Alliance to the features of modern-style reusable nappies. I am assured that they really do not commit mothers, or indeed fathers, to the sort of work that those of us back in the day had to put up with. It really was quite appalling: you had buckets and buckets of them. They are apparently perfectly usable with washing machines and with very little parental input. That is very important to me, so I wanted to make that point.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful comments. I hope that in the course of my speech I addressed many of them, on issues such as labelling and so on. I say only that the word “may” is standard drafting practice. I would love to see every “may” become “shall”, but that tends to be the way that things are written. As she noted, we have all the tools we need to deliver very radical change. Combined with the targets we are setting elsewhere in the Bill on biodiversity, waste and a whole range of issues, I do not believe that even a reluctant Government would be able to escape the need to use those tools to their maximum. So I am much more optimistic than she is that Governments, whether they like it or not, are going to have to take advantage and make use of those tools. I hope that that addresses the main thrust of her argument.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I have received another request to speak from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Sadly, I think the plastic tax that is coming is too complex, but maybe we will learn from that. I rise again because I wondered whether the Minister could now—or indeed by letter, if it is easier—answer my question about communicating these new schemes to consumers. To my mind, discussions of this Bill are too focused on producers and not enough on consumers. You see that in labelling; some labels are great for consumers, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said—for example, washing labels. The labels from my old company, Tesco, show whether or not you can recycle specific packages. These things are actually quite helpful to consumers. I am afraid that a lot of statutory labelling, in my experience—both in the UK and right round the world—is decided by politicians and producers, without thinking about the consumers, who often just ignore the message but have to pay the cost of the extra labels. So this is a really important area.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I apologise for not addressing that point earlier. I think my noble friend has almost answered her own question: the key for most of these products will be in the labelling. As she said, we need clear labelling. That is where most consumers will get the information they need about a specific product. She disagrees—but if labelling is clear, I think consumers will be much more likely to treat products in the way that they are supposed to be treated. However, that is clearly not the extent of the consultation or outreach that we will do. If she wants details about the plans coming up, I will write to her; I hope that is okay.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. We have heard some excellent proposals about how we can, for example, improve the labelling of items to make sure that we recycle and reuse efficiently. The noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Chidgey, and others are rightly concerned about what is being flushed down our drains—the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, gave us some vivid examples of the consequences of non-flushable items clogging up our sewers. We clearly need action on wet wipes. The statistic that we are flushing 7 million wet wipes a day down the drains is truly shocking. How can so many consumers not know the damage that is being done by these actions? It is a matter of communication as much as anything. I did not see the “Panorama” programme, but I saw the chunk of fatberg that was on show at the Museum of London a couple of years ago and I can verify that it was truly horrific.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised an important point about the proper labelling of products with an agreed improved design—he is quite right about that. He points to the success of energy-efficiency labelling and we can all identify with the urgent need for consistency and clarity of labelling. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, echoes this need for clarity and for the detail of the resource efficiency of products so that people can make informed choices. He is right that we should ensure that products such as domestic equipment should be designed for long life. We should know what we are buying and what the ultimate lifespan of these materials is.
As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, it should be easy to do a great deal better on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked what the Government are doing on labelling. I understand that there is already considerable work going on to agree a consistent labelling regime, but maybe the Government should make it more of a priority to choose a system and sign off the design so that we can all see it in practice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is pursuing the same approach as I have taken in my amendment, which is to try to pin down the Minister and the Government on dates—in this case, on the use of single-use plastics. I agree absolutely that it should be possible for the Government to publish such a scheme by the end of the year. The issue of single use is going to be a running theme through a number of groups as we debate them in the coming hours and days.
I was quite taken by what the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, said about the perverse application of the internal market, which was surely never intended for the use that it is now being put to, which is stopping the Welsh Senedd taking more immediate action on single use. I am not sure whether the Minister addressed that issue, but it was never intended, I am sure, that the internal market should have that effect.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the huge issue of disposable nappies and the environmental damage that they create by being dumped in huge quantities in landfill or misplaced in other recyclable waste streams. She gave us some shocking examples about their impact on the environment. I pay tribute to the work of the Nappy Alliance and all others who have campaigned tirelessly on this issue. We urgently need a cultural shift to using reusable nappies, as well as better information about the materials and packaging used in disposable nappies. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, many people think they are made from paper and do not realise that they have a plastic content. I thank the Minister for updating us on the work that the department is doing on this problem, but clearly there is far more to be done.
Finally, I welcome the many comments from around the Chamber in support of my amendment, but the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am a little disappointed in his response. I do not doubt his personal commitment, but the truth is that the introduction of extended producer responsibility has already been delayed. It has been three years since it was first proposed, and our deadline will take another three years, so it is absolutely reasonable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, she would have introduced a much more immediate deadline. I understand that we have to allow time for producers to adjust, but if we do not set a deadline there is a real danger that they will simply drag their feet in the consultations and we will find that we are consulting more and more without an immediate deadline to focus individual minds. I have to say that we feel that there should be more ambition and that our date and deadline is a reasonable deadline for producers to deliver.
As a final point on that, noble Lords just said that the use of “may” was standard phraseology, but there are some “musts” in the Bill, so we could have had a “must” on this occasion. Perhaps that is something we can look at when we return, as we inevitably will, to this issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 121. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 121
“(2) The requirement in sub-paragraph (1) may be met by consultation carried out before this paragraph comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, in moving technical government Amendment 121, I will also speak to similar government Amendments 122, 125, 126, 129, 132, 146, 147 and 151 in my name, which would allow for public consultations undertaken during this Bill’s passage to count towards the corresponding statutory duty to consult. These minor and technical amendments reflect the work that has continued while the Bill has been paused, including the launch of consultations that were recently undertaken—for example, on deposit return schemes, extended producer responsibility and consistent recycling collections.
Also in this group is government Amendment 278. The Bill establishes a number of functions that are to be exercised concurrently by Ministers of the Crown and the devolved Administrations. These enable us to provide for common UK-wide approaches in future, with agreement from the devolved Administrations. However, restrictions in Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 prevent the Senedd removing such a function of a Minister of the Crown without the consent of the UK Government.
The Welsh Government have raised concerns over the Senedd’s ability to end the concurrent arrangements in future in the light of those restrictions. The UK Government agree that the restrictions are not appropriate in these circumstances. Amendment 278 would therefore carve out the concurrent powers in the Bill from the consent requirements. This is in line with the approach taken to carve out concurrent functions in other enactments through the Government of Wales Act 2006 (Amendment) Order 2021.
I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my environmental interests as in the register. However, today, I speak in my capacity as chair of the Delegated Powers Committee. I will speak to Amendments 148, 150, 160, 190, 191, 231, 243 and 250, which flow from the recommendations in our report on the delegated powers in the Bill. The changes that I am proposing are incredibly modest; the reason for that is that the Bill has satisfied my committee on the vast majority of delegated powers in it.
To set my proposed amendments in context, we said in our report that Defra’s delegated powers memorandum was “thorough and exceedingly helpful” and
“a model of its kind”.
This is a massive landmark Bill of 141 clauses, 20 schedules and eight different parts. It has 110 regulation-making powers but 44% of them are affirmative, which must be a record. We recommend that only one of those powers be upgraded from negative to affirmative. It has 17 Henry VIII powers but 15 are affirmative. One of my amendments seeks not even to delete one of the Henry VIII powers but merely to limit it.
I contrast what Defra is doing with the delegated powers in this Bill with one from BEIS that we reported on last Friday: the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill. It has a mere 15 clauses and deals with a single issue yet, as we have seen many departments do ever since they learned this ploy from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, BEIS has tacked on a completely unnecessary Henry VIII power to amend any Act of Parliament since 1066.
So the Environment Bill is very good in delegated powers terms but my amendments seek to make it an absolute exemplar across the whole of government. Let us take the easy ones, which I am sure my noble friend can assent to just like that. Amendments 148, 150, 195, 231, 243 and 250 simply ask him to adopt exactly the same procedure that is already in Clause 24(4), which is to lay the published guidance before Parliament. Where guidance is statutory and has to be followed, we in the Delegated Powers Committee say that it should be approved by Parliament, but guidance that is merely intended just to guide does not need parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill therefore has a provision in Clause 24 that the Secretary of State can issue guidance to the OEP while subsection (4) says that the guidance must be laid before Parliament and published.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 278 in the name of the Minister. My contribution here will be a short one. I begin by thanking the Minister for the co-operation between his department and the Welsh Government in drawing up this Environment Bill. The Welsh Government recognised, long before the Senedd elections in May this year, that there would be no time in the Senedd’s timetable for them to introduce their own Environment Bill and they have been content for aspects of future Welsh policy to be delivered through this Bill. They believe that this allows for quicker delivery of Welsh policy and enables continued accessibility for users by continuing an English-Welsh legislative approach.
The more contentious aspects of the Bill have been those relating to air quality and environmental governance. These are both areas where the Senedd will legislate for Wales in their own Bills this term. The Bill contains powers for Welsh Ministers in relation to regulation of waste and recycling, and I believe there has already been some joint consultation on the use of those powers but, again, Welsh Ministers will be drawing their own conclusions.
The issue that had raised the concern of Senedd Members was that of the use of concurrent plus powers, where the Senedd would consent to the Secretary of State legislating for Wales in certain areas of devolved competence, but without being subject to the scrutiny of the Senedd. There were also concerns, I believe, that the transference of these powers would be irreversible. Amendment 278 addresses these concerns by the inclusion of a new clause which enables the Senedd to alter or remove the Secretary of State’s function relating to Welsh devolved matters, and to do so without the Secretary of State’s consent. I welcome this amendment and, again, I thank the Minister for the willingness to work together that has been evident in the relationship between the two departments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, again and to note a satisfied customer. I am afraid I rise to oppose Amendment 121 in the name of my noble friend the Minister. I have already explained that these provisions are wide-ranging, giving the Government powers to do goodness knows what, without making their intentions clear in this Bill. I worry about the precedent set in this sector and indeed for other sectors and for other Bills.
Even before the government amendments, the consultation provisions are rather weak. For example, paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 says:
“Before making regulations under this Part of this Schedule the relevant national authority must consult persons appearing to it to represent the interests of those likely to be affected.”
So, that is a lot of discretion. Will any proposals made under the powers in this Schedule also be published for public perusal and to ensure that any bugs are noticed before regulations are made? Consultation on regulations is vital and there always has to be a public as well as parliamentary stage to this. The department may well be unaware of wider impacts that public consultations and cost benefit can expose. I think of the damage done to the tourist industry when Defra closed down the countryside during the foot and mouth crisis. Sadly, it does not stop there. The Minister is now, in a string of amendments in this group, proposing that the consultation requirement may be met by precommencement consultation. I would like to understand this better. Which forthcoming regulations will be affected by this waiver and how can each be justified? My noble friend mentioned the deposit return scheme and some devolved matters. Is that the limit? Could this list be published and could the power be limited in time?
The Minister will have got used to the idea that I am concerned that his legacy regulations should be fit for purpose. I look forward to hearing from him on the justification for this change of approach on consultation. I am afraid that my initial view is that it cannot be justified and that it creates a deplorable precedent.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very pleased that we are discussing consultation today, even if it is in a very small way. It was good to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and her request for more information on exactly what the proposals for precommencement consultation mean and what areas they will affect—because this is clearly an important issue.
Noble Lords may not be aware that I was an associate of the Consultation Institute, and it was my job to go out and consult local communities when major infrastructure projects were coming their way—so I have for many years taken a close interest in the Government’s consultation exercises. Some of them have been very good, and some of them have not. Consultation is now a fact of modern public life, yet it has all too often been mistakenly characterised as the art of listening. So, if noble Lords will indulge me, I shall share the definition used by the Consultation Institute, which may be something the Minister can pass on to his colleagues. It says:
“The dynamic process of dialogue between individuals or groups, based upon a genuine exchange of views, with the objective of influencing decisions, policies or programmes of action”.
I hope that the consultation and precommencement consultation proposed in the Bill mean not only that the Government will listen but that those who take the trouble to take part will genuinely be heard and will influence the outcome of this legislation in a positive way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, talked about her and others’ concerns regarding how the legislation would affect Wales and the Senedd’s powers of scrutiny. As the Minister said in his introduction, Amendment 278 addresses these concerns, so I hope that the Government will continue to work with the Senedd in a positive way on these important environmental issues.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his introduction to his many amendments. It is important to look at his proposal to publish guidance, because it is important that we have transparency around that. It should be published or laid before Parliament when the issues are of importance. So I support him in that, because I believe that it is good practice, and his committee has clearly recognised that. I was also interested to hear that the noble Lord’s committee had suggested moving certain procedures from negative to affirmative. Having read his amendments, I note that these are clearly in very important areas concerning this part of the Bill, so we believe that the Minister should take a close look and listen to the committee. I thank the noble Lord for drawing my attention and that of this side of the House to those matters, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his contribution to this debate and particularly for his committee’s hard work on the Bill. The Government very gratefully received the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report, and I assure the noble Lord that we are very actively considering them and will bring forward a response imminently. I thank him very much for his thoughtful comments and work on this. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, for her kind words.
I turn to the questions put to me by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. We are bringing forward these amendments principally so that we can deliver some of the measures that we were talking about in the last debates—extended producer responsibility, the deposit return system, and so on—as quickly as possible. There is a demand for us to do so, and that is the purpose of the amendments.
The areas within scope are all parts of Clause 54. In particular, we are considering whether guidance should cover the circumstances where it may not be technically or economically practical or where there may be no significant environmental benefit to separately collect recyclable waste streams. In addition, we are considering whether it should cover the frequency with which household waste other than food waste should be collected and the kinds of waste that are relevant for the purposes of commercial or industrial premises. The guidance may make different provisions in relation to household waste, non-domestic premises and commercial and industrial premises. That is broadly the scope, but I am happy to follow up with more detail. I think that the reason—which is to accelerate some of these important initiatives—will be broadly supported by the House, so I would be grateful if my noble friend Lord Blencathra would not press his amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham.
Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to say a few words after the Minister. I am also pleased not to disappoint my noble friend Lord Caithness, because I plan to say a word or two about that major infrastructure project HS2. It is fascinating that HS2 gets only passing references in a Bill on the environment. Perhaps this is because no one really wants to study the matter in detail and be forced to admit what a dreadful effect it is having, and will continue to have, on our environment and what a huge mistake it will turn out to be.
It is a tragedy that when the Government are doing so well on environmental issues—with this Bill, for example—and there is a huge increase in tree planting, a matter close to my heart, they should give their blessing to this unnecessary and destructive scheme. It is what is called a vanity project, serving little useful purpose, and will turn out to be the greatest manmade environmental catastrophe of our time. It will, without a shadow of a doubt, do far more damage to our countryside and people, and people’s lives, than it can possibly compensate for.
The scale of the damage is unbelievable and will include irreparable damage to many of our ancient woodlands. The very suggestion, which has been made, that they could be moved or replicated is, to anybody with the slightest understanding of these matters, quite ludicrous. It is hard to grasp the enormity of the operation. Its biggest site to date, at the southern end, covers 136 acres. It has just started boring a 170-metre long tunnel under the Chilterns that will take its massive boring machines, working 24 hours a day and seven days a week, three and a half years to complete. Already, there are problems with the local water supply, caused by the extent of the drilling through the chalk. I suspect that there will be many more unforeseen difficulties ahead.
I could go on to list all the environmental damage and despair that this project has caused, and will continue to cause, along its route. But I will not, partly because it is too depressing and partly because it will soon be obvious to everybody. I do not expect the Minister to accept, as I do, that HS2 should be stopped even at this late stage. But will he, at least, promise to watch the operation like a hawk and do all he possibly can to compel HS2 to minimise the damage it does?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that final comment. I am very happy to give him my absolute assurance that I will do whatever is in the power of Defra to ensure that, whatever the outcome of HS2’s construction, nature is left in at least as good a position as it currently is. I believe that is the commitment it has made: no net loss, even though they are not in scope of biodiversity net gain.
“(2) The requirement in sub-paragraph (1) may be met by consultation carried out before this paragraph comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in paragraph 20 of Schedule 4 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We come now to the group beginning with Amendment 123. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 123
Member’s explanatory statement
Farmers and landowners currently have to pay for the removal of all fly-tipping. This amendment is intended to extend the 'polluter pays' principle to fly-tipping.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments in my name and thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for adding his name to Amendments 123 and 136.
Fly-tipping is a blight on the countryside. Sometimes it is individuals not bothering to dispose of their larger redundant items of furniture properly. Sometimes it is criminal activity on the part of opportunists who offer to dispose of awkward items for households for a fee, then take them away and dump them in the countryside—mostly in some quiet rural lane, in a field gate or on a farmer’s lane.
Evidence suggests that fly-tipping affects 67% of farmers and that it costs them upwards of £47 million a year to clear up fly-tipped waste. In 2019-20, there were just under 1 million incidents of fly-tipping in England—the equivalent of nearly 114 every hour—at a cost to local authorities of millions. It is having a significant impact on our rural areas and wildlife. These miscreants do not have to pay for their actions; it is the landowner who has to pay to clear up the resultant mess, and there is little redress through the courts.
How often do we see the countryside littered with cartons from takeaway food? It really is time that the manufacturers and producers of this type of waste picked up the cost of clearing it up—McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken spring to mind, and I am sure your Lordships can think of others. It is often very difficult to trace the person who has done the fly-tipping but much easier to see who has manufactured the waste. The “polluter pays” principle is key in helping to solve the problem. This issue cannot be sidestepped.
The Bill makes provision to reduce the occurrence of fly-tipping and littering by the introduction of deposit schemes and powers for secondary legislation to tackle waste crime and the scourge of littering, but this will not help with the larger items that are often left in quantity on farmland. The Bill will introduce new measures for regulators, including local authorities, to tackle waste crime and illegal activity. It would be helpful to know what these measures are likely to be but, as they are expected to be determined in secondary legislation, perhaps the detail has yet to be written. The Bill also enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend the primitive range of penalties for existing fixed penalty notices. This is critical in attempting to dissuade people from fly-tipping. Can the Minister say why this power is not being extended to local authorities and the police? They are much closer to the problem on the ground and may well know who the likely culprits are.
Private landowners are liable for any waste dumped on their land and responsible for clearing it away and paying the cost. If they do not act or inform the local authorities about the fly-tipped waste, they risk prosecution for illegal storage of waste. This is a nonsense. Now is the time to think about how landowners and farmers can be recompensed for the amount of money spent on clearing up other people’s waste. There needs to be greater support for the protection of landowners coupled with tougher penalties on perpetrators, such as seizing the vehicles used to fly-tip.
Having been a councillor for many years, I understand the role of local authorities and that some are more diligent than others in tackling the problem. Local authorities should make it easier for people to dispose of their waste legally at recycling centres. Sometimes their rules are inconsistent and unclear. Now is the time for these rules to be replaced with common sense and practical measures that enable people to recycle or dispose of their waste legally. This is a very serious issue and needs to be addressed urgently before the countryside becomes an unsightly dumping ground. I beg to move.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, on this amendment and thank her very much for her contribution. I also declare my interest as a landowner in Northumberland. I am not here to carp about the cost to me of doing this, more to carp about the inconvenience of finding your gateways blocked again and again, as well as the unpleasantness of this problem. It is often a really unpleasant thing to have to deal with.
Fly-tipping is a huge problem. It has got worse during the pandemic because a lot of local authorities closed their tips when there was social distancing of various kinds. The fly-tipping industry—if we can call it that—seems to have a sort of momentum behind it now, so even though those tips are open, it continues. On my farm, we experience this problem about once a week, to give you an idea of how bad it is. There is usually a chunk of leylandii hedge, a fridge, a cooker, some flooring, bits of clothing, toys, random chunks of concrete, lots of plastic, plenty of polystyrene packaging and some really unmentionable things as well.
If you are lucky, there is also a bank statement or a utility bill and this can be very helpful. However, when you go round and knock on the door of the person whose bank statement it is, they apologise profusely and, as the noble Baroness said, say, “I’m terribly sorry, we thought they were a legitimate waste disposal outfit”. That is, again and again, the problem that one encounters. There are plenty of rogues masquerading as legitimate waste disposal people. Surely it is possible to tackle that problem.
In our case, many of the tips are—because we keep our gates firmly locked—on the public highway side of the gate and they end up being the local authority’s problem to get rid of, not ours. All it takes is a couple of calls and a lot of inconvenience and it happens. As I said, I am not here to complain about the cost to me. It is £250 a time to hire a skip and it is a lot of work.
What would work extremely well, because this happens again and again in certain locations, is CCTV. But if you put up CCTV you have to put up a sign saying that you have put up CCTV, otherwise you cannot bring a prosecution based on it. Now, if you put up a sign saying that there is CCTV in a gateway, you are simply shifting the problem to somebody else’s gateway.
I worry that the cost of legitimately disposing of waste is too high and the inconvenience too great. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, touched on this as well. More effort needs to go into making it easier for households to find somewhere to dispose of their waste cheaply and easily. That would help a lot.
I think this amendment would help and it is right that landowners should not have to bear the cost of removing this stuff from their land, but further changes are necessary to alter the incentives and stop the dreadful nuisance created. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, in asking for further detail on what the Bill is likely to be able to enable, in terms of secondary legislation, to try to tackle this problem.
While I am on my feet, may I touch on one other issue? If you go for a walk on remote moorland in the Pennines, you encounter zero litter except one thing that you encounter on every walk and that is birthday balloons. They just appear all the time, but not in very large numbers. They are not terribly inconvenient and not so difficult to get rid of—you stuff them in your pocket—but it is upsetting in a beautiful landscape suddenly to find something shiny and bright purple. Well, purple is all right on a moorland—bright yellow, shall we say? It would be quite easy to ask the birthday balloon industry always to put an address on birthday balloons, so that I could send them back in a package.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and my noble friend Lord Ridley, who set out the case for this amendment so convincingly and cogently. I can be very brief by comparison. I strongly support these amendments. It is simply a matter of natural justice and fairness. If someone dumps their old sofa or mattress in the street or a council car park, the council will initially bear the cost of removing them and then, of course, the council tax payers will share that cost. Of course, in an ideal world, people would not do that, like the people who left a bathtub, a commode and a pile of polystyrene beside some official recycling bins I was using recently. I would love it if we could catch in every case the despicable people who dump their garbage like that, but catching them, as my noble friend said, is very difficult.
The police and councils need to put more effort into tracking down the organised criminals who dump commercial and building rubbish in the countryside on a vast scale. What is worse, when these same vile individuals dump their rubbish in a farmer’s field or lane, there is no council or council tax payer to share the cost. The farmer has to bear the complete cost of removal. Of course, some of that waste may have poisoned his land and his animals. That is simply wrong and unfair. The cost burden has to be shared among society, as these amendments would provide for, and be passed on to producers.
I perfectly well accept that Mercers, Sealy beds and Argos did not dump the mattress or the sofa and that their hands are clean in that regard, but they profited from the original sale of the items. The farmer got no financial benefit from the sale, but has to pay the cost of their disposal. That is not right, and it is why I support the amendments.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow not just my noble friend Lord Blencathra but my noble friend Lord Ridley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Like my noble friend Lord Blencathra, I do not have much to add. I think we know about the blight of fly-tipping. I would just say that it is not restricted to the countryside. There are also private areas even within the suburbs. I take the point that, very often, it is the local authority that picks up the bill, but there are areas where that does not happen—for example, on sports grounds and so on.
We have to tackle this issue. I put my name to Amendments 123 and 136, alongside that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I know that the fines, which were increased a year or two ago, can be substantial, but they are not always put in place by magistrates. What my noble friend Lord Ridley said about CCTV is another very good point—it just moves it on—but people always ask, “Why can’t we have more CCTV out?” Perhaps some of the fines could go towards putting CCTV out, or even to a fund that could help those landowners and farmers who have substantial costs to meet.
As has been said, a lot of rogue builders or cowboys will often go around and say to somebody, “We’ll dispose of it; we’ve got the proper licence” and then just dump it. It is then traced back. Albeit that the people who have had the work done should have looked for the licence, it is not something that some of the more elderly think of doing. It is a real problem.
Finally, I thoroughly endorse what my noble friend Lord Ridley said about balloons. I wanted to try to ban some of those, because they are a danger not just to the countryside and what it looks like but to wildlife and so forth, including domestic livestock. If I was in that mood to ban things, I would also look at Chinese lanterns, which are even more of a danger.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thoroughly support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, together with everything said by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. They correctly identify the largely ignored victims of fly-tipping, in the shape of farmer and landowner. A recent survey by the Environment Agency shows that farmers as a group are the most affected by large-scale, illegally dumped rubbish. The NFU rural crime survey revealed fly-tipping as the most prolific crime reported by members, with 48% of those surveyed experiencing it in 2020.
Farmers will often break the law by moving fly-tipped rubbish from private land to the public highway and thereby avoid the need to pay for the disposal. This is very unsatisfactory but understandable in the circumstances.
Many suffer appalling mental anguish as they see the countryside they love spoiled and degraded. One can argue that they should have fenced the land or secured the gate, but this is often not a practical solution, depending on the nature and topography of their land. In any event, fly-tipping should not happen and the only person to shoulder the blame should be the perpetrator. You only have to pick up a copy of the farming press to understand the grief and cost involved.
I have had asbestos dumped in woodland; others have had quantities of car tyres chucked over steep banks. Fridges, mattresses, deep freezers, gas bottles, sanitaryware—one could go on. This can be an expensive cleaning and disposal exercise. The asbestos cost me a four-figure sum, with the need to bring in specialists and a licensed skip. Education and financial sanctions are the answer, and the latter is covered perfectly by these amendments. Education is separate, but might eventually change behaviour for the better and more lastingly.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have spoken on fly-tipping many times before in your Lordships’ House, so I will not repeat that. Given what other noble Lords have said, there is little left to say. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for introducing these amendments. She has my total support.
My noble friend Lord Ridley is absolutely right: the problem has got worse in the last 15 months. It was bad when I talked about it on the Agriculture Bill, but it is considerably worse now. I can only add to what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, just said, and that, if a farmer finds somebody dumping stuff in their field, they are often threatened. I know of a farmer who accosted somebody who was dumping rubbish in their field. The person turned on him and said, “Don’t do anything. We know your children. We know your children’s names and where they go to school”. These amendments are very necessary.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I join every speaker in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for tabling these amendments and offer my support. Rather than repeating what has been said, I will make a few extra points.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to fridges. There is a term I am not sure I have heard mentioned in this debate and an issue that needs to come up the agenda, which is planned obsolescence. We have seen many products last less and less time. I had a fridge that died after seven years, and I went on social media to have a big grumble about it. Lots of people told me I was lucky it had lasted that long. We are seeing lots of fridges being dumped, but for how long were they made to last? If we go back to the manufacturer or maker of the product, we are heading in the right direction.
How much farmers are suffering from this problem has been stressed already. According to a 2020 NFU survey, nearly 50% of farmer respondents had suffered from fly-tipping. So it is a huge issue for farmers, but also for many other people responsible for land. Since the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is not speaking on this group, I will refer to the Woodland Trust which, in the seven years to June 2020, had spent more than £1 million cleaning up fly-tipping. We are looking at organisations like that.
We also have not mentioned manufacturers and commercial companies—not just fake disposal companies but companies not disposing of industrial waste appropriately. I refer to a case that just came up in the last few days. For the third time, in a similar location, Colchester council found a leaking drum containing what was clearly a noxious substance. It cost £2,000 each time to dispose of that drum properly—I should declare my vice-presidency of the LGA here—costs that the council has to bear. We have a widespread problem. We tend to say that it is individual householders but, as this debate has brought out, it is important to say that this problem is much broader.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, as a rural resident and minor landowner, I very much welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for raising it. Fly-tipping is by any standards a national scourge, and in places it occurs on what might be called an industrial scale. It really is a problem that we have to address.
My noble kinsman, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, made all the points I would have made, except that I will reiterate something I mentioned at Second Reading. This business of landowner responsibility comes about by virtue of the environment Act of I think 1990. It was not just a question of polluter pays; if the polluter could not be found then the owner of the land was responsible. This always seemed manifestly unjust. It really does need to be dealt with.
I very much appreciate the notion that there should be some sort of co-responsibility, perhaps by putting sums into a fund that would enable this to be funded and operated by an NGO or by local government—I am not sure which; I do not wish to impose burdens on anybody. That seems to be one of the principles.
Some fly-tipping does not involve grab lorries that disgorge 20-tonne loads at a time, which is clearly an industrial-type process. People must have HGV licences and there are operators in places where these vehicles are legally stationed and parked up. There is quite a lot at stake for them if they are caught out. CCTV footage having to be disclosed should be unnecessary for this sort of thing. After all, one is dealing with the apprehension of a criminal act. It should be exposed as that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, referred to obsolescence. I quite agree with that point. Having nursed a domestic appliance to its 27th year before it finally had to be taken away when its replacement arrived, I know exactly what she means. One of the ways that we need to deal with waste in particular, and plastic especially, is to lengthen the life of the product or make it multiuse or dual purpose. I am not saying that is the case for a washing machine or a household white good, but it can be for many other things.
I admit that I am a beneficiary of some of this perhaps less criminal but less well-informed fly-tipping. One of my gateways greatly benefited from a pile of clean rubble dumped in my woodland. I scooped it up and stuck it where it was actually useful. On another occasion not so very many months ago, I gained a clean and unruptured bag of cement, which, in this time of cement shortages and shortages of many other building materials, I was quite glad of.
However, this rather suggests that there is a huge amount of ignorance. If we had better sorting and recycling of some of this material, we would all be better off, but many household and other recycling facilities do not allow commercial vehicles in. As I said, if you are a householder you might have to book a slot to deposit your waste. This seems a significant indicator of a lack of capacity, but there is also a lack of imagination in how we deal with these things.
Ultimately, it has to become socially unacceptable to do this, so that the only socially acceptable thing is to ring up or look through Yellow Pages, for example, to get somebody to remove your household waste. There has be a certification process, rather like Checkatrade, that tells you that these people are certified, have the proper credentials and will dispose of your stuff safely and not just dump it somewhere between here and the municipal disposal facility, because they can save themselves £100 or £200 in so doing. We need to be a bit more alert when setting about dealing with this issue.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to all the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, which we support. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. There were some very interesting reflections and some very disturbing realities that people have been reflecting on. Those who produce pollution should bear the cost of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment. The polluter pays principle is part of a set of broad principles to guide sustainable development worldwide. This principle should extend to farmers and landowners.
I want to talk about some statistics now. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, said it costs farmers £47 million a year to clear fly-tipping. I have some more data. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned, more than half of the 800-plus respondents to that Environment Agency survey, the national waste crime survey, suggested that large-scale fly-tipping had increased over the last 12 months, with 15% of landowners making an insurance claim to clear dumped waste. Nearly 50,000 people have signed an open letter demanding immediate action to tackle fly-tipping in the countryside, following the surge in waste crime during the Covid-19 lockdown—a point that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, made in relation to the increase in fly-tipping.
Following the theme of easy wins for the Government, this, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, is an easy win. I hope the Government will hear what everyone has said today, support the amendment, go back, and improve their track record on this issue. It is a really important point: landowners and farmers need that support and tougher penalties for fly-tipping. That is the request being heard from the Committee today, and also across the country from the wider public. We have had a theme of dentists, teeth and dentures today: the Government need to show some teeth and bite back at fly-tipping. In wishing the Minister a happy birthday, I just hope I can politely request that she does not let off any balloons tonight.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
It is quite rare that we have virtual unanimity around the Committee on something being a major problem, so I thank noble Lords for taking part in the debate.
On Amendments 123, 136, 137 and 138, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Harlington Mandeville, fly-tipping is a crime that affects all of society, including rural communities—perhaps mostly rural communities—and private landowners. We are committed to tackling this unacceptable behaviour. We appreciate the difficulties and costs that fly-tipping poses to landowners, as outlined by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend Lord Ridley. We are working with a wide range of interested parties, through the national fly-tipping prevention group, including with the NFU, to promote and disseminate good practice, including how to prevent fly-tipping on private land. I do appreciate the noble Lord’s suggestion on birthday balloons. I can assure him that I have not received any today—but my noble friend Lord Randall is absolutely right to mention the serious harm that Chinese lanterns can do to livestock.
In essence, we expect all local authorities to exercise their power to investigate fly-tipping incidents on private land, prosecuting the fly-tippers and recovering clearance costs where possible. As a number of noble Lords mentioned, with more people enjoying the outdoors than ever before with Covid, we have recently published an updated version of the Countryside Code in order to educate and help people enjoy the countryside in a safe and respectful way. I know how difficult it was, during Covid, when a number of local authority tips were closed, and I am sure that this increased the incidence of fly-tipping, particularly of large items.
In the Budget of 2020, we allocated up to £2 million to support innovative solutions to tackle fly-tipping. In April 2021, we commissioned a research project considering the drivers, the deterrents and the impacts of fly-tipping. This research project is due to be completed before the end of this year and will support informed policy-making. We are exploring additional funding opportunities and priorities, including considering the role of digital solutions, obviously including CCTV.
The measures in the Bill will grant greater enforcement powers and the ability to increase penalties in the future, which should help to reduce the incidence of both urban and rural fly-tipping. I should say here that Defra chairs the national fly-tipping prevention group, working with the NFU and others to share advice, and this group met in the spring.
My noble friend Lord Randall asked about fines. Local authorities have legal powers to take enforcement action against offenders. Anyone caught fly-tipping may be prosecuted, which can lead to a fine, up to 12 months’ imprisonment, or both, if convicted in a magistrates’ court. The offence can attract a fine, up to five years’ imprisonment, or both, if convicted in a Crown Court. I appreciate the difficulties of identifying some of the perpetrators of this crime. Instead of prosecuting, councils may choose to issue a fixed-penalty notice, an on-the-spot fine. Local authorities can issue fixed penalties of up to £400 to both fly-tippers and householders who pass their waste to an unlicensed waste carrier. Vehicles of those who are suspected of committing a waste crime, including fly-tipping, can be searched and seized.
As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, suggested, waste transportation is in urgent need of an update. Waste tracking is still largely carried out using paper-based record-keeping. This makes it really difficult to track waste effectively, as it provides organised criminals with the opportunity to hide evidence of the systematic mishandling of waste, leading to fly-tipping. The Bill will tackle this by introducing a new electronic system for tracking waste movements through Clauses 57 and 58 and will provide enforcing authorities, including the regulator, with enhanced powers to enter premises. We will be consulting on the detail this summer.
In addition, powers in the Bill also allow for the “polluter pays” principle to cover costs associated with the unlawful disposal of products or materials, as set out in Schedule 5, Part 2. This includes the cost of removing littered or fly-tipped items, including from private land.
Measures in the Bill on deposit return schemes will also allow the deposit management organisation to use moneys received under a scheme for the protection of the environment, including to cover costs associated with the removal of littered or fly-tipped items currently borne by farmers or private landowners. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the dreaded term “planned obsolescence” and made a very good point. Notable initiatives have recently got into the public vernacular, such as “The Repair Shop” and other ways of recycling, reusing and restoring materials. The “polluter pays” principle in Schedule 5 includes powers to make producers pay for managing products at the very end of their life, and the disposal vernacular should become “recycle and reuse”.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, also asked about costs of disposal. Waste disposal authorities may make only reasonable charges for waste disposal. We will review HWRC services and the Controlled Waste Regulations and, subject to consultation, we will amend them to ensure that they remain fit for purpose and that charges are fairly applied.
In conclusion, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing forward these amendments. I am afraid that I am unable to answer her point on illegal storage, but I will write to her on that specific issue. In the meantime, I hope I have reassured noble Lords that these amendments are not needed, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I thank the Minister for her response. I am encouraged that the Government are working with the NFU and other bodies to find solutions. Fly-tipping, as we have heard, is on the increase, and we have heard some very graphic descriptions of how this has affected landowners and farmers. It is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has said, a great inconvenience as well as very costly.
During the pandemic, the household waste recycling centres were indeed closed. When they reopened, there were huge queues around the corner. Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, householders in our area do not have to book a slot, and you can see what the queue is like on the website so that you can choose your time: usually a good time is about half an hour before it closes at 5 pm. So it is possible to access the HWRCs, but it is not easy.
The situation with CCTV signage is exceedingly unhelpful, and I ask the Government to look into this. It is a bit like having a sign for a speed limit: we get the sign saying that there is a speed camera, and by the time traffic reaches the camera, everybody has slowed down. If we are to have CCTV to prevent fly-tipping, I do not think we need signage to alert the perpetrators that it is on the way. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, there is an issue of natural justice here, and the need to crack down on criminals, especially organised criminals.
I was very concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that he had had asbestos dumped on his land. That is an extremely toxic substance, and if householders find that they have some asbestos, perhaps on their roof, or in an extension, it costs them quite a lot to get rid of it at the household waste recycling centre. I wonder whether local authorities could think about reducing some of those costs, so that asbestos is not dumped but disposed of safely. It is outrageous that it should be dumped in the countryside, where it is a threat to animals and humans.
We have all made the point that there must be a shift from the landowner paying to the polluter paying. That has to happen as a matter of urgency. I welcome the Minister’s reassurance that there will be publicity around the Countryside Code. It could do with a bit of a relaunch, because I am sure people are not aware of how to behave in the countryside. More needs to be done to encourage local authorities to go for the maximum fixed penalty notice, instead of some derisory sum. I am grateful for all the contributions, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(2) The requirement in sub-paragraph (1) may be met by consultation carried out before this paragraph comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
“(2) The requirement in sub-paragraph (1) may be met by consultation carried out before this paragraph comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in paragraph 18 of Schedule 5 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
Lord Goldsmith
“(3) The requirement in sub-paragraph (1)(a) may be met by consultation carried out before this paragraph comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
“(2) The requirement in sub-paragraph (1) may be met by consultation carried out before this paragraph comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in paragraph 14 of Schedule 6 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 130A. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Schedule 7: Resource efficiency requirements
Amendment 130A
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendment seeks greater transparency on the part of supermarkets in terms of plastic packaging.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
In moving Amendment 130A, I shall speak also to Amendments 130B and 141A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and Amendment 139, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. As with the various other amendments in this group, they seek concrete, practical steps to reduce plastic pollution, primarily by reducing plastic production. What is not produced in the first place cannot later pollute.
Amendments 130A and 130B seek to strengthen the Bill to enforce full transparency from businesses with more than 250 employees about the plastic they use at every point in the supply chain. We are not wedded to that threshold, but it is the same one used by the Government; for example, as a threshold for making declarations on the gender pay gap. A threshold of that order means that we are not imposing huge burdens on tiny companies but just asking a small thing of the large companies which are the primary plastic polluters.
UK supermarkets use some 114 billion pieces of throwaway plastic packaging each year. Anti-plastic campaigners A Plastic Planet have worked out that this equates to 653,000 tonnes of plastic waste—the equivalent of almost 3,000 747 jumbo jets.
This avalanche of plastic is not just in the packaging we take home with us from the supermarket. It wraps pallets of food in transit, and it sits on shelves, wrapping pretty much everything we buy, pushing sales while creating a toxic legacy for our planet. That is why Amendment 130B refers to
“primary, secondary and tertiary plastic packaging”,
which is the jargon, respectively, for packaging we take home, packaging used to promote sales and packaging used to transport goods before products make it to the shelves.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I applaud the Government’s determination to drive down the single use of plastics. Clause 54 and its associated Schedule 9 will do a useful job in reducing plastic pollution by introducing a charge on the use of single-use plastics, but Amendment 139 aims to push the Government to be braver and go further with the Bill. I also support the wish to make the use of plastics more transparent in Amendments 130A and 130B.
The lockdown and its subsequent easing have shown us all the dangers of allowing the single-use culture to flourish. I, like many other noble Lords, was appalled when we ordered online delivery shopping during lockdown to find so many of our purchases wrapped in sheaths and sheaths of paper inside a huge cardboard box—all of which had to be thrown away. Many noble Lords have expressed their horror at the litter left behind in our parks and streets as lockdown eased. That litter is not just plastic. It is also wooden cutlery, aluminium cans and paper bags, all of which are used just once and then discarded and all of which despoils our countryside and urban spaces.
On day two of Committee, the Minister said:
“For the long-term legally binding target on waste reduction and resource efficiency, we want to take a more holistic approach to reduce consumption, not just of plastic, but of all materials. This would increase resource productivity and reduce the volume of waste we generate overall”.—[Official Report, 23/6/21; col. 255.]
Does the Minister stand by that statement? If so, will he support the holistic approach demanded by this amendment? That holistic approach means that, although the campaign to reduce plastics must be supported, it cannot be carried out at the expense of driving manufacturers and consumers into substituting them with other single-use materials, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just warned us.
As it stands, Schedule 9 risks creating a situation where single-use plastic will be replaced by other environmentally damaging materials. I have already mentioned that paper is being used extensively for packaging, bags and cups, and wood is being used for cutlery. It is not always possible to determine the provenance of all paper and wood. Not all our pulp for imported paper comes from the EU and the USA. Annually, more than 750,000 hectares of timber—equivalent to nearly half the size of Wales—is imported into the UK from China, Russia and Brazil, where there is a high risk of deforestation and a threat to biodiversity. The paper manufacturing process increases the use of chemical waste, creating water pollution and pouring carbon into the atmosphere. A recent study by the Danish environment agency found that a paper bag must be reused 43 times if it is to have a lower environmental impact than the average plastic bag.
Increasingly, coffee shops and cafés are stocking disposable paper cups that do not contain plastic. As the Bill stands, they will not be included in the new charges. There were 5 billion disposable coffee cups used in the UK last year. Noble Lords only have to look at the aftermath of any big event to see the plethora of paper cups left littering the venue and its surrounding areas. A charge on all single-use items would go a long way to decreasing the number of disposable cups being used. Studies show that a charge of just 25p could reduce that use by more than 30%.
There were similar fears of plastic being substituted by aluminium cans, which can have a similar devastating effect on the environment. Aluminium production is energy intensive and accounts for 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Studies show that UK aluminium has one of the highest greenhouse gas impacts per kilogram of any packaging in the UK.
PwC examined the greenhouse gas impacts of packaging types currently used in the UK of the behalf of the Circular Economy Task Force. It found that all materials used for packaging consumed annually in the UK account for 13.4 megatonnes of carbon, or 2% of this country’s carbon emissions. The scale of emissions created by packaging, revealed by this study, makes it clear that the Government’s resources strategy should prioritise the reduction of all virgin materials. In a recent survey of stakeholders, one supermarket said about the drive to reduce plastics:
“The whole agenda needs to be more aligned and more encompassing with carbon. We’re so focused on the plastics that we seem to have lost sight of the impacts around climate.”
This amendment will go far to remedy these threats by bearing down on single-use materials consumption and shifting this country’s focus to a culture of reuse and refill, which must be a priority in developing the circular economy promoted by this Bill. Driving down material consumption and shifting to the reuse of materials must remain the Government’s highest priority.
When a similar amendment to this one was tabled in the other place, the Minister, Rebecca Pow, said that, when looking at this Bill, it bears down on this country’s disposable culture. She said that it needs to be taken into account
“how much of the Bill is aimed at tackling”—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/20; col. 439.]
single-use plastic. Is this answer sufficient to win the war on single-use culture? Can the Minister explain to the Committee why the Government should not introduce these wider charges? Surely they should be encouraging manufacturers and consumers to reuse as many products as possible; it is a vital part of the circular economy.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has made a very powerful speech on cracking down not just on single-use plastics but on every single-use product. It merits deep consideration.
I was also fascinated by what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said on Amendment 141 about those horrible little plastic sachets. I agree entirely with her that they should be banned, not just because they are dangerous for the environment but because they are fiendish little things. On the few occasions I have had them, I could not get them open, but once you stick them in your wash-bag, they burst spontaneously. There is not much point in them.
Before speaking to Amendment 140, I want to comment on something that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said in the last debate: that her fridge lasted only 27 years. She should have bought the same model that I believe our late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother bought for Mey Castle, which was still going after 60 years. That is a good use of material.
Amendment 140 seeks to introduce a new clause to ban the use of polystyrene as used for food containers or packaging material by 1 January 2023, and ban its use in construction by 31 December 2026, in five years’ time. Why do I want to do that? Polystyrene is lightweight and has superb insulation properties for keeping items cold or hot. It is widely used for a whole range of functions but where safer alternatives could be used instead; because it is widely used, it is one of the most dangerous and polluting plastics damaging our environment today.
Of course, the manufacturers say than it can be recycled. No doubt it can—that is, if you can get enough of it to a sophisticated facility, it could be done, but does any noble Lord know of any council that actually collects polystyrene, either in food containers or the big chunks of it you get protecting televisions and other electronic items? I have not seen a big bin for polystyrene at any recycling centre, and all the council advice I have seen says to put it in the waste garbage bin.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 141 and 142 to 145, which are in my name. Amendment 141 relates to the plastic packaging tax, which was placed in law by this year’s Finance Bill and will come into effect next year. The tax is welcome in principle, but my amendment seeks to probe the Government on the detail. Manufacturers of innovative compostable packaging solutions are aghast that the tax makes no distinction between their products and old-fashioned polluting plastic. Members of the Bio-based and Biodegradable Industries Association have attempted to engage Ministers in Defra and the Treasury on this point but are hitting a brick wall, since the Government are interested only in a single threshold —namely, the amount of a given product that is recycled.
It is of course a fine public policy objective to encourage the use of recycled rather than virgin plastics, as the tax attempts to do, but that single criterion fails to recognise a few facts of life. First, packaging that is to come into contact with food cannot be recycled, for food hygiene reasons. Secondly, plastic films are extremely hard to recycle and, even if they are recycled, are seldom if ever recycled into new films. The idea of a circular economy on such packaging is just an illusion.
By contrast, compostable films can be an appropriate substitute and are more sustainable than conventional films from recycled sources. Compostable packaging can never contain 30% recycled content because its destined end of life is to disappear completely in the soil, leaving no microplastics behind. The unintended consequence of the tax as it stands is that these innovative solutions are perversely penalised.
The amendment asks the Government to recognise that treating independently certified compostable films as separate and distinct from conventional plastics would not create a free-for-all or a loophole. The compost quality protocol sets out clear safeguards for waste-derived compost, including by specifying that any compostable packaging and plastic wastes accepted must be independently certified to meet composting standards. Among these is BS EN 13432, referenced in the amendment, which is a strong, internationally accepted British and European standard for determining which bioplastics are industrially compostable or biodegradable when processed through anaerobic digestion or in-vessel composting. As I said in the debate on the first day in Committee, these materials are not a silver bullet but they are rightly recognised by the recent report Breaking the Plastic Wave as part of the picture when it comes to tackling plastic pollution.
Amendments 142 to 145 are related to Amendment 141. If we believe that compostable alternatives to conventional plastic have a place, particularly in food-contact packaging, it follows that we should make provision for those compostable materials to be collected so that the end-user knows that they are indeed composted. Alternatively, householders can mix them with their garden and kitchen compostable waste. As a consumer, it is baffling to pick up something that is labelled “compostable” if you have no obvious means of composting it.
The Bill rightly places in law the necessity for separate food waste collections, and my Amendments 142 to 145 simply seek to establish that independently certified compostable materials should be collected alongside this waste stream. The films that we are talking about here are of low density and can easily fit in a food-waste caddy. Indeed, in certain applications, such as the compostable bags containing bananas in Waitrose, the packaging can be used as a liner for a food caddy.
The present custom and practice of local authorities and their waste management firms is rather variable when it comes to these compostable items. Some faithfully ensure that compostable films are properly processed. Others actually strip out compostable items, treating them as contaminants. It cannot be right for consumers to be sold products that are compostable but for the waste management system to let them down at the end of the process by incinerating or landfilling these items. I shall refer to this issue in later amendments.
Approximately 45 composting plants in the UK are approved for composting inputs that include food waste at present, but the current network processes only 20% of what will be necessary from 2023 onwards. In consequence, much of the 80% extra capacity that must be built will be entirely new or revamped plants. Waste managers need a clear steer now that anaerobic digestion plants must have a composting phase in which compostable materials, such as BS EN 13432-certified packaging, are properly processed. Handling this issue properly has the potential to reduce the contamination of soil from normally polluting plastics, which is why it has the support of the National Farmers’ Union. With these amendments added to the Bill, it would be clear that as composting infrastructure is expanded across the UK, all composting plants must make provision for ensuring the proper processing of compostable packaging materials.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 130A, 130B and 141A, also in this group and capably moved and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I fully support her in these amendments. As the adage goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Transparency about the sheer amount of plastic used by supermarkets would catalyse consumer pressure on the big players to kick their plastic habit. I commend the work that Iceland has done, which the Minister mentioned on our first day. The transparency clause in Amendments 130A and 130B would push other firms in a similar direction. The Minister will by now have received the message that I am not going away on this issue, and I look forward to his response.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, yet again, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, makes a soft threat to the Minister about not going away, and I support her completely. This is a really interesting group of amendments, all incredibly sensible. I have signed, with delight and surprise, Amendment 140 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but my noble friend Lady Bennett will speak to that and I will speak to the others.
We all know that banning the use of single-use plastic has been far too slow. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have mentioned this many times and urged the Government to do something about it. The Chief Whip is waving at me; he is probably telling me, “Go on! Go on!” We have to reduce the absurd amount of plastic we are still churning out every single day when we know the danger that promises. The Government keep on publishing plans and strategies and promises and consultations and all sorts of things, but nothing actually happens. We just have to do it.
I spoke previously about how plastics, and microplastics in particular, will in future be seen in a similar light to asbestos—a substance with miraculous properties but such a huge danger to health that it is phased out almost totally from general use. That is how I would like to see the future of plastic.
The Government and Parliament have vital roles in the transition away from mass plastic. Industry, PR and lobbyists will bleat on about industry-led transition, but this is just greenwashing most of the time. For as long as you can buy bananas wrapped in plastic, you can know that the industry claims are nonsense. I realise that Iceland has taken some huge steps and is an example to other similar supermarkets. I do not eat much from Iceland, but I do support its initiatives. Parliament has to legislate, and the Government have to lead.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, also raised compostable plastics. It is an important issue, not least because of the confusion they cause. Some are home compostable in a regular back garden compost heap and will completely break down into safe, organic matter. Others will not break down except in special conditions in an industrial compost facility. There is a whole public education issue there, and not even the waste authorities seem to have worked it out yet. There is no common ruling or understanding. It seems a real shame that compostable plastics are not being collected by council waste services and are, instead, wrongly going to landfill or contaminating the plastic recycling stream.
I hope the Government have a plan for this; it is one of many issues where central government absolutely must get a grip on local authority recycling services and set basic minimum standards across the country. This is something many of us have been asking for for a long time, and it is time the Government listened.
Lastly, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said at one point that the cheapest is not the best. Of course, the cheapest immediate option is often one of the most expensive if you look over its lifetime. He is absolutely right: the cheapest is not the best. We have to look at and understand the future repercussions of everything we do.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, have withdrawn, which brings us to our next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I will be brief. I just want to point out that we have apparently thrown away—I have checked this in lots of sources—3 million face masks every minute across the world. It means, in a way, that we cannot trust ourselves in what we think about plastic. We have to get firm and do something very serious about this, which is why I have put my name to Amendment 139.
I also support Amendment 141A about getting rid of sachets. If we do not legislate, we do not innovate. Unilever, for instance, has come up with a new seaweed-based thing to make sachets out of, which genuinely completely composts or fades away in water without any damage. Right now, the supermarkets have a free rein. Iceland has done its best but voluntary contributions never work. I have spoken about this before, but the relationship of single-use plastic to food waste is massive, because vegetables are wrapped up and you get too many—for example, you get five courgettes in a packet when you wanted one. This is a great way to get you to spend more money and creates waste all the way down the line.
I shall not go on with the statistics; everyone has come up with so many of them. All I want to say is that I once sat next to Liam Donaldson and he said that he did not sleep the night before he announced the smoking ban in Great Britain. He thought he would be the most unpopular man in Britain, but by lunchtime the next day he was the most popular man in Britain because it was what everyone wanted. The truth is, people hate plastic. Everybody moans about it; it does not matter whether you are talking to a reader of the Sun or the Daily Mail. This is a universal dislike and we want the Government to do something serious.
It needs a combination of taxes and a complete ban on single-use plastic. Around the world, 69 countries have done just that: they have banned it. If you ban it, you get innovation. Just before the pandemic, I was in India. The amount of plastic plus waste in India, which is introducing a ban from next year, is quite astonishing. One of the disastrous reasons is that there are no vultures left; they have all died because they have eaten plastic as well as the various antibiotics that were fed into cattle. One of the bizarre consequences is that at the Tower of Silence in Mumbai, a Parsi temple, there are no longer any vultures to eat the dead, so they have to be fried by solar panels. This is a really weird consequence and we are doing this with masks at the moment. Three million a minute are going into our system.
This is why you cannot trust voluntary regulations of any nature and why the Government have to seize this year of COP and the biodiversity conference and do something. We know what plastic does to our nature. We will all be proud—noble Lords will be proud and will all wake up as the most popular men in Britain.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Since she started on international issues, in speaking to Amendment 140 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, also signed by my noble friend, I will point out that in April Washington state became the seventh US state to ban takeaway polystyrene containers. Australia is planning to be rid of them by mid-2022 and Costa Rica has a ban coming in this year, so I will have to come back to that much loved government phrase “world-leading” as there is some catching up to do here on polystyrene takeaway containers in particular. I will also point out that the National Research Council in the US has found these containers can
“reasonably be anticipated to be a human carcinogen”.
This is a real no-brainer.
In 2016 a group of chefs, including some of the usual celebrity names you might expect, were calling on the London mayor to ban polystyrene as the scourge of Soho. This problem is urban, rural, marine and general—it is truly a problem everywhere. All of plastic is a problem but polystyrene is a particularly pernicious problem and this would be an easy win, as we now all keep offering the Minister.
Finally, to pick up the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, he perhaps underestimates the degree to which plastic really is a much-hated material. None the less, I entirely agree with him that when it comes to the waste pyramid, “reduce” is by far the best option. I hope that when we get to Report, he might think about backing my amendment, which I will be revisiting in some form. Rather than talking about resource efficiency, we should be talking about a reduction of resources.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has withdrawn, so the next speaker will be the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and the Government on the work they have already done in attempting to ensure that we reduce the amount of plastic, particularly single-use plastics, and on the measures already in the Bill, such as Clause 54 and some of the schedules. The Government and my noble friend are absolutely determined to make sure that the Bill significantly addresses the dangers and the damage done to the environment by the use of plastics, which so many of us have grown up without thinking about the consequences of using. I hope that my noble friend can engage with some of the intentions and specifics of some of the amendments in this group.
I particularly support Amendment 140, which was so clearly explained by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Banning polystyrene use in food packaging, for example, could make a significant difference in the short term. I also agree with his aim of eventually banning it in construction.
I also add my support for the aims of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, which concern plastics which are not polluting but have been developed to be fully biodegradable. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that some plastics are not planet-friendly, while others completely biodegrade naturally. If we are to impose a plastic tax, which I would support fully, there may be a need, through independent standards, to differentiate those that biodegrade properly from those which clearly will continue to damage the environment.
I look forward to hearing the thoughts of my noble friend about some of the amendments in this group, which are well worth considering adding to this excellent Bill.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is a powerful suite of amendments to tackle waste and our throw-away culture. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, the Government have had some success in tackling the low-hanging fruit—issues such as cotton buds containing plastics—but, somehow, sachets did not quite get included in the early initiatives. Clearly, with Covid, some uses of single-use sachets are helpful, but, in other instances, such as beauty products, it is really time for them to be banned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, made a very compelling case for more duties on companies to ensure that there is mandatory reporting of plastic packaging. In the past, this Government have trusted too much in companies and gone down the route of voluntary schemes. Now is the time to encourage more mandatory reporting of companies in this critical area.
Of course, we are not just talking about plastics here. I was pleased to co-sign Amendment 139, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, which will encourage charges for all single-use items. He very powerfully made the case that a number of these alternatives are equally environmentally reckless and certainly will not cut our global greenhouse gas emissions, so we have to not only tackle single-use plastics but look at the alternatives that might be proposed.
My noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville has done an absolutely sterling job tonight of raising a number of key issues and, in this group, lucidly reflecting on the issues around the importance of compostables, which can make a real contribution to moving towards more sustainable packaging alternatives. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, rightly said, the public need more education about compostables, and we need more local authorities to be collecting compostable films, because not all of them can be composted in back gardens—and indeed many households do not have back gardens, so they could not use compost bins even if they wanted to.
On behalf of the Lib Dems, I say that we absolutely support the Government’s plastic tax initiative, which is very welcome, although it clearly needs to avoid perverse penalties that would curtail the options for compostable films and incentivise their development for the future.
It was interesting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said about polystyrenes, which is clearly an area that needs a lot of attention. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I think that this is a complex issue, and, in the long term, we need to look at how they can be used less in construction. However, now we absolutely need to support alternatives, because these exist for food packaging. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, clearly made the case that this has been happening in a number of places around the world already. We need to get on to this and address the issue of stopping polystyrene being used in food packaging.
Like other Members, I attest to the fact that there is support on all Benches for more support and action by the Government to tackle waste. As we move towards the end of the evening, I hope that the Minister might be able to respond positively at last to some of these amendments.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Before I address the individual amendments in the group, I reiterate that the Government absolutely share the concerns associated with the proliferation of plastics. I assure Members across the House that measures in the Bill will vastly improve the tools that we have at our disposal to tackle plastics pollution and the damage that they cause.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for Amendment 139. Noble Lords have spoken extensively and unanimously about the need to combat plastics and the damage that they do to the environment. I know that litter picks on the beaches near Culross find a significant amount of single-use plastic, as they do on all beaches, sadly, even those around the Pitcairn Islands, which are the most remote on the planet.
The Bill provides a robust approach to help to move towards a more circular economy in all sectors. Items that are not captured by Clause 54 could be captured by other measures, such as EPR or resource efficiency. In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, I say that I stand by my earlier comments about resource use more broadly and the need to reduce waste and our impact on the planet generally. I do not think that we disagree—we know that, in the open environment, plastics endanger wildlife in a particular way. As has been said, unlike other materials, they will persist for hundreds of years—we do not actually know how long, because none has fully decomposed— which is why we believe that they require particular, special forensic attention through these measures. Through the Bill, powers to place charges on single-use plastic items will be a powerful tool in helping us to reduce unnecessary single-use plastics.
The noble Viscount also mentioned cups. To reassure him: I recently learned that disposable cups filled with liquid drinks are classified as packaging and therefore obligated under the packaging producer responsibility regulations.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, wishes to speak after the Minister, so I call her now.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have a very simple question. The Minister referred to the Government already having power to ban materials such as certain sorts of polystyrene containers. Do they have any plans to take such action?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Do we have plans? We are committed to extending our bans on unnecessary single-use packaging and have a 25-year environment plan to phase out all unnecessary use of plastic, not just single-use plastic, so in that sense, yes, we do have a plan. The noble Baroness is right that there will need to be continuous pressure. I think that pressure will continue to grow from consumers, voters and from parliamentarians of all parties to accelerate those bans and expand their remit. From my point of view, I have ambition and hope that we will expand that approach as far and wide as we possibly can and as quickly as we can.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the support for my noble friend Lady Ritchie’s amendments, particularly on action for transparency and for tackling the use of sachets.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made a very important point: we need a holistic approach to the banning of all single-use products. That point was very well made. He also quite rightly made the point that it is often hard to know the composition of the materials you are dealing with, particularly single-use materials. Some of them conspire to look like wood but they are not always wood, for example.
The noble Viscount also decried the huge amount of packaging that comes with online purchases. I could see loads of heads nodding when he mentioned that. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly pointed out that polystyrene is also massively overused in packaging when other materials that can be more easily recycled are available. We very much support his plea for a ban in that regard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, quite rightly reminded us that history will judge us badly if we do not tackle plastic and that we may well find out that, historically, it is seen as damaging as asbestos. She is quite right about that. As the Minister said, we do not quite know the full effects of plastic in the environment yet. We are yet to find out some of those horrors.
The noble Baroness also quite rightly pointed out some of the difficulties with biodegradable and compostable plastics, which break down differently in the waste stream. There is a lack of guidance for waste managers and a lack of information for consumers at the present time. It is important to tackle that issue if we are to encourage the use of compostable plastic in the future; I was interested to hear what the Minister had to say on that.
I am so glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, raised the issue of plastic face masks. It was shocking to hear that we are throwing away 3 million face masks a minute. I know that the Minister is passionate about this, as he demonstrated earlier in the debate. I do not know whether we could get away with announcing a complete ban on plastic face masks but perhaps we could have a quick win—maybe a world first—if we required all workplaces to provide all of their staff with reusable masks. That would be a fairly easy way to intervene in the current obsession with people using disposable masks.
The Minister said that there were already some requirements on supermarket reporting and he detailed some of them, but our amendment would go further, to all large employers. I hope he would agree that there is a real need to tackle the greenwash claims that abound among some employers and supermarkets. We need to have the facts out in the open to shine some light. What was the comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell: sunshine is the best disinfectant? That is what we need: some more light shone on these claims.
Did the Minister mention our sachets campaign? That is the thing that got the most support from around the Chamber. Maybe that could be another quick win, if the Minister was so inclined to have a sachet ban. Quite honestly, I do not think that most people would miss them if they were not there.
I will report back to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, on the nature of the comments made today, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(1A) The requirements in sub-paragraph (1) may be met by consultation carried out, and assessments and draft regulations published, before this paragraph comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
“(2) The requirement in sub-paragraph (1) may be met by consultation carried out before this paragraph comes into force.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 133. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Schedule 8: Deposit schemes
Amendment 133
“(1A) When making regulations establishing a deposit scheme, the relevant national authority must have regard to the public interest in such a scheme being operational by 1 January 2023.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to accelerate the establishment of deposit return schemes, which a recent government consultation suggests will not be operational until late 2024 at the earliest.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 133 I will also speak to Amendment 133A in my name. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for adding their names.
These amendments would accelerate to 1 January 2023 the introduction of deposit return schemes and set minimum criteria for the composition and size of the containers to be included in such schemes. These criteria are the equivalent of those already being introduced in Scotland and supported by the Welsh Government. This would make it easier for businesses, retailers and consumers to access consistent and compatible schemes, which would result in improved take-up. It would incentivise consumers to take their empty drinks containers to return points hosted by retailers. The technology already exists for reverse vending machines that can collect empty bottles and return deposits, as well as sell the original filled bottles. Trials are already running of refill schemes to ensure the same bottles can be reused.
Schedule 8 already includes outline proposals for a deposit return scheme. As ever, the weasel word “may” is in the provision, as in:
“The relevant national authority may by regulations establish deposit schemes”.
We know that the Government’s resource and waste strategy supports the idea of deposit return schemes. As the Minister said in his letter of 10 June, such a scheme will
“help reduce the amount of littering in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, boost recycling levels, and allow high quality materials to be collected in greater quantities.”
We agree with this analysis, but once again we are concerned that the Government’s timetable for action will slip. Already, by their own admission, the scheme has been delayed. They are now saying that the scheme will not be introduced until late 2024 at the earliest—in other words, in the next Parliament. This means that they will break their pledge in the 2019 Conservative manifesto to introduce a deposit return scheme. It also means that six and a half years will have passed since it first became policy.
Meanwhile, Scotland is pushing ahead and, once again, England is being left behind. This is why Amendment 133 proposes an introduction date of January 2023, to avoid further delay, and why Amendment 133A would introduce consistency across the four nations. There has never been a greater need for such a scheme. The Government’s own figures show that every year across the UK, consumers use an estimated 14 billion plastic drinks bottles, 9 billion drinks cans and 5 billion glass bottles. Meanwhile, fewer than half of plastic bottles in the UK are recycled, and we know that much of the remainder end up as litter or landfill. In contrast, as the Government concede in their fact sheet, Germany, Norway and the Netherlands have achieved collection rates, including recycling rates, of 98%, 92% and 95% respectively for plastic bottles through the introduction of deposit return schemes.
We also know that the most effective bottle return schemes include all the major sizes and material types, not just plastic. This was confirmed by the Government’s own impact assessment in 2019, which found that the most comprehensive schemes offered the biggest financial benefits. But we also have to ensure that the introduction of such schemes does not have perverse consequences. For example, deposit schemes should complement existing collection schemes and build on the success of the glass and aluminium recycling schemes already in existence. This is why we welcome the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which would vary the deposit fee depending on the size of the container. We also want to ensure that there is not a switch from glass to plastic bottles, given the efficient closed-loop systems already in place for recycled glass, which is collected separately from kerbsides and bottle banks. Our aim in all this should be to cut down on single-use plastic and develop closed-loop recycling for all materials captured through a deposit scheme. I hope noble Lords will see the sense in these proposals and I beg to move.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the debate on this amendment be adjourned.
Environment Bill
Monday 5th July 2021
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-VI(Rev) Sixth marshalled list for Committee - (5 Jul 2021)
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, even after a five-day interval and in a debate truncated by a perhaps now unnecessary withdrawal of a number of noble Lords. For the convenience of the Committee, I remind everyone that we are speaking about amendments that are all about the long-awaited and much-delayed bottle deposit scheme for England, an area in which we are notably world leading in foot dragging.
I shall give a few statistics. Ten other countries in Europe are operating these schemes, with bottle-recycling success rates running from an outstanding 98.5% in Germany, where of course they have had lots of practice since they started in 2003. Even down at the bottom of the pack, Estonia has a very respectable—certainly by our standards—83.7% bottle return rate. That is why Amendment 133, which sets a deadline for implementation, is so important, and I would have attached my name to it had there been space. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that it should be earlier still; it could have been delivered years ago, but January 2023 is practical. It certainly should not be left outside the term of this current Government—assuming of course that they continue for that long.
I want to speak in support of all the amendments in this group, with the partial exception of Amendment 134B, which would exempt small brewers. That is not because I do not think we need to consider such small producers, but rather that Amendment 134A in the names of the same noble Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is broader and more useful, covering all kinds of producers. There clearly needs to be some easy and simple way for start-up businesses, such as brewers or soft drink or juice producers, to access the scheme. One route might be to require larger companies to allow smaller companies to piggyback on their schemes.
I will focus my contribution on Amendment 134, which appears in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her expression of support for the amendment. As with the earlier amendment on nappies, I declare the support from the aluminium industry association, Alupro, in preparing and discussing this amendment. I am sure that many noble Lords are aware that, for all the UK’s inadequate performance on recycling, it does relatively well in recycling aluminium compared to other materials, for reasons including the value of the material, with aluminium packaging recycling reaching its highest ever rate in 2020, with 68% of the material placed on the market being recycled. That includes 82% of all aluminium beverage cans. Of course, this is a material that can be recycled indefinitely, unlike most plastic.
We should not forget that the best option, at the top of the waste pyramid, is to reduce packaging materials and have no container at all, followed then by reusing packaging. But for recycling, aluminium is a good choice. Alupro put it to me—and I see the force of the argument—that a scheme with a flat deposit amount for all containers, regardless of the size of the material, would lead to switching from multipacks of aluminium cans to larger format plastic bottles, due to the cumulative cost of the deposit fee on multipacks. For example, a 20p flat deposit fee would add £4.80 to a 24-pack of cans, yet the deposit fee for the same volume of liquid in four plastic bottles would be just 80p. A 2019 poll of consumers found that a 20p flat deposit fee would encourage more than 60% of individuals to switch to large PET bottles at the expense of aluminium.
Alupro commissioned the research consultancy London Economics to look at consumer behaviour and the differential impacts of a flat or variable rate scheme. It found that the variable rate, as used in the successful Nordic schemes, would deliver significantly higher return rates in the first two years, while a flat-rate deposit would increase the amount of plastic sold and could lead to higher amounts of product wastage and increased portion sizes, which has an obvious impact on public health. It would also have a dramatic impact on the aluminium packaging sector, meaning up to 4.7 billion fewer cans, a very significant loss of revenue, and somewhere between 24% to 73% reduction in demand for aluminium cans in large multipacks. This is an industry with a case, and the practical sense of the bottle deposit varying according to the size of container is evident. Having seen such variable schemes in operation in various parts of Europe, with the scanning of bar-codes expected anyway to be part of the scheme, I think it presents no practical difficulties.
I know that the Minister, in the letter that he kindly sent to noble Lords on Friday afternoon, said—I paraphrase—“Let’s leave it to regulation and the implementation stage”. But why? Why not set out the basic ground rules now, in the Bill, to make sure that the scheme we get is fit for purpose and to give manufacturers time to prepare for implementation of the scheme as speedily as possible? That is what the very important Amendment 133, with which we started this group, seeks to attain.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register. I am pleased, as always, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, although I regret that the mover of the lead amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, spoke five days ago; I had to look up Hansard to remember what she said. I have some sympathy with her Amendment 133, and agree that deposit return schemes should be introduced as soon as possible. I also believe that it is crucially important to get them right. It is worrying that Scotland has rushed ahead with its own scheme in an area where we definitely need UK-wide compatibility.
I support Amendment 133A in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and others, that the scheme should, at a minimum, apply to PET, glass, aluminium and steel containers of volumes under 3 litres. I was a non-executive director of Lotte Chemical, at Wilton, on Teesside, for nine years, until the end of 2019, when the company was taken over by Alpek Polyester. It holds a 70% to 75% market share in the UK and Ireland as the leading supplier of polyethylene terephthalate. The plastics tax is likely to disadvantage PET producers in favour of glass and aluminium producers, with the unintended consequence that producers will switch from PET to glass and aluminium containers, which have a carbon footprint four or five times higher than PET.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, proposed exemptions from the plastics tax in her Amendment 141. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, expressed concern that the deposit return scheme might lead producers to switch from aluminium or glass to plastics. My concern is the reverse: besides the much lower carbon footprint associated with PET, does the noble Baroness really want to go back to the days when we cut our feet on discarded glass bottles on the beach?
The answer is not to penalise PET but to introduce a deposit return scheme as good as Germany’s, where 98% of PET bottles are collected for recycling. We have a long way to go. Germany is not often held up as an example of a unitary state with centralised powers, but the successful German deposit return scheme is a national scheme applied in all the Länder identically. If the United Kingdom is to prosper and global Britain is to succeed as we expect and hope, it follows that the leaders of our devolved authorities might be less impatient and more willing to work together to agree the details of one national scheme across the whole United Kingdom.
I will speak to Amendments 134A, 134B and 138A tabled in my name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for whose support I am most grateful. These amendments take account of the needs of small producers, including small brewers, within the proposed deposit return scheme and recognise that the proposed measures will introduce significant, disproportionate costs and regulatory burdens for small businesses. I strongly support a deposit scheme such as that proposed in the Bill in principle, because it would help to tackle our waste and littering problems, but I ask my noble friend, is he mindful of the burdens on small businesses introduced by the Bill that may make it difficult for them to compete against much larger producers?
Many small brewers have had great difficulties surviving through the pandemic. With pubs closed, the only way that they could keep their products on sale has been to sell them in bottles and cans. It is very expensive for small brewers to make the necessary changes to packaging and labelling. It is likely that the four large brewers, which hold 88% of the beer market, will absorb the cost within their profit margin, thereby driving small challengers and craft beer manufacturers out of the market. Besides this, the costs and difficulties of participation in the scheme seem disproportionate for small brewers.
The fact that Scotland is ahead of the rest of the country is another problem. Brewers sell beer through wholesalers that sell in both England and Scotland. The brewers do not know how much beer their wholesalers sell in each part of the UK, yet the Scottish Government, in the operation of their scheme, have suggested that brewers will have to provide vast swathes of information that they do not currently possess. It is important that any deposit scheme adopted is completely interoperable with the Scottish one. Can my noble friend confirm that we will have, in effect, an identical scheme operating across the whole country? Is it not a problem that the Scottish scheme does not require recyclable products to be clearly labelled as such? There may well be unintended consequences if the schemes are not completely aligned.
Can my noble friend also say whether the Government accept the need for public education about the new scheme, which will be necessary to change public behaviour towards recycling? Does he agree that there is at least a strong case for exempting small breweries producing less than 900,000 pints a year from the new requirements? Indeed, the Government’s better regulation framework states that the default position
“is to exempt small and micro-businesses from … new regulatory”
requirements. While the Government have proposed in the recent consultation to allow small retailers to apply for exemptions under the deposit schemes, the same exception has not been extended to small producers.
In both the extended producer responsibility and the plastic packaging tax, the Government have included a de minimis threshold. In other areas, such as nutritional information, those with fewer than 10 full-time equivalent staff and a turnover of below £2 million are exempt. Therefore, I have tabled these amendments and ask my noble friend to consider how the Bill will support our small producers in a similar way to small retailers.
Under the proposed deposit scheme, small producers will have to redesign their labels to incorporate bar codes and logos at significant cost. They will have to pay a producer fee per container, which could cost the beer industry alone £200 million a year—the equivalent of a 6% increase in beer duty. They will have to collect and provide a great deal of additional information, which could lead to a delay of six weeks or more before they can bring new products to market and will impact innovative small brewers that produce seasonal and one-off beers.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Lucas, have withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 134 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She has put the case for a variable rate dependent on container size most forcefully. There is nothing I can add without repetition, so I would like the Minister to comment on the reason given by the Minister, Rebecca Pow, in the other place. When she gave evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, Rebecca Pow, who is the Minister responsible for the DRS, said that the department was inclined to introduce a variable rate of deposit.
However, Defra currently wants to leave it to the scheme administrator to make the ultimate decision. The concern is that the administrator may not assess the need for a variable deposit independently and impartially, as it will be run by the industry itself, with all its vested interest to take into account. Can the Minister assure us of the independence of the administrator and how the appointment process for the administrator will work? A variable rate should be mandated in the legislation at this stage to avoid these potential problems.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 133A, to which I have put my name, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and is also supported by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. This amendment is about what is known as an all-in deposit scheme, which means it catches as many items as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is absolutely right that our priority ought to be to reduce waste in the first place and so, if we are going to reduce waste, we need a comprehensive deposit scheme. We must stand back and look at what we are trying to do, which is to protect the environment. The bigger and wider the deposit scheme, the more chance we have of keeping the environment in the state in which we would like it to be.
However, I know this causes an awful lot of worry for those who have set up return or deposit schemes at the moment, have invested money in them and do not want to change. It is the nature of industry that there will always be vested interests, but I hope that my noble friend will stand back from them and say that this is needed in the interests of the environment.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard rightly mentioned that any scheme must be pretty much the same across the whole United Kingdom. However, I challenge him on one thing. He said that Scotland had rushed ahead; no, I think that England is the laggard. Why should Scotland have to wait until England finally gets its house in order and its act together? Scotland has once again led the way, and it is time that England got on and followed suit.
Getting a UK comprehensive plan will be very important. There was a consultation on an all-in deposit scheme in 2019, which was overwhelmingly endorsed as the right way forward. All I ask my noble friend the Minister is that, when he introduces a scheme, he keeps it as simple as possible; I ask him please to use the KISS principle with this if he is going to get us to participate in this scheme and make it work in the best way possible.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 133 and 133A because the DRS is one of the most important parts of this Bill. It will have a seismic effect on consumer behaviour, improve our environment and strengthen the circular economy. I and many noble Lords have already spoken about the blight of litter. Two-thirds of roadside litter is estimated to be made up of drinks containers.
The scheme is so important that it needs to be wider in scope and swifter in implementation. The present target of late 2024 at the earliest is far too slow for such an important measure. It was first announced by Michael Gove in October 2017; the initial consultation promised implementation at the start of 2023; now we are told it will be the end of 2024 at the earliest. This chronology means that the present target for the much-anticipated DRS will mean at least six and a half years before implementation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said.
I know this scheme is complicated, but it is so important that all speed is needed to implement it. I ask the Minister to listen to the words of his colleague Michael Gove who, in praising this scheme in his 2019 speech at Kew Gardens, cautioned:
“Time is running out to make the difference we need; to repair the damage we as a species have done to the planet we have plundered.”
Does the Minister agree with the Environmental Audit Committee, which described the 2024 target as “disappointing”?
I also support Amendment 134 as the Government need to ensure that the scope of the scheme is as wide as possible, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said. They need to embrace the all-in scheme; I can see why the on-the-go 750-millilitre criterion has been posited as an option, but a recent survey of stakeholders in the beverage container sector, which includes supermarkets, manufacturers and consumers, shows 69% support all-in while a mere 15% support on-the-go. To quote Michael Gove’s Kew Gardens speech again,
“I believe an ‘all-in’ model will give consumers the greatest possible incentive to recycle.”
The UK’s recycling record has been dire in recent years. This is an opportunity for us to slack off that shocking record and lead the world in recycling.
It is not hard to understand why all-in is the preference of so many. It allies simplicity and maximum benefit for the environment, and goes to the heart of the circular economy. Studies estimate that an all-in scheme will recycle 3.2 times as many drinks containers as an on-the-go one. The Minister knows only too well the limitations of kerbside collections. Recycling centres have problems separating out the wide variety of materials, and often there are problems finding ways to use the recycled material effectively. I ask the Minister to listen to manufacturers, which say that the specially designed reverse vending machines in the scheme must be much more effective at separating different materials and consequently creating a much higher quality of material for recycling. As a result, the use of recycled material will increase. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, reverse vending machines are proving effective in other countries; obviously, the more types of materials and sizes of drinks containers included in the scheme, the more material will be recycled.
The extra materials covered by the amendment would allow clarity for both manufacturers and consumers and conformity with other nations in the UK. The cut-off point of 750 millilitres for drinks containers could distort the market in unthought-of ways. It could encourage consumers to buy bigger bottles of unhealthy fizzy beverages to cover the deposit’s charge, and manufacturers could invent methods to avoid the scheme. A distortion in the market leads to all kinds of unintended consequences. I will give an example from Germany: the exclusion of milk products from such a deposit scheme resulted in soft drinks companies introducing milk protein into their drinks to make sure they were excluded from the scheme. As a result, Germans who were lactose intolerant suddenly could not buy or drink soft drinks. Surely it would be better to make this deposit scheme as simple and wide-ranging as possible to avoid such a distortion.
One of the aims of the Bill is to dazzle the COP 26 with our world-leading environmental legislation. What better way to do that than by the Government putting a DRS on the face of the Bill which would be quick to take effect and wide-ranging in its impact? It would be a statement to the world that Britain intends to reduce its carbon emissions and litter problem and become a recycling superpower.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, we very much agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said about the potential of this deposit return scheme to show us to be a global frontrunner as we move towards a more circular economy. We also very much support the opening amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which highlights the laggard nature of the Government in bringing forward this DRS, with the latest consultation showing that it will not come in until the end of 2024. We absolutely agree with her that the Government ought to get on with this by next year as an initial step.
We agree with almost all noble Lords that this must be an all-in scheme. There are costs to that, which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, highlighted; another is the cost to local councils, as with an all-in system you remove aluminium, which is one of their most valuable recycling assets. However, we very much believe that the benefits outweigh those costs. We must resist those voices saying not to go down the all-in route. The Government’s impact assessment shows that there are very strong benefits to all-in, in the amount of recycling and the impact on cutting littering. That is important, but for me the issue mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about consistency with Scotland is the strongest case for all-in. We know where the Scots are going with their DRS; we feel very strongly that, to get the maximum benefits from DRS, there should be consistency with Scotland.
On that basis, although I listened to the very articulate arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on the case for a differential rate for sizes, I am not sure I want that put in the Bill at this stage, as there is an issue about ensuring that consistency with Scotland is uppermost in our mind. I therefore wish the Government to look at that again but do not support that going in the Bill at this stage, although I understand and accept the arguments she made. I hope the Government will look at them carefully. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, deposit return schemes are another important reform introduced by the Bill to maximise our resource productivity. It was heartening to hear support across the House for their introduction.
This Government are determined to crack down on the waste and carelessness that destroy our natural environment. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, was right to point out in her opening speech that in our manifesto we committed to introduce a deposit return scheme this Parliament. We remain absolutely committed to delivering on that commitment. I thank her for Amendments 133 and 133A. We are currently analysing responses to our consultation from environmental NGOs, businesses and trade organisations on the deposit return scheme, which consulted on implementation timelines for 2024, the scheme design and the exact responsibilities of a deposit management organisation. This also included proposals on the size of containers and materials to be included. We will publish our response as soon as possible.
I appreciate that noble Lords are keen to see the introduction of a DRS for drinks containers introduced as soon as possible—so am I. But realistically, particularly following the impact of the pandemic, we need to make sure we balance this anticipation with the needs of businesses, which will need time to adapt their processes to a DRS. The impact assessment for this measure identified that the net costs to businesses were likely to be £266 million a year, so we need to make sure that we fully consider the time needed for them to adapt.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Marlesford.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to be allowed to intervene—briefly, I was withdrawn from speaking in this group—and I would like to support what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has said about the concerns of small breweries. I was to some extent heartened by the Minister’s response that there is provision for making special arrangements in the regulations, but I would just like to ask him whether he recalls, five or 10 years ago, the rather serious activities of the major brewers in kicking out and treating badly many small pub landlords, which ended up with a lot of fuss. In the end, a Pubs Code Adjudicator was appointed to try to protect the independent landlords and, to some extent, the beers that they supplied. We have to remember that the big brewers are not charities. It is really important for the growth of the industry and the variety that the new brewers provide that there is a real, solid protection for the small brewers when it comes to the deposit return schemes. I hope that the Minister can confirm that.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I remember well the scandal of five to 10 years ago. Indeed, there were a number of people in my own former constituency who were affected, and I was very much involved in the all-party group that called for the Pubs Code Adjudicator, so I very much note his comments. I hope that the noble Lord was reassured by the reassurances that I provided in relation to small businesses and our attempts to insulate them as far as possible from any avoidable cost.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister recollect that, in the state of Oregon in the United States, where the returnable container schemes were pioneered many years ago, the key to success was that when the affluent discarded them, the less affluent picked them up and returned them?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I was not aware of the example from Oregon, but there are plenty examples from around the world of people at the very bottom of the economic ladder deriving livelihoods from being involved at one level or another in the recycling sector. That is certainly the case. I thank my noble friend for his comments.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of our amendments. As I said in my opening remarks, there is already considerable evidence from Europe that deposit return schemes drive up recycling levels of bottles and cans and thereby cut back on litter and landfill. That point was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, among others. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, rightly highlighted the success of Germany and the fact that it has been organised on a unitary basis across the German state—there are lessons to be learned from that.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, latterly put the question about the affluent and the less affluent. It is true that, once you put a small value on an empty bottle, people will be less inclined casually to throw it away, and even if some individual cannot be bothered to collect the deposit, there will always be others who will pick it up for that reason. However you go about it, it will undoubtedly reduce levels of litter and drive up recycling.
I agree, of course, with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and others that what we need is an all-in scheme for it to be really successful.
There is no reason why this scheme cannot be operational by 1 January 2023. Indeed, there could be perverse consequences if Scotland had such a scheme ahead of other nations. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that England has become a world leader in foot-dragging, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that England is becoming a laggard, and I agree with both of those sentiments. I think that we all agree that a united scheme across the four nations is the way to go, but we cannot expect Scotland to hang around while we make our minds up about this, so we have to move at pace and move together.
I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made a sensible point about deposit fees having to vary with the size of the container. I understand some of the complexities around that, but we need to make sure that we are not incentivising a switch to plastic that might otherwise occur.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, raised the issue of small producers and small breweries, and I agree that there need to be arrangements for start-ups and new businesses. There are, of course, many small drinks companies bringing new products on to the market—indeed, many of them are promoting healthy drinks. I am not convinced that small breweries need a special exemption, but I understand the point he makes. Of course, the scheme is not intended to place an extra burden on small businesses, and we have all said that it needs to be simple and straightforward to administer. I would have thought that all those companies—the breweries and other small producers—would welcome schemes that prevent their empty containers becoming litter or landfill just as much as anyone else. I remind noble Lords—some of us have been around for rather a long time—that we had bottle deposit schemes in the past, so in a sense this is nothing new.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s response, but nothing he said explains why we cannot have a DRS by 1 January 2023, and I disagree that he is on target to meet the Conservative manifesto commitment on this. Businesses have known that this is coming for some time; we have had time to make the transition, and there is still time within the next 18 months to complete that transition. The Minister also talked about Schedule 8, but the problem, as with all those schedules, is that it is not specific; it is just enabling. It does not guarantee anything. It just says that these things “may”—going back to our famous word—happen.
I will, therefore, reflect on the Minister’s comments, but I hope he has heard the strength of feeling around the Chamber today: people want action on this, and they want it quickly. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(6) The requirement in subsection (5) may be met by consultation carried out before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in inserted section 45AZC(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
“(4A) The requirement in subsection (4) may be met by consultation carried out before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in inserted section 45AZE(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 148A. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 61: Transfrontier shipments of waste
Amendment 148A
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments seek to strengthen Clause 61 of the Bill to mandate a total ban on the export of plastics.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 148A, I will speak to Amendments 148B and 148C, for which the rationale is self-explanatory, and try not to get cross. In essence, the case behind the amendments is that we in the UK should be self-sufficient when it comes to waste. There was a great deal of publicity around China refusing to take our plastic rubbish but very little around the destinations the Government found to replace shipments to China: Turkey, Malaysia and Poland. There has been much talk in recent years of ours being a nation that can stand on its own feet. That being the case, there is no excuse for us to send waste for processing—certainly not to the poorest countries of the world, and not to our neighbours, partners and friends in Europe either.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, and I congratulate her on bringing forward these amendments. I also congratulate the Government on introducing, in Clause 61, the transfrontier shipment of waste clause that sets out the power to prohibit the transport of waste for export and, I understand, later in the clause, the transit of waste for importation as well. I received a very good briefing—I think the same one the noble Baroness received—that shows that the UK generates almost more plastic waste per person than any other country in the world; we are second only to the US. Apparently, in the last two years for which there are reported figures, we exported two-thirds of plastic waste separated for recycling that was collected in the UK. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister, when she comes to conclude this debate, will confirm that this is a very real problem that is increasing because our landfill sites are full, and they would be the natural place for the plastic waste to go. I am not saying that they are the right place, but they are where recently the waste has been sent. So I welcome the fact that we have identified the lack of infrastructure in these amendments, as set out by the noble Baroness who tabled them. We should set up the appropriate infrastructure in this country.
Many may recall what I call the “first” Hartlepool by-election, in the early 2000s. I visited the Able plant near Hartlepool, where there was a very successful operation for dismantling “ghost ships”—I think that is what we called them. They were rusty bucket ships that had previously been sent to India and other places, where they did not have the infrastructure to dismantle them. We had, in that plant, an extremely successful operation where they had built up the expertise and the skills to use here in this country. It meant that we were disposing of these ships safely. We need to learn that lesson and convert it to the recycling and disposal of plastics.
I commend the University of York: in One Planet Week in February 2019, its researchers created a new system for recycling single-use plastics used in some of their successful scientific experiments. The technique that they have developed will prevent one tonne of plastic per laboratory ending up in landfill sites each year—or, as the amendments would indicate, otherwise being exported, which seems to be the current trend. The successful technique involves the implementation of an in-house decontamination station. If that can be used on site in one university, I hope we can adapt that technique and roll it out across other parts of the country. I hope my noble friend the Minister will commend that and look to set up similar infrastructure, which is obviously inexpensive to set up and probably just means tweaking the current operations that are already in operation throughout the country. That way, we will be able to dispose of much more of our own plastics in this country and will no longer be seeking to export them abroad.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness opposite. I support all these amendments; they are very simple, very short and very small, but they do actually fix a problem. I think the noble Baroness has every right to get cross. I am furious most of the time when I am speaking to the Government, because, for example, they have falsely claimed that they have achieved their CO2 reduction targets, when in fact—when we look at this sort of behaviour: exporting plastic waste—we are exporting our CO2. That is why the Government can falsely claim that they have hit those reduction targets. I very much regret that I did not sign these amendments, and I certainly will if they come back on Report.
We all know that the international waste economy is a nasty, polluting system, where the richest countries are using the poorest countries as dump sites—as giant landfill sites. Many people would be outraged, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, to see that the recycling that they so carefully do is just baled up and dumped on poor countries and among poor communities, who then have to suffer the pollution that it causes.
So the export of waste is nasty, but I am also concerned about the increasing capacity of UK incinerators. From what I can see, the planned capacity of these incinerators will soon far exceed the amount of waste that the UK produces. Many local authorities are, of course, tied into 25-year contracts with such businesses. This means they will be looking around for waste to burn. So either these companies and their investors will sustain losses or—and this is a much more concerning option—they will begin to import waste from abroad into the UK. So I would very much appreciate the Minister giving us the Government’s opinion on incinerator companies importing waste from abroad. Will the Government allow it, or will they join me, and I am sure many others, in calling for it to be banned? These amendments render a very simple option: to clean up our responsibility—our pollution—towards the rest of the world. I hope the Government accept them.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I absolutely agree with her and would also like to add my voice to asking the question about the payments that go towards incinerators for waste. This also happens sneakily in the food system, and you end up with the absolute absurdity that some food companies are actually manufacturing food in order to be able to meet their commitment or contract with a waste incinerator, which is meant to have waste food—I will come to that later.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, I have also watched “Trashed” and it would make a very good film for a lot of people to see. It is pathetic that people spend their time recycling, only for it to end up being burned in a Turkish field, surrounded by little boys who are poking through the rubble on the off-chance that they will find something sellable. At least they see some kind of value in the plastic that we of course do not because, culturally, we have been told this is worthless. So I would also like to add my voice to support all schemes around bottle return. We have to see plastic as valuable: after all, it has taken air, oil, water, sky, soil et cetera to make it.
One of the things that also came out from the Greenpeace briefings was that, when we send waste out of the country, we send vast trailers. Someone attempting to check it who pulls the front down will see four bales when, in fact, the container probably has 400. So there is no possibility of knowing anything about this. The brokers are in it for the money and they do not take their duty of care seriously.
There was another point that came up. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned the Adana region, where Greenpeace was working. Greenpeace went to the Environment Agency and said, “Can we have a list of approved addresses where waste in Turkey is being sent?” It was given eight to check and four did not even exist. So we know this is a scam, and we know it has to stop. I am extremely pleased that Turkey has put its foot down—although it is a bit embarrassing that places such as China and other countries like it have put their foot down before we were able to put our foot down and start asking ourselves why we produce so much and what we are going to do about it.
It seems to me that of course we have to a good extended producer responsibility scheme. We have to ban our plastic waste—we cannot just send it away—and we have to have legally binding deposit schemes. But on a big level, on a cultural level, we need a real level of behaviour change from the supermarkets, everybody in retail and, in particular, from Amazon. It sends the most staggering amount of packaging with very small things. It seems that we shift our plastic problem from one place to the next. I do not know about other noble Lords but, certainly during this pandemic, I have had things arrive from Amazon that I am frankly embarrassed to have. Nobody ever touches that kind of area, and I think that we should. I am really glad the Government are getting on top of this. I will support these amendments wholeheartedly and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, I will support them if they come back on Report.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 148A, 148B and 148C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. To reinforce what other noble Lords have said, I agree with all those who have spoken on this important issue. In fact, we have been talking about the scourge of plastic throughout the debates on the Bill. We support these amendments wholeheartedly and we recognise the frustration expressed by a number of speakers. I will not go on for too long; I just want to reinforce some important points.
Some 61% of plastic packaging for recycling was exported in 2019 because of the lack of a domestic processing capacity. That lack of capacity is not a new problem; investment has been needed for many years, and the lack of progress calls into question the Government’s dedication to transitioning the UK to a circular economy. While the UK has continued to export its plastic waste, other countries, as noble Lords, and the noble Baroness in particular, have mentioned before, have become less willing or able to accept and process it. China closed its doors in 2017, Malaysia has tightened up regulation and just last week, as other speakers have said, Turkey—the biggest single recipient of UK waste—ended imports of most forms of plastic waste.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, made a very pertinent point about the exposure of illegal dumping. She talked, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about the Greenpeace investigation and our 5.2 million tonnes of plastic waste; we are just shifting our plastic problem. The point she made was very touching: if we do not want our own children to play on these dumping sites and look for plastics, why should we expect people in other countries to allow that? It is a global problem: we cannot just end it by passing it on to other countries.
In recent years, a number of case studies have highlighted how carefully sorted plastics from the UK have ended up being fly-tipped or burned in other countries rather than being turned into new products. This highlights an important ethical case for change, on top of practical arguments about creating new jobs and transforming the economy.
While we may not be able to end our reliance on export overnight, it should be an ambition. The British Plastics Federation estimates that with the right drivers in place, the UK could eliminate low-quality exports entirely and reduce the overall volume of exports to just 9%. Additional investment and an export ban such as that proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, could improve the situation further.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I, like many of your Lordships, find the news reports showing plastic waste from the UK being dumped and burned abroad very disturbing. It is illegal activity and we are working hard with partners abroad to find a resolution. As outlined in our manifesto, the Government are fully committed to banning the export of plastic waste to non-OECD countries, using the powers in the Environment Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, brought up the Greenpeace campaign, which claimed that all UK plastic waste is exported to be dumped and burned overseas. That is false. It is illegal to export waste from the UK to be burned or dumped overseas. Any UK operators found to be illegally exporting waste can face a two-year jail term and an unlimited fine.
Waste exports need to be made in accordance with the legislation, which implements our obligations under the Basel convention and the OECD decision on waste, and we have a system of inspections in place to verify compliance. Over the last 12 months, monitoring by the Environment Agency has had a particular focus on preventing illegal plastic waste exports. In 2020, the Environment Agency prevented the illegal export of 46 shipping containers of plastic waste to Turkey, and this year it has already prevented the illegal export of 122 containers of plastic waste to Turkey.
Defra officials and the UK waste shipment regulators have been liaising with the Turkish authorities to forge better working relationships. The Environment Agency has developed a good relationship with the Turkish Ministry of Environment, which has expressed its thanks for the UK’s collaborative approach in preventing illegal exports of waste to Turkey.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering mentioned ghost ships. I reiterate that ships which reach the end of their lives must be recycled in accordance with the relevant legislation. As with any waste that is exported from the UK, it is illegal to export waste for disposal except in exceptional cases.
A number of noble Lords mentioned capacity, including my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. Certainly, implementing a ban on exports of plastic waste to non-OECD countries will have wide-ranging effects on local authorities, our domestic waste infrastructure and businesses. It is important that delivering the manifesto commitment does not result in unintended consequences such as plastic waste being diverted from recycling operations to landfill or incineration. Defra has commissioned research looking at the available reprocessing capacity in the UK and the OECD, which will inform policy development ahead of a consultation in 2022. However, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for her amendments.
Clause 61 provides full powers to update our existing regulations on waste shipments as necessary, now that we have left the EU, including prohibiting the import and export of waste to any country in the world, so we could, for example, put Turkey on that list. Although the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment is welcome, unfortunately it would narrow the available power’s effect so that it could be used only very strictly to make regulations connected with prohibiting waste imports and exports. That could preclude us from making additional reforms that I know the noble Baroness would welcome: for example, to update reporting and monitoring requirements in connection with the regulation of waste imports and exports in future. It is appropriate to provide the Government with flexibility in this case as to when and how such provisions and regulations are made. This will ensure that regulations can be updated and revised as needed to crack down on the harmful export of polluting plastic waste to developing countries.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of the incineration of plastic waste. In particular, my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering mentioned an innovative scheme from, I think, the University of York. A number of small firms are evaluating myriad scientific methods of reusing and recycling all forms of plastic, in particular those that cannot be got rid of in any other way. They include one which breaks down the plastic in question’s relevant chemical components, which then can be made into an oil that can be used to provide power. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, will be reassured that these are not processed for incineration. I do not have enough lines to satisfy the noble Baroness on the question of general incineration, so I commit to write to the House about other ways in which we can prevent plastics ending up being incinerated.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and to the Minister for her response. I am aware that it is illegal to export waste for it to be dumped; nevertheless, that is what is happening. I am aware too that the Local Government Association does not support this amendment as it believes that the cost of dealing with plastic waste will fall on local authorities, at a time when their budgets are under severe strain. I sympathise with that viewpoint. However, as I have said, I do not believe that householders who are taking the trouble to separate their waste for it to be recycled understand that their plastic waste is being sent to countries where it is not being treated in an approved manner. More investment is needed in infrastructure. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned in-house recycling plants. I have also visited such plants and know how effective they can be. In some cases they can convert waste to energy, which is very useful.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Deposit return schemes are an important part of the answer but the Government need to be proactive on their behalf. There are many instances where each one of us can take steps to reduce the amount of plastic we buy and use, and publicity will be key to ensuring that this is a success. I regret that neither the LGA nor the Government are taking reducing the production and use of plastic seriously enough, and I may return to this issue on Report. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 149. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 149
Baroness Boycott
“Food waste
(1) This section applies to a retailer who—(a) generates more than 10 tons of food waste per year, or (b) operates stores which with a floor area of more than 400 metres squared.(2) A retailer to whom this section applies must recycle wasted food products, having regard to the following steps listed in order of priority—(a) preventing food waste (for example, by not ordering more of a food product than they expect to sell);(b) using unsold food which is fit for human consumption (for example, through food donation or processing);(c) recovering unsold food which is fit for animal consumption into feedstock;(d) converting food waste into compost for agriculture or for energy recovery, including biogas.(3) A retailer to whom this section applies must make an agreement in relation to each store which it operates with at least one charitable organisation which distributes donated food, having taken reasonable steps to ascertain that the charitable organisation uses appropriate processes to distribute food through a clearly advertised address.(4) A local authority may impose a financial penalty on a retailer in relation to a store within its area if the authority is satisfied beyond reasonable that the person has breached subsection (2) or (3).(5) The amount of the financial penalty is to be such amount as the authority determines but not to be more than £5,000.(6) A retailer to whom this section applies or a large food manufacturer must disclose to the Secretary of State the volume of food waste in their supply chain.(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the requirement in subsection (6), including the definition of “a large food manufacturer” and what details must be disclosed and to whom.(8) The Secretary of State must make regular reports to Parliament about the volume of food waste being reported under subsection (6).(9) The Secretary of State must consult those likely to be affected by this section before making regulations under this section.(10) The Secretary of State must ensure that the volume of food being wasted is at least—(a) 60% lower than the 2020 baseline for 2025;(b) 80% lower than the 2020 baseline for 2030.(11) The Secretary of State must conduct a public education campaign on the issues caused by food waste including but not limited to—(a) climate change, and(b) biodiversity loss.(12) In this section—“food waste” and “food waste reduction” are to be defined by the Secretary of State by regulations, taking account of such terms as have been validated by or are in accordance with—(a) the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,(b) the Waste and Resources Action Programme, and(c) the waste hierarchy as set out in the Waste (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (SI 2011/988) and Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (SI 2012/1889), save that methods of “food waste reduction” for the purposes of this section may not include any form of waste disposal. “retailer” means any person carrying on (or actively seeking to carry on) a business in any part of the United Kingdom for the supply of groceries to consumers.”
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I really wish that I was not having to move this amendment. I speak as the chair of Feeding Britain, and all through this pandemic we have been giving out meals to an extraordinary amount of people—the numbers have doubled. We have got food from many different food redistribution companies, notably companies such as FareShare and individual supermarkets. Many supermarkets have stepped up to the challenge over the last 18 months and have given away a great deal more food, but there are still lapses in the system. This is, essentially, an extremely simple amendment that just says that big supermarkets must, by law, have a relationship with a food redistribution centre. This was introduced a few years back by Kerry McCarthy in the other place. Indeed, the now Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, signed her 10-minute rule Bill supporting this idea, and such a proposal is now law in France.
We have just been listening to lots of statistics about waste. The most recent one that I have found is that the UK’s biggest supermarkets bin 190 million meals a year. Is that true? I do not know, but it comes from WRAP. My guess is that it is true, and that a lot of food that is up to its sell-by date but still perfectly edible is chucked out the door. That is really what I want to see changed—and I want it to change culturally. At the moment, food is very cheap; I want people to see that it has a value and importance. In the end, with this amendment, as the chair of Feeding Britain, I would like us all to be put of business; at the moment, we are not out of business and are, in fact, incredibly needed. As people come off furlough, the numbers who are using Feeding Britain feeding sites are rising, not going down.
One of the other things that I talk about in this amendment is that we need to get to the food waste pyramid. Food should always be thought of as food for humans: if it has not been sold, it must go for donation; if we cannot eat it, it should feed an animal; and if that cannot happen, it should feed the soil. There is a very exact pyramid to show the way that this works.
The amendment also seeks penalties for retailers which do not do this and to ensure that the volume of food being wasted is at least—and this is where I challenge the Government, because I know that this is above their targets—60% lower than the 2020 baseline for 2025 and 80% lower than the 2020 baseline for 2030.
I did not make this up. I consulted Dave Lewis who, from 2014 until last year, ran Tesco. I asked him what it would take, what we can do, who we can push, and what we can achieve. He came back with these figures. I know the figures will be repeated in the food strategy, so this is doable and challenging. As we all know, this is the year of COP. Food waste is responsible for so much: relevant to the last group of amendments, food waste is the reason we have so much plastic floating around. All these things connect. It is about getting the public to understand that food is valuable and plastic is valuable, and therefore must not be thrown away. We need to do it in the right way.
My other point in this amendment is that the Secretary of State must conduct a public education campaign around the question of food waste and making people understand that, every time we throw food away, we are adding to our environmental problems. As many noble Lords have just said, throwing food away with the plastic adds to all sorts of environment and social problems, but food itself costs air, soil and energy. As the Dasgupta reported showed, these things are valuable and valuable to our society.
I hope that at least part of this quite long amendment will be taken up by the Government. There are currently 13 million people in this country, mostly kids, who are what you could call food-stressed—they do not have enough food and cannot afford enough healthy food. If you want to eat 1,000 healthy calories, it costs about five times more than it does to eat 1,000 unhealthy calories. Much of the food that hits its sell-by date is good, proper food. It has been grown, processed and packaged; a lot has gone into it and we chuck it. We could, very easily—and culturally it would be a big deal—just put this amendment in the Bill and be like the French. Their food recycling went up immediately by 20%—that is a lot of meals.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am very happy to put my name to the noble Baroness’s amendment. She has moved it extremely well and there is very little for me to add, except to say that I want to go a bit further than she does. Therefore, I have also tabled Amendment 149A in my own name, which focuses specifically on supermarkets.
Noble Lords might very well ask why I am focusing on supermarkets when they have very little waste. I am focusing on them because I want supermarkets to take responsibility for their supply chains, and not just the food on their premises. To do this, we need mandatory reporting at farm level, which is currently not reported at all, and could account for as much as 25% of all UK food waste. Transparent reporting will reduce the food waste by big retailers, benefitting the environment, the climate and natural resources. A levy ought to be charged on supermarkets proportional to the food waste in the UK supply chains.
Why is mandatory reporting so important? There has been voluntary reporting, but it does not work; the firms are not reporting. Only 60 companies are reporting their data publicly, and more than 500 large companies are not reporting at all. It has to be mandatory reporting. The targets also need looking at because, under the voluntary commitments, UK food businesses have carefully achieved measurable food waste reductions of just 0.23 million tonnes between 2011 and 2018. It is estimated that between 3.78 million and 6.38 million tonnes of food waste occurs in primary production, manufacturing, retail, and hospitality and food services. The saving that has happened—which everyone will praise—is less than 1% a year. That is not satisfactory; that is not good.
The Government’s timetable is slow. It could be speeded up, and I recommend that it is. The Government have been inactive for far too long. Indeed, Tesco itself says that mandatory reporting and a speeded-up programme are absolutely vital to meet sustainable development goal 12.3. My amendment is an important addition to the one moved by my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. In conclusion, it is worth just pausing to think that Tesco makes £4 billion annual profit from food that its customers waste at home. The point of my amendment is to try to reduce that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow my noble friend and I support both him and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, in the sentiments behind their amendments. In looking at the factsheet that was circulated by the department in connection with this Bill, I welcome the fact that the Government are minded to introduce regulations to, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, move food waste further up the hierarchy, so that there will be less left at the end. I particularly welcome the two amendments in this group as probing amendments, and ask my noble friend: is there not a degree of urgency that we need to do this?
I may have one point of disagreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. She and I both have family living in Denmark, I understand, and I have been immensely taken by the contribution that the Danes, other Scandinavians and Austria and Germany have made to enhancing energy from waste. I prefer to call it “energy from waste”; I know others call it incineration. I had beer poured over me once in my surgery when I was a Member of the other place; since then, I have called it “energy from waste”. This is the ultimate circular economy, because you are taking potential food waste and putting it into the system—the residual; I accept the hierarchy, and it should be the absolute minimum. The community benefits because it would go, ideally, into the local grid. There is a now a big incinerator in what was my original constituency, the Vale of York. The gripe I have with it is that it goes into the National Grid, whereas, as north Yorkshire is very cold, it should go into the local grid.
The factsheet also set out the importance of reducing the amount of food waste—as do both the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott—which is currently estimated as producing 25 million tonnes of CO2 gas emissions every year through 9.5 million tonnes of food and drink which is wasted annually post farm gate. I take those figures as being accurate, as I understand that they are in the factsheet we received.
I press my noble friend when he sums up that there is a sense of urgency here: however we address it, we need to reduce that waste. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, not just on feeding Britain, as I think she called it, but for the national food strategy, as one of the team with its author, Henry Dimbleby. I look forward to hearing the official government response to Part 1 of that report.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as on the register. Like my noble friend Lord Caithness, I support the thrust of both these amendments, though neither goes far enough, in my opinion, including my noble friend’s amendment.
Amendment 149 applies only to retailers generating more than 10 tonnes of food waste and in stores of more than 400 square metres. I would reduce those sizes by half and apply them to everyone producing food waste: retailers, manufacturers and the catering industry. We have no idea of the extent of food waste in the catering industry. Today’s uneaten roast chicken should be tomorrow’s soup or curry.
Similarly, Amendment 149A in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness is absolutely right in concept, especially the idea of reducing food waste across the whole supermarket supply chain. We often concentrate on the food that is unsold in shops at closing time, but we really need to tackle the rejected misshapen carrots, the less-than-perfectly shaped tomatoes and all the other food that is thrown away before it gets to the shops or caterers. A lot of organisations, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, referred, usually charities, are seeking to use up food before supermarkets throw it away. My noble friend Lord Caithness is right to seek to reduce all food waste across the supply chain, before it gets to the ultimate shop or caterer.
In my opinion, it is wrong to set the bar at supermarkets with a turnover of £1 billion. That is too high. I would apply it to all retailers, manufacturers and catering outlets with a turnover of more than £200 million. As an aside, if I may say so—probably improperly—I hope there is still a Morrisons supermarket in five years’ time we can apply it to, after the vulture capitalists have loaded it with debt, robbed the pension fund and asset-stripped it. But that is possibly for another day.
Neither of the amendments deals with the appalling waste of food in our homes but, again, that is not a discussion for the Bill today. If my noble friend the Minister cannot accept the amendments, I hope he will stress to all those in the food supply business that at some point, the Government will be bearing down on them to drastically reduce all food waste at all points in the food supply chain and across all food outlets.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Blencathra is quite right to point up food waste at home. Here in Eastbourne, we have a universal system to deal with that, and a pair of them is nesting on the roof above me as I speak: very little goes to waste here. But on the broader front, yes, we absolutely must not accept the idea of waste. This comes back to the point I was making on previous amendments: the necessity of looking at things in the round. One of the prime ways to reduce waste is plastic packaging. The less you use plastic packaging, the more food waste you generate. We need to look at things as a whole, not at little bits. Within the area of food that, however packaged, has reached or is reaching the end of its shelf life, we indeed need to make it compulsory that it is offered to people, particularly charities, so that they can distribute it as it is needed and that, if there is no market there for it, that it is used in the most efficient way possible. By doing that, we will generate efficient ways to use it.
The other day, I came across a fascinating company called C3 BIOTECH, which is using biotechnology to convert food waste into useful fuels and other materials. These things flourish because we create the circumstances in which they can. If we do not mandate that people deal effectively with food waste, it just gets thrown away and the opportunity to do better things never arises. It is really important that the Government take action in this area. I wish the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, well: if not in the detail of its drafting, very much in its spirit.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on their excellent amendments. They are really good but, sadly, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. That is not something I usually do, but he is absolutely right: we must go even further on these issues. Food waste is a scourge on our society, We should be horribly embarrassed about it. Unfortunately, we are trying to get the Government to catch up, and I just do not know how we can do that; they are so far behind the general public on such issues.
I slightly disagree about how much individuals can do, because this is not an issue for individual behaviour change. A bit of education, perhaps: teaching people not to take those large packs of something that will end up with half rotting in the fridge, or whatever, but generally, this is for businesses—supermarkets—and for the Government to start legislating. These two amendments do quite a comprehensive job of covering all the issues: the waste hierarchy, practical solutions such as producing feedstock, setting targets and reporting.
I volunteered for a homeless charity for some years. Every Monday morning, I would go out on a very early tea run. Some companies, mainly cafés such as Costa, gave us their food from the day before to distribute to the homeless, which was very welcome. One Christmas, a big supermarket gave us 25 turkeys, which was a little more than we could handle and took quite a bit of redistribution. It happens from time to time, but we must make it normal to do that, so that nobody thinks it is okay to put waste food in a bin.
Personally, I think the Government would be well advised to accept these amendments. It is only by going after supermarkets and businesses that we can actually change the way we treat food waste.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am happy to speak in favour of this small but very important group of amendments. I have added my name to Amendment 149, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. With so many families and individuals struggling to find enough money to feed themselves, we should do all we can to prevent food waste.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who is an expert on avoiding food waste, has spoken passionately on this issue. Proposed new subsection (2) of the amendment gives a short list of actions that food retailers must take to prevent food waste. Proposed new subsection (2)(b) ensures that where food is fit for human consumption, it goes either to food banks or for further processing. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, spoke passionately about that and I completely agree with her.
As we approach the end of the school term and the beginning of the long six-week summer holidays, many families will be very concerned about how they will feed their children from the end of July until the beginning of the new school term in September. This is a time when food banks are likely to see an increase in the number of people using their facilities. Redundant food from supermarkets and food retailers has a role to play here, and food waste indeed has a value and should not go to landfill. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, quite rightly raised the issue of uneaten roast chicken being made into tomorrow’s soup or curry. That is what happens in our household; however, it cannot happen for homeless people who are accommodated in bed and breakfast facilities, where they have no access to cooking facilities. They are dependent on food banks and other feeding stations not to starve.
Proposed new subsections (3) to (11) give the criteria for how the Secretary of State will prevent food waste, the consultation and the need to report to Parliament on just how much food is being wasted. The public have got behind the campaign to prevent food waste and will be lobbying their MPs to ensure that they support it. Reporting to Parliament is the way in which MPs can reassure their constituents that everything is being done to prevent food waste and ensure that those living in poverty, who are hungry, are able to take advantage of excess food production. Proposed new subsections (10) to (12) give realistic targets for reducing food waste and ensuring a public campaign on the effects of food waste on climate change and biodiversity loss.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in Amendment 149A, ensures that the supermarkets and food producers neither order nor produce more food than is needed. I agree that this amendment should be in the Bill. These businesses have been in operation for many years and, by now, should be aware of just how many items of a particular sort they are likely to sell and how many crops will need to be grown to meet demand. They cannot, of course, be expected to know whether a particular item is going to feature on a television cookery show, which will cause a spike in demand but, with that excluded, the science of supply and demand is well known to both producers and retailers. Ensuring that this is calculated and measured is key to preventing food waste.
At a time when not only in GB are people living in food poverty and going hungry, but large areas of Africa and other continents are suffering devastating loss of crops due to climate change and the aftermath of war, it is simply unacceptable for this country, one of the richest in the world, to be producing food to be wasted. I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, fully support this group of amendments and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for bringing forward these amendments, which we strongly support. They both made important points in the introduction to their amendments, and I thank them for that.
In recent years, there has been a lot of discussion, both in politics and the media, about food waste. Some countries have already made laws to try to reduce food waste. In France, supermarkets are not allowed to waste their food; they have to give it, for free, to homeless people. France consistently tops the world rankings for its lack of food waste because of this, and Germany now has similar laws on food waste, so I strongly urge the Minister to follow in their footsteps and take note of these amendments.
Globally, food waste is estimated to cost £2.9 trillion a year. That is enough food to feed every hungry person in the world twice over, yet food insecurity and hunger still exist in both developing and developed countries. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, talked about the problem of school holidays for children who are dependent on free school meals and issues with crop failure in the developing world.
WRAP estimates there is the potential to redistribute a further 190,000 tonnes of surplus food from the retail and food manufacturing sectors. Some of the surplus is difficult to make use of; it could be costly, in that it would need to be reworked or repackaged, and some surplus would not be edible. But WRAP still estimates that around 100,000 tonnes are both accessible and edible. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned food that is rejected—perhaps it is misshapen. It is a nonsense that we throw away perfectly good food.
It is clear that we are not adequately distributing the food we produce. It is also clear that the environmental costs in water, energy and space to grow food that is not eaten is more than our environment can take. When food waste ends up in landfill, even though it will decompose, it contributes to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it biodegrades. The amounts it produces during this process are on a level with the use of cars and fossil fuels. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, that education is an important part of what we need to do to resolve these problems.
We have heard how much we throw away in the UK, but the 25 million tonnes of CO2 emissions just from the UK’s food waste is more than Kenya’s total annual emissions—a country of 53 million people. This is disgraceful. Even if you count only the edible food wasted, it comes to a total of 14 million tonnes. If we eradicated this, according to the Government’s latest data, it would be equivalent to taking one in five cars off the road. Considering this Government have set a target to reduce greenhouse gas levels by 68% of 1990 levels by 2030, reducing or even eliminating food waste seems like an obvious and easy step to take towards that goal.
Supermarkets are partially to blame for the global food waste catastrophe. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made this point well and looked at responsibility in the supply chains. We know that supermarket food waste comes to around £230 million a year, but also that they can be part of the solution, with significant power to have an impact on the amount of food we waste. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, rightly talked about how they stepped up during the pandemic. They can behave differently.
We can look at ways in which this can be done. Expiry dates is one. We know that consumers get confused about what the dates for food safety mean and, because of that, a lot of edible food is thrown away at home. There is not enough understanding of the difference between sell-by, use-by and best-by dates. We could do something about this confusion and lack of consistency. Supermarkets can play a role in standardising this information, so that consumers have it in an accurate easy-to-understand format. One personal bugbear is whether we really need a date for fresh fruit and vegetables; it is obvious to me when something has gone off. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked of a need to find a use for all foods, which is really important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, talked about food banks, FareShare and the role that supermarkets can play. They can and do donate, but food banks have a limited amount of time to turn overripe produce around before it goes bad, and they are prohibited from giving away food that has passed its use-by or best-before date. Again, perishable foods can end up in the bin. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, we need to find ways to use all food.
Two years ago, in June 2019, more than 100 of the biggest players in food, including all the UK’s major supermarkets, signed a pledge to take action to drive down food waste and raise public awareness of the issue. The Government have also expressed their commitment to supporting UN sustainable development goal 12.3 to help halve food waste by 2030 and to report on progress and prioritise action. I ask the Minister to provide an update on progress on that pledge and the actions that are being prioritised to meet our obligations on SDG 12.3.
Food waste in the UK is a huge problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, rightly said it is a scourge in our society, and it is time for the Government to legislate. As well as an environmental disaster, it is a social catastrophe, when we consider the 10.5 billion meals that wasted food could have provided to deprived people. I appreciate that the Government have cut down on their food waste in recent years, but there is still an awfully long way to go. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and other Lords, have said, I look forward to reading the Government’s food strategy. They must grasp this opportunity and do something about this. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her unwavering dedication to this issue. We have discussed it on numerous occasions, both recently and before I became a Minister, and she knows that I share her passion.
The impacts of food waste are profound. I was going to give some examples, but they have just been given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I will not repeat them. It is true, however, that the impacts of food waste on unnecessary land use, unnecessary conversion of intact ecosystems and emissions are enormous. If food waste were a country, it would be the third or fourth largest emitter in the world. The madness of throwing food away at these levels is evident when there are people who do not have food to eat.
I turn to Amendment 149, which covers a lot of ground, and a similar amendment from my noble friend Lord Caithness, Amendment 149A. Through powers in Clause 49 and Schedule 4 to the Bill, the Government will be able to place obligations across the supply chain on food producers, retailers and supermarkets, making them responsible and liable for surplus food and food waste at all levels of the waste management hierarchy, including prevention and redistribution of food waste. I am pleased to confirm to my noble friend Lord Caithness that this could be through obligations such as food waste reduction targets, as outlined in his amendment, and moving food up the waste hierarchy with a focus on prevention and redistribution. In response to points raised by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, I confirm that the Government will be able to place obligations across the supply chain, from producers to manufacturers to caterers. We will also have powers to enforce these obligations if any producers were to breach them.
I reiterate that the Government are fully committed to meeting the UN sustainable development goal 12.3 target, which seeks to halve global food waste at consumer and retail levels by 2030. Of course, we have a long way to go, but significant progress has already been made, with a reported 27% per capita reduction to date, excluding inedible parts. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I felt it a little unfair to say that the UK is miles behind. It is true that there are miles remaining to go to tackle this problem, but the UK is a world leader in food waste prevention. We have, for example, been singled out by the World Resources Institute for the work we are doing. There is much more to be done, and there are lots of steps which have been put forward by noble Lords today in this debate which we should seriously consider, but it is not true to state that we are miles behind other countries.
To ensure we are on track to meet the sustainable development goal target, the Government have put in place a range of measures to tackle food waste across the supply chain and in households. For example, we already have powers to introduce the public reporting of food waste by businesses and are about to consult on that. The consultation will cover implementation timelines, the inclusion of primary production food businesses and proposes a range of food businesses including retailers which would then be in scope. Regarding the noble Baroness’s amendment, we will first assess progress by food businesses to reduce food waste through various government measures which already exist, and which we are including here. We will then review progress after mandatory food waste reporting regulations have come into force. We have powers in this Bill to then propose or amend producer responsibility obligations broadly in line with the noble Baroness’s amendment. Unless we see serious progress, the Government will necessarily act.
I would like to mention some of the things which the Government are already doing to tackle this problem. For example, we have funded WRAP to work on the Courtauld commitment 2025 to introduce the food waste reduction road map, an objectively ground-breaking industry-wide toolkit with commitment from more than 250 businesses. We are supporting several WRAP’s campaigns, including the citizens strategy, the Love Food Hate Waste campaign, and we backed the UK’s first food waste action week in March this year. These campaigns are clearly designed to shift consumer behaviour, which is a major part of the solution.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I thank your Lordships, and the Minister, whose final words were telling in that the Government have gone some way towards fixing this problem. I congratulate the Government on all the work which has been done through WRAP. The Love Food Hate Waste campaign has been terrific. However, the target is not high enough, and all sorts of things are not yet good enough.
I thank the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, in particular the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I completely agree with him that the food waste at the top of the supply chain is one of the biggest culprits lurking out there, and that we must get at it. In social supermarkets which I have set up, we extracted extraordinary amounts of products which were useless because the labelling was wrong, advertising the football, for example. Where does that food go? That is where we really need government support and transparency.
I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, and I agree with her that energy from waste is a very good way to describe it. I know that Ludlow at one point ran its school bus on the food waste which people put in buckets at the ends of their drives. It was very effective because people got involved, and it helped them to understand that there is proper energy, life and all sorts of good stuff in food. As she said, I indeed have lots of relatives in Denmark who are unbelievably good about it, and also do bottle deposit schemes.
I found myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that it should apply to every sort of supermarket.d I disagree with him only when he mentioned the catering industry. On the whole, caterers are very canny with their money, and tend to get the right amount of food to feed people. I am always incredibly impressed when I find myself in the same place as a caterer. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, although I wonder where his children were. Were they on the roof, or was it some birds? I saw a whole load of storks this weekend, not far from Eastbourne—perhaps they came down to feed on his waste food, as they are very hungry all the time. He was completely right about plastic packaging—we must use less.
As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said the key things, noting that the public are far ahead of the Government on this. We all want this. This has to be done, because we must get at the industry. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for her support. I echo her view about the coming summer holidays, which should be lovely, but are in fact scary for a huge number of parents. Supermarkets should know how much to get, and not wait for the cookery shows.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, gave a fantastic speech. I am so glad to get all that incredible data on the record. I did not know the statistic about one in five cars, which is really staggering—so I thank her for that.
I shall leave noble Lords with a couple of thoughts about France. Data obtained by the Independent from the Carrefour supermarket chain, the second largest in France with a socking great 20% market share, shows that in 2020 it donated 30,371 tonnes of food from its supermarkets, the equivalent of 72 million meals, meaning that a single French supermarket exceeded the donations of all 10 UK supermarkets by more than 6,000 tonnes. France is now ranked number one by the Food Sustainability Index.
The point about that is that people really liked it. It is a very popular law. Meanwhile, the UK’s top 10 chains donated less than 9% of their surplus food for human consumption. We could really change this. After the end of this pandemic, for the Government to say “This is going to go into law” would be incredibly popular. The supermarkets are already three-quarters of the way along the road, and if we can take on board the fact that it should be all of them, we would have a win that would be a good one. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we come now to the group beginning with Amendment 150A. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 150A
Baroness Sheehan
“Air quality: speed limits
(1) The national speed limit for restricted roads in England is 20 miles per hour.(2) Nothing in this section affects the power of traffic authorities responsible for such roads to make exceptions to the national speed limit where appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the number of fine particulates released into the air from non-exhaust emissions (NEE), such as brake, tyre and road surface wear. The Air Quality Expert Group, an expert committee of DEFRA, has found that one of the most effective mitigation strategies for NEE is to lower the speed of traffic and promote driving behaviour that reduces braking and higher-speed cornering.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley. I strongly support Amendments 151A and 151B in the name of my noble friend Lady Randerson. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, have similar aims and also have my support.
The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Tope and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, are ones that I strongly agree with. They are very comprehensive in nature and, if accepted by the Government, would help immeasurably to bear down on the non-traffic-related causes of urban pollution. They dovetail nicely with my amendment, which aims to bear down on traffic-related air pollution.
I should declare an interest as a founder of the campaign group 20’s Plenty for Merton. My amendment is simple: to reduce to 20 miles per hour the speed limit on “restricted roads”, which are defined in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as being roads on which there are streetlights
“not more than 200 yards apart”.
Emissions from vehicles arise from two sources: the exhaust emissions—the noxes, the oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and particulates—and non-exhaust emissions, the NEEs, which noble Lords might not be so familiar with. NEEs are particulates, the majority of which are fine particulates, PM2.5s and smaller. They arise from the friction of rubber on tarmac, brake wear and road dust re-suspension.
Two things happen when vehicles slow down. First, exhaust emissions from vehicles are reduced—much more so from diesel vehicles than from petrol. Secondly, non-exhaust emissions are also reduced, because slower speeds lead to smoother driving, with much less stop and start and therefore fewer finer particulates from tyre and brake wear and road dust. It is these non-exhaust emissions that my amendment is particularly aimed at. No legislation is currently in place to reduce non-exhaust emission particles so, while legislation has been effective at driving down emissions of particles from the exhausts of internal combustion engine vehicles, the NEE proportion of road traffic emissions has increased and will continue to do so.
Those emissions contribute to total ambient particulate matter, in particular the tinier PM2.5s and smaller particles that are so damaging to human health, with an estimated 40,000 premature deaths in the UK alone and many millions more overseas. Just last week, in another debate on air pollution on this same Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, spoke with knowledge and authority on the many ways in which these invidious small particles can damage human organs, particularly young ones. The noble Baroness and many other noble Lords cited the tragic case of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, whose asthma, aggravated by preventable air pollution, led to her premature death. Her death and those of many thousands of others need not have happened.
Data from the UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory indicate that particles from brake, tyre and road wear contribute 7.5% and 8.5% of all primary PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. That is a good 16%, which is quite substantial. The above data is taken from the 2019 air quality expert group report on non-exhaust emissions that was prepared for Defra and the devolved Administrations—so it is a government report that I am referring to. The report recommends that policy development with respect to non-exhaust emissions should recognise that such emissions are an important source of ambient concentrations of airborne particles and—I repeat again—will become more so as emissions from exhausts are phased out. Is that important recommendation something that the Government acknowledge and accept?
A key finding of the report is that the most effective strategy to reduce non-exhaust emissions is to lower the speed of traffic and promote driving behaviour that reduces braking and higher-speed cornering. This is effectively what my amendment aims to do.
I will offer some background. Noble Lords will know that 20 miles per hour speed limits are now widespread across the UK, with more than 21 million people living on such streets. Many of our large cities, including London, Manchester, Bristol, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool and many more, are largely made up of roads with 20 miles per hour limits. Wales is planning to introduce a default 20 miles per hour limit from 2023. It is currently running a pilot in Cardiff and other areas, not to test the concept, which is proven, but to iron out administrative glitches.
Not only are 20 miles per hour speed limits overwhelmingly popular with the public where they have been implemented, they are influencing modal shifts in towns and cities as more people feel safer and more confident about walking on roads where traffic is calmer. There is a real societal shift in behaviour where these lower speed limits have been introduced.
There are a number of other advantages. In moving from 31 miles per hour to 19 miles per hour there is a two-decibel to three-decibel reduction in traffic noise, so noise pollution comes down. Another advantage is that electric vehicles are far more efficient at lower speeds, leading to lower demand on the grid. As a member of the Lords Science and Technology Select Committee I have been listening to evidence to our batteries and fuel cell inquiry, and more than one witness has expressed concern about meeting the demand for green electricity that the move to EVs will generate. We must prepare and plan for that, and any measure that reduces demand will help enormously.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak specifically to the amendments in my name, Amendments 151A and 151B. I also support the other amendments in the group. As my noble friend Lady Sheehan ably and clearly set out the issues in relation to emissions and particulates from vehicles, I will not repeat what she said, for the sake of brevity, but I wish to underline the importance of the information that she has dealt with.
The purpose of my amendments is simple: to set out clear obligations on local authorities to monitor air pollution at those points where it is likely to be highest, such as near busy roads, and where it is most damaging to human health, such as near hospitals and schools—because children are especially vulnerable. They would oblige local authorities to take action as a result of such monitoring and to publicise that action plan.
Local authorities already have powers to monitor air quality, and additional powers to encourage environmentally-friendly behaviour that improves it. For example, stationary idling of a car is an offence under Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It can incur a £20 fixed penalty under the Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002—that penalty going up for late payment. So this is old hat, but the key point is that the fine is imposed only if the driver fails to switch off their engine when asked.
It is local authorities which issue those penalties rather than the police. As all noble Lords will know, local authorities are massively overstretched, with multiple responsibilities and inadequate funding. For many of them, this simply is not a priority, although there are some that make it so. For example, Islington Council had a crackdown on idling vehicles in 2014, and again in 2016, but it is an exception and not the norm. With a host of other powers, such as safe routes to school, pedestrianisation, 20 mph zones—as my noble friend has outlined—low emission zones, the provision of charging points for electric vehicles et cetera, some local authorities are much more enthusiastic than others, and some are simply better resourced to use the powers effectively.
My noble friend referred to the devolved Administrations. In Cardiff, where I live, we are well used to 20 mph zones, which are dotted around the capital city of Wales. Although there was a minor controversy in the early months of their introduction, it has been notable how widely effective they are and how people accept them. Traffic speeds have undoubtedly reduced as a result.
My amendments would establish a baseline which would raise the game for local authorities and ensure that the Government set the high standards and proactive approach, and provide the leadership which will be needed if the UK is to get anywhere near government targets by the dates that they have set. It should be emphasised that if local authorities are to take a uniformly more proactive approach, they need the funding to do so.
Those of us who work with these issues are sometimes surprised that public knowledge and understanding of the impact of traffic and other forms of air pollution is so poor. The tragic death of Ella Kissi-Debrah, referred to by many noble Lords, and the coroner’s ruling on it turned statistics into an understandable human story. She lived close to the South Circular road, but the link between her asthma and her living conditions was not properly understood back in 2013. There is now research evidence from a large study in Lambeth that a period of high levels of air pollution, particularly diesel-related air pollution, leads immediately to a spike in the number of people going to see their GP with breathing difficulties. That spike includes a disproportionately high number of children.
Local authorities have public health responsibilities, and a natural part of those must be to take a more proactive approach to reducing air pollution and to informing their residents of those areas to avoid because they are heavily polluted.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am extremely happy to see so many noble Lords interested in this issue, because it is a massive national health issue that we really have to do something about. I agree completely that “20’s plenty”. Reducing the speed limit to 20 mph would not only reduce emissions and improve the health of people living alongside those roads but reduce the number of casualties—the road deaths and injuries—that cost the nation a fortune in social services, the NHS and policing. Anything to do with lowering the speed limit has a lot of benefits. The only negative appears to be a few irate car drivers who think that it is okay to drive at 80 or 90 mph in towns and cities.
My amendments seek to create a comprehensive system of targets, monitoring and funding to reduce air pollution levels to World Health Organization guideline levels. I know that we are not supposed to get involved in money or government finances, but it is not possible to end this crisis without significant public spending. The Government must make the money available to local authorities to transform their communities and clean up their air.
I first became aware of the huge problem of air pollution in London when I was on the London Assembly. I lived through Ken Livingstone’s eight years and the Boris Johnson’s eight years in power; Ken Livingstone did seem to get this, and the congestion charge obviously helped. In Boris Johnson’s time, we were in the build-up to the Olympics. At that point, there were only two monitoring stations in London from which the EU—it oversaw and monitored our air pollution—accepted information. One of the stations was on Marylebone Road, opposite Madame Tussauds. It is still there, and the intake pipe is some 12 feet above the road. Anybody who understands anything about air pollution knows that it is mostly lower, and that is why we should be very careful with children in prams, but this was 12 feet up. Our air was still polluted and higher than EU levels, so that gives an indication of how dirty our air was then.
My amendments are based on my clean air Bill that I keep putting into the ballot to be debated here. It has had a lot of legal input; I clearly think it is the best, but I am prepared to discuss this. One measure that Boris Johnson put in place because of the air pollution on the way to the Olympic Park was to install quite a lot of potted plants along the roadside. They were very attractive, but I am not sure that they did much to reduce the pollution—but he had been told that they might, so he put them in.
It is obvious that local authorities also need tougher powers to clean up other dirty sources of pollution, so my Amendment 153 proposes powers to prohibit the use of fireplaces, wood-burning appliances, diesel vehicles and other sources of pollutants in air pollution improvement zones. The Government have recognised that something needs to be done on air pollution, and this is a very good Bill to do it in. It will be very embarrassing if we get to COP 26 and still have this sort of pollution problem.
In summary, air pollution is a national health crisis: it costs us billions every year. It affects the old and the young. Several of us have mentioned Ella Kissi-Debrah, who lived next to a dirty, filthy road and died at nine years old because of her asthma. It is children who will have health problems all their lives because of living near polluted roads. This Bill is an ideal opportunity to fix this problem. We know what the solutions are, and they are here in these amendments, so I hope that the Government accept them.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and co-president of London Councils, the body that represents the 32 London boroughs and the City of London Corporation.
I will speak to Amendments 156A to 156M in my name. In doing so, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for adding her name to them, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who has confirmed to me her support for these amendments but sadly was a little too late to add her name.
We are starting now to consider the part of this Bill on air quality and it is, perhaps, interesting and relevant to note that today is the anniversary of the date on which Royal Assent was given to the first national Clean Air Act, back in 1956. The problem is still very much with us; indeed, in many respects, it is much worse than it was then. Air pollution is a very serious problem which affects us all. It contributes to up to 40,000 premature deaths in the UK every year, so I welcome the Government’s acknowledgment of the risk that poor air quality presents to human health.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, this is my first appearance in the Chamber for many a long year—it seems even longer than it actually was—but it is a great pleasure to follow a tour de force by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in his speech, the range of his amendments and his resilience and perseverance in getting them on the statute book.
I asked to speak on this group for two reasons. First, I should declare an interest: I am still a vice-president, and was until recently president, of Environmental Protection UK, which, in its former existence, was the National Society for Clean Air. It was very instrumental in creating the Clean Air Act 1956, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has just referred.
Primarily, however, I put down my name because I had earlier put down a separate amendment to Clause 2 that leads in to what is being discussed in these amendments. We had a self-congratulatory session on Clause 2 because it is of course a very important principle that we set targets, and I congratulate the Government on making one of their first targets the reduction of PM2.5.
My amendments pointed out that that would require substantial monitoring, systems of enforcement and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and others have said, effective powers and resources for local authorities. Of course, it would also have to be recognised that it is not simply vehicular traffic that causes air pollution in our towns and cities but a range of other sites and machinery, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has drawn attention. A comprehensive approach requires a serious transfer of resources to local authorities and a sharpening up of the powers they currently have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, have already said.
I think that this justifies my earlier intervention, and I hope that the Government and Minister can signal tonight that the Government have taken on board the ideas of the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Kennedy, who is not in his place. I hope that, before the Bill completes its passage, we have a comprehensive proposition from the Government, covering all these areas, which will genuinely give the powers and resources to local authorities to implement these measures, and that will make a real dent in the problems of air quality in our towns and cities. I hope that, at the end of this debate, the Minister will be able to indicate that that is precisely what the Government intend to do.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to support the idea that we should go for 20 miles per hour speed limits. The consequences of accidents at 20 miles per hour are much reduced. It makes for a much friendlier environment for walking and cycling and, as the noble Baroness said, it absolutely results in improvements in air quality. We do not need the centres of our towns and cities to be places of rush and danger, particularly with the decline in the viability of our high streets. We want them to be places where people feel comfortable, enjoy being and want to go to for all sorts of reasons. It ought to be easy and conventional. It ought to be the rule that, where people are numerous and we want them to be at ease, we go for a 20 miles per hour speed limit. It is absolutely justified in terms of the objectives of this Bill.
So far as air quality generally is concerned, I come back to the point, which I made in earlier debates, that we must have better research. We are quite capable of it. It is not very helpful to talk about PM2.5 as if this is some universal characteristic; it is just a size. It does not tell you anything about where the particles came from and what, therefore, can be done to reduce their concentration. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, pointed out, in some places lockdown resulted in sharp drops in nitrogen oxides and other such pollutants but no drop in PM2.5, so what is going on here? Were the particulates really coming from diesel engines, or have we, again, been barking up the wrong tree? It is not difficult to find the answer. All you have to do is pick out individual particles, analyse them and find out what their origins are. A particle that comes from burning wood is very different from a particle that comes from diesel—at least on average. A particle from emissions from a heavy industrial source is very different from one from a light engine. We need to do this research, and we need to do it locally, so that we can undertake actions that make a difference.
The main difficulty that I have with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is that they seem to assume the sources of pollution are all local. How do we know unless we have done the research? If we do the research, that immediately gives us the moral and intellectual authority to take action against a particular source of pollution. If we just generalise about these things, we will end up hitting lots of imaginary enemies as well—perhaps—as a real one. It is really important that we get the level of research well up. We should make it local and consistent so that we really understand what is going on when it comes to air pollution.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has withdrawn so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have my name on several of these amendments—namely, Amendment 150A and Amendments 156A to 156M—and I support the others in this group.
Following the 1952 smogs, the Clean Air Act, as we have already heard, came in in 1956 and cut coal smoke from homes. In the 1970s, the output from power stations was high in sulphur dioxide, causing acid rain. Now, there is a lot of research to show that a major source of different particles is exhaust fumes from burning liquid fossil fuels. In 2018, the World Health Organization recognised the effects of these ultra-fine particulates, which are implicated in about 8.8 million excess deaths—around 13% of all deaths globally.
The report The Lifelong Impact of Air Pollution, from the Royal College of Physicians, has shown that it costs £20 billion in the UK alone, through 40,000 deaths per annum, ranging from heart disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, diabetes and dementia—which are all linked to atmospheric pollution.
Our death rates from asthma are the worst in Europe. Three people die every day in the UK from asthma. It costs us £1 billion a year and there are more than 5.5 million people having treatment for asthma now. People with a genetic predisposition to asthma living by main roads have worse outcomes. It does seem there are some groups in the BAME community who have a particular genetic predisposition to a type of asthma that is particularly liable to lead to death. There have been 12,700 asthma deaths in England and Wales since 2010.
The role of atmospheric pollution was shown clearly and graphically by Professor Stephen Holgate to map against Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah’s very severe asthma attacks, including her final and fatal attack, with spikes of nitrous oxide and particulates corresponding clearly to her severe exacerbations. These particulates from fossil fuel exhausts also cross the placenta into the foetus, resulting in a higher incidence of asthma and impaired brain development.
This means it is essential that we tackle this on every front to come into line the WHO guidance as a minimum. We cannot tolerate continuing to allow particulate air pollution, and we must harness positive behaviour and change behaviours. The impact, in fewer heart attacks, strokes and deaths from asthma and lung cancer, would be phenomenal. That is why I added my name to Amendments 156A to 156M, because there is a need to give local authorities the power that they need to protect their own populations.
I will turn briefly to speed restrictions, so comprehensively introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. I endorse every point that she made. Let us not forget that 20 million children have their homes and schools in areas of high air pollution, particularly from traffic.
The report The State of the Evidence on 20mph Speed Limits, by Dr Adrian Davis from Bristol, provides a comprehensive review of the literature. Dropping the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph decreases particulates from petrol and particularly from diesel, as well as decreasing nitrous oxide and CO2 emissions from diesel cars. Road traffic is responsible for 80% of particulate production, and diesel produces tenfold more particulates than petrol. When children are sitting in a car in a traffic jam, their exposure is even higher because cars draw in the surrounding air, which is laden with exhaust from other vehicles.
It has been estimated that a cut from 30 mph to 20 mph on urban roads would result in a drop of over 115 deaths from particulates alone, quite apart from the lower death rate in accidents. When traffic is less aggressive and moving more smoothly in urban areas, there is almost no significant delay in getting somewhere but the whole driving experience is calmer and safer. I should declare that I experience this, because I live in the Cardiff pilot area that has dropped from 30 mph to 20 mph and the benefit is tangible. I hope that the Government can support these amendments.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as one of the 5.5 million people with asthma. In winding up this debate on behalf of these Benches, I first thank the Minister for the fact sheet about the air pollution measures in the Bill. It certainly shows willing, but it also falls short of what we would wish to see and gives rise to a number of questions. In particular, why do the Government remain to be convinced and want a whole lot more consultation about the feasibility of the pollution reductions that we are seeking, despite confirmation from many experts that these things can be achieved and would be accepted by the public?
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, will forgive me for focusing on the amendments of my noble friends, but we also support her amendments, which very much overlap with ours. I support Amendment 150A, moved by my noble friend Lady Sheehan. If the Government were to support Amendment 150A, not only would our air be cleaner and healthier but injuries and lives would be saved because of the reduced speed.
As my noble friend said, electric cars reduce NOx and CO2 emissions, but they still produce NEE particulates from tyres and brakes. A default 20-mph limit would reduce these particulates as well as noise, and injuries and deaths through accidents. Children in particular would be protected from accidents and from organ damage caused by particulates. Will the Minister note what my noble friend said about how people in disadvantaged demographics are more likely to live in areas with high levels of PM2.5?
I accept that local authorities can already designate roads with a 20-mph limit, but my noble friend’s amendment would make it much easier for them, as 20 mph would become the norm in relevant streets. Local authorities are already strapped for cash and have been given additional responsibilities through this Bill, such as imposing civil sanctions where once there were criminal offences, liaising with air quality partners and other matters. However, it is important to consider how legislation could help them to carry out some of their many responsibilities.
There is already considerable support for this measure in Wales and Scotland. In May, as soon as we were allowed, my husband and I went to Scotland for a short break. We noticed how many villages now have 20-mph limits. The traffic moved smoothly, there were no jams and people moved around safely. It was a good example of what can be done and there are similar examples in Wales. If the Minister will not accept this amendment, how do the Government intend to encourage 20-mph zones?
In her Amendments 151A and 151B, my noble friend Lady Randerson wants local authorities to “raise their game”, to be more ambitious about monitoring air pollution and, critically, in publicising the levels specifically in sensitive areas to encourage a change in behaviour, and to be funded to do so. This is particularly important for the future health of our children as well as adults. I hope that the Minister looks at my noble friend’s proposals very seriously. I note the measures already taken, but the fact remains that awareness of pollution levels is low. There may be websites and air quality alert systems, there may be leaflets about smoke control areas and recycling household waste, but the most effective information is gathered and distributed locally, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said.
I welcome initiatives such as the one in Liverpool funded by the air quality grant, which involves children in monitoring the area around their school. I am sure that they would be exerting pester-power and encouraging their parents to walk or cycle them to school, and certainly not to sit outside in their cars at the end of the school day with the engine running, as I have seen outside my local school. However, we need more. Can the Minister explain why we do not need my noble friend’s amendments?
I turn to Amendments 156A to 156M in the name of my noble friend Lord Tope. I welcome the Government’s acknowledgement of the risk to human health presented by poor air quality. That is a major step in the right direction. As we have heard, local authorities have a statutory duty to reduce emissions in their area, but even the Government have recognised that they do not have sufficient powers to take effective action to achieve such reductions, hence some of the government changes in this Bill. Public and government attention has focused mainly on the need to cut emissions from vehicles, but non-road pollution is a major problem, too often ignored, also emitting nitrogen oxide particulate matter that provides a major public health hazard, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. As we make improvements in reducing emissions from vehicles, we must shift our focus to these other sources of pollution too, which is what these amendments do.
We heard from my noble friend Lord Tope about the negligible impact on PM2.5 of the significant reduction in transport activity in London during the pandemic. This highlights the importance of reducing non-road emissions as well as speed, as emphasised by my noble friend Lady Sheehan. These amendments introduce a series of new clauses which would give local authorities additional discretionary powers. Through Amendment 156A, they would be able to designate an area as an air-quality improvement area. If the air quality in that area exceeded WHO air quality guidelines, the Secretary of State could set limits for emissions for a range of these pollutions and equipment. The amendments provide for offences for users and installers who break the regulations, and certain legitimate defences. There are also powers to time limit the use of certain plant which might have a legitimate use in case of a power cut, and to require users to provide relevant information.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, previously in Committee we have discussed the fact that polluted air is a growing national health emergency, and many noble Lords have talked about the terribly sad death of Ella Kissi-Debrah. The Bill provides an opportunity to improve people’s lives, which we must not miss. We support these amendments, which seek to do so.
On Amendment 150A, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, regarding the number of fine particulates released into the air from non-exhaust emissions and the role that speed reduction can play, noble Lords have spoken strongly in support of 20-mph speed limits and the wider benefits to society that those could bring. The noble Baroness talked particularly about the findings of the air quality expert group’s report. I also mention the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, which has made a statement on the evidence for health effects associated with exposure to non-exhaust particulate matter from road transport. These emissions currently comprise just under 10% of UK primary particulate emissions, but they are expected to become proportionately more important as vehicle exhaust PM emissions from road transport are expected to decrease over the coming years.
The committee said that as non-exhaust particles have a different composition—for example, higher metal concentrations—and a different size distribution from those emitted in vehicle exhausts, they may have different toxicological properties and health consequences. As this component of traffic emissions will become proportionately more important in future years, the recommendation from the committee is that new epidemiological and toxicological research should be undertaken to further understand the potential health risk of this aspect of vehicle pollution and to improve a basis for further policy. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas talked about the importance of carrying out research so that we have better understanding. Does the Minister’s department have any plans to undertake or commission such research? Are the Government considering speed reduction in areas of highest pollution?
I turn to Amendments 151A and 151B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. As we have heard, all local authorities have a duty to review and assess air quality within their district. The aim is to identify all areas where air quality is exceeding, or is likely to exceed, the air quality objectives. We agree with the noble Baroness that monitoring air quality standards at schools, hospitals and major roads is critical. In 2019, over 8,500 schools and almost 3,000 health centres were in areas with levels of PM2.5 above that recommended by the WHO, putting at risk the health of millions of children, patients and health workers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned the funding of local authorities, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The burden of monitoring is on the shoulders of local government. If monitoring and compliance are likely to be increased, and given the chronic lack of funding for our local authorities, how do the Government intend to resource monitoring in order to ensure a sufficient degree of data integrity? My noble friend Lord Whitty spoke about the importance of this.
Amendments 153, 154 and 155, all in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, consider the duties of the Secretary of State, local government mayors and the Committee on Climate Change, and how the monitoring of air quality and availability of related data to the public can be improved. She stressed the importance that this information must be accurately collected. But the need for improvements to the monitoring and assessment regimes should not be used as a reason to avoid setting the direction of travel now. As I have already said, we should use this Bill to start driving much-needed action, as soon as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, rightly reminded your Lordships’ House about the increased impact on deprived neighbourhoods if we do not take action.
I come to Amendments 156A to 156M in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. This series of proposed new clauses covers the control emissions from combustion plants. The noble Lord reminded your Lordships’ House that it is the anniversary of the Clean Air Act 1956. It would seem that the problem has not gone away; it has just changed. Combustion plants are a chief source of the power that lights and heats our homes. With a growing population of almost 70 million people, there are understandably tens of thousands of such facilities across the country. According to the latest figures collated by government, there are estimated to be between 30,000 and 35,000 medium combustion plants. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, rightly says, we must have a focus on those emissions—but also local authorities will need the power to take appropriate action to tackle this area of poor air quality.
Finally, I pay credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who has done so much work in this area. I believe that she made the critical points in the debate about the cost to our health and the number of avoidable deaths. The seriousness of this discussion cannot be underestimated, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what further action the Government intend to take through this Bill to start to resolve these problems.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken with such passion, interest and informed intelligence on this subject.
I start with Amendment 150A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. I am sure the noble Baroness knows that local authorities already have the power to set 20 mph speed limits where local needs and conditions suggest that it is required—for example, in a built-up area or near a school. The Government agree with her that 20 mph speed limits can be a useful tool to improve road safety and reduce air pollution, as acknowledged in the Department for Transport’s guidance for local authorities on local speed limits, but they may not be the solution everywhere. Imposed in the wrong places, lower speed limits may increase congestion and journey times, which may in turn increase PM2.5 emissions.
The noble Baroness is right to focus on non-exhaust emissions; we accept the need to reduce them and have legally binding emission reduction targets, including for particulate matter. Non-exhaust particulate matter emissions have become more significant, as emissions from exhausts and other sources, such as coal power stations, have decreased—and this is a phenomenon identified by a number of noble Lords.
The Government are also working with their international partners to develop procedures to test and evaluate emissions from tyre and brake wear, with the potential to produce future regulatory standards. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and my noble friend Lord Lucas, in February, the Department for Transport commenced a significant research project to understand better the measurement techniques, materials, properties and control parameters of brake and tyre wear emissions from road vehicles.
On the general subject of more research needing to be done, I shall write to the noble Baroness, because I think that there is more that we can say to both noble Lords about what the department is doing in this area.
It is therefore appropriate to allow local authorities, working with air quality partners such as Highways England, to determine whether lower speed restrictions are appropriate locally. Schedule 11 to this Bill strengthens the local air quality management framework by increasing joint working between local authorities and relevant public authorities for precisely this purpose. The Government will shortly consult on designation of the first of these relevant public authorities, Highways England.
In addition, last year, the Government announced their plans to implement the moving traffic enforcement powers in Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. This will enable local authorities in England with civil parking enforcement powers to take responsibility for enforcement of moving traffic offences. This can include enforcement of no entry, banned turns, access restrictions, box junctions and cycle lanes, but also includes idling. Although we encourage local authorities to make use of the powers available to them, which include issuing fixed penalty notices, this issue will not simply be resolved through fining. Local authorities, as existing guidance makes clear, should utilise a range of methods to encourage motorists to change their behaviour, including public information campaigns. The Government continue to invest in infrastructure for active travel, including a £2 billion fund for cycling and walking. An additional £200 million was allocated in the previous financial year as part of the Covid-19 active travel fund.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, was a little churlish about Boris Johnson’s initiatives while he was mayor. He did introduce the Routemaster bus and Boris bikes, and he also introduced potted plants, which may have had a little bit of an effect. I just defend him on that front.
We hope that this investment will enable and encourage people to switch from polluting methods of transport such as private cars to cleaner, greener and healthier transport modes such as cycling and walking, which we hope that all noble Lords will welcome. The solution to less air pollution from traffic is less traffic, not just slower-moving traffic.
On Amendments 151A and 151B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and Amendment 155, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, we need to be careful not to be too prescriptive. Local authorities are required to review and assess local air quality and decide what action to take based on local needs. The Government already have a national network of 533 air quality monitoring sites across the UK, which measure air pollutants, operated by the Environment Agency. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. It is not possible to monitor in every location, as this would be prohibitively expensive, so modelling enables assessment of air quality in locations without monitoring stations, allowing more effective investment on implementing policies that will deliver air quality improvements. Local authorities are already required to make their air quality action plans freely available, and they are advised in statutory guidance to do so on their website, as requested by the amendment from the noble Baroness. Specifically on Amendment 155 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, my noble friend the Minister has previously set out the Government’s action on provision of air quality information, including our daily air quality index.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for also tabling Amendment 154. The Government agree that action is needed on air quality, and I reassure noble Lords that the Bill includes several measures to achieve this. In this Bill, the Government are committing to set a new national concentration target for PM2.5 under Clause 2, as this is the pollutant that has the most significant impact on health. We will also set a second ambitious target to reduce the exposure of the population to PM2.5 on an ongoing basis through our long-term air quality target, which must be set under Clause 1.
As my noble friend the Minister has already set out in this Committee, we are taking account of the World Health Organization’s guidance on this matter when setting air quality targets, and will continue to do so, but we simply do not yet know the policies that will be required to meet the WHO’s guidance level for PM2.5, especially in London. Therefore, we do not believe it is appropriate to set such a target, which would affect millions of people’s daily lives, without first levelling with them about the choices and changes that will be required as a result.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I call the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I would be very grateful if the Minister—in writing if not immediately—could let me know what steps the Government have taken or intend to take to enable local action in this area? My particular concern, as ever, is the town of Eastbourne. We are told from time to time that our air quality is bad; we are never told why. What support can the Government offer for properly testing the air pollution we are said to have, so that we can have a proper diagnosis of where it is coming from and therefore direct our local efforts accurately at dealing with it?
Similarly, the current system for trying to get speed limits moved to 20 miles per hour is very time-consuming and difficult and imposes a lot of burdens on the higher county authority. Is there not some simpler way in which an expression of local will might convert into something happening without the need for deep, long consultations? This is a matter of policy and of the direction we want to take a community in. It really should not have to justify itself at every cobblestone.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I think I answered in general terms how much the Bill enables greater local action on air pollution by improving local air quality management frameworks and ensuring that responsibility for addressing air pollution is shared across local government structures and other relevant public authorities. If I can offer him more detail, I commit to writing to him. On that last subject, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked two questions that I failed to answer: traffic management in Northern Ireland is a devolved issue and I would of course be very happy to meet the noble Baroness to discuss further matters.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, reflecting on the Minister’s response to my noble friend on the current Prime Minister’s record on air pollution, would she acknowledge that it was the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who in February 2008 unveiled the plans for the London cycle hire scheme? Will she also acknowledge that the New Bus for London, commonly known as the “Boris bus”, had complete battery failure in 80 models, meaning that they only ever operated in diesel-only mode and emitted 74% more harmful particles than the old diesel buses they replaced?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Ken Livingstone may well have had the original idea, but it was certainly Boris who breathed life into the whole project. I think the new buses were much better than the old Routemaster, and I do not think one can blame him for trying to reduce emissions in London.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken in support of 20’s Plenty. It has been much appreciated. I know it has not been discussed in this House much before, if at all; it is a new concept but I think it is a really worthy one. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, did not feel able to express his support, but I hope in time to convert him to the cause.
I found the Minister’s response disappointing and complacent. Air pollution is such a devastating killer, and it is not a pleasant way to pass away—particularly in light of the compelling and chilling evidence from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who speaks with huge knowledge in these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, had already asked about the Minister’s assertion about 30 mph limits being in place and the opportunity for local authorities to change that to 20 mph. That is exactly the situation we are trying to reverse; it is complicated and costly, et cetera, and it would be far better to have a default limit of 20 mph and for local authorities to have the power to change it to 30 mph or whatever speed limit they think appropriate.
The Minister also asserted that we are looking for less traffic, not slower traffic. The point is that all the evidence shows there is less traffic in areas with 20 mph speed limits, because people are more willing to switch to walking and cycling when traffic around them is calmer. These 20 mph limits are really popular. The national attitude survey on transport shows that substantially more than two thirds of the public are in favour of this. The Atkins report also showed the public were in favour.
I think the Minister was referring to the Atkins report when she said there was evidence that, in some areas, 20 mph limits can lead to higher casualty rates. That report has been challenged extensively, and I believe the 20’s Plenty campaign group wrote to the Government to say it was concerned about some of the report’s findings and to ask what evidence the Government could provide on the use they made of the various comparators in particular. The group has yet to have a reply from the Government; maybe this is an opportunity for it to receive that reply, which would be much appreciated.
The 20 mph limit is popular, practical, cheap and affordable, and there are numerous bodies of evidence to support the social and environmental benefits it would bring. It would be a bold step; it would help tackle climate change and public health issues at a single stroke. I hope the Government will take the amendment seriously, but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw it.
“(4A) The requirement in subsection (4) may be met by consultation carried out before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in inserted section 81A(4) of the Environment Act 1995 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 152. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 152
Lord Whitty
“Air quality and human health in rural areas: application of pesticides
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision prohibiting the application of pesticides for the purposes of agriculture or horticulture near—(a) buildings used for human habitation, and(b) public or private buildings and associated open spaces where members of the public may be present, including but not limited to—(i) schools and childcare nurseries, and(ii) hospitals and health care facilities.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify a minimum distance from any of the locations listed under subsection (1) to be maintained during the application of any pesticide.(3) In determining the distance in subsection (2) the Secretary of State must be guided by the optimum distance that would make a significant difference in air quality for people using the locations listed in subsection (1).(4) In this section “public building” includes any building used for the purpose of education.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
In order to improve air quality and thereby protect human health and the environment in rural areas, this new Clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to prohibit the application of chemical pesticides near buildings and open spaces used by residents and members of the public.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to another aspect of air quality. I move Amendment 152 with a strong feeling of déjà vu. I and my cosignatories, whose support I very much appreciate, argued for a similar amendment to the Agriculture Bill a few months ago. The Committee will recall that the House agreed that amendment. Regrettably, the House of Commons, advised by the Government, did not and rejected it. Ministers’ reasons for rejecting it were partly on the grounds that it would be better considered in an Environment Bill. So, here we are.
I never quite understood the Ministers’ argument since the application of pesticides is surely a matter of agricultural practice, and the amendment was and is about the impact of that practice on human health and well-being. It obviously also has implications for the environment and for biodiversity. I certainly argue the case on both those grounds, but centrally this is about for human health: the health of residents and others in danger of ingesting or touching pesticides because they are close to where crops are being sprayed. Those who are frequently close to, and often subject to repeated exposure from, multiple sprayings—in some cases over years, often of cocktails of pesticides—can develop severe illnesses. Anyhow, we now do have an Environment Bill, so I hope for a more positive line from Defra Ministers. I am encouraged by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is responding to this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I understand that there has been a slight change in the order of speakers. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful for this slight change being allowed for the convenience of the House.
I am glad to be able to speak in support of these very important amendments. I added my name to Amendment 152 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. As he said, we are doing exactly what we were advised to: we are bringing this issue back in the passage of the Environment Bill.
I will not repeat what I said on the Agriculture Act—it is all there on the record already—but I did point out in Committee of the then Agriculture Bill last year that synthetic chemical pesticides were originally developed as chemical warfare in the 1930s and 1940s. These highly toxic substances have now been used in farming for more than 75 years. They carry warnings on them, such as “risk of serious damage to eyes”, “possible risk of irreversible effects through inhalation” and even “may be fatal if inhaled or ingested”. In 1975, the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated:
“The repeated use of pesticides, even in small quantities, can have cumulative effects which may not be noticed until a dangerous amount has been absorbed.”
Here we are, 46 years later, and I am not sure that we have heeded that warning.
Although spraying equipment and the protection of employees doing the spraying is regulated, residents in an area downwind from any spraying have no protection in law at all. These pesticides are known to cause different cancers and have been thought to be associated with birth defects and a wide range of diseases, particularly neuroendocrine and autoimmune conditions. All this is a mounting cost to the NHS but, more importantly, it destroys people’s lives and the quality of their lives.
Amendment 152 aims to provide protection to residents. These airborne droplets in pesticide vapour can settle on the ground and be revaporised in subsequent high heat or windy weather conditions. Several studies have shown pesticides being transported in the air for many miles from where they were originally applied, which then exposes babies, children and pregnant women to these chemicals. We cannot carry on allowing the next generation—whether in utero or after they have been born—to be poisoned by chemicals that are often used as a convenience in farming rather than being absolutely essential.
I also strongly support Amendment 254. Without our pollinators, we will have no food. This Bill is the place to protect this essential part of our food chain.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 254 in my name and fully support Amendment 152 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I am grateful for the information I have received from the Crop Protection Association, Buglife, Friends of the Earth, the UK Pesticides Campaign and others.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, have long campaigned for tighter control of pesticides in order to protect human health and the environment. As the noble Lord has already said, these are issues which we explored in depth during the passage of the Agriculture Bill. Undeterred, we are back again to explore the dangers of pesticides to both humans and pollinating insects.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and also to follow the very expert testimony of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I am speaking to Amendment 152 and 254 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, respectively. Noble Lords will have noted that both have cross-party, and indeed non-party, backing. It is worth repeating, again, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, that the House has already agreed something very similar to Amendment 152 in the Agriculture Bill.
These are apparently two separate amendments about pesticides: one focused on public health, the other more on nature—but of course those two things are not distinct but very much interrelated. They reflect the countryside that is increasingly soaked in poison. That is what pesticides are, by definition. We have been applying stronger poisons, and more of them, more often. In the first half of the last decade, three metrics—the area treated, often measured as spray hectares, the frequency of applications and the number of active ingredients used—all leapt significantly. So, while UK cropland covers about 4.6 million hectares, the area treated is many times larger. Defra figures show that that increased from 59 million spray hectares in 2000 to 73 million spray hectares in 2016: a rise of 24%. The average number of active ingredients per field has risen from 12.8 per hectare to 15.9 per hectare.
Let us imagine actually living next to that field. I am sure everyone has seen the videos: spray nozzles practically brushing people’s windows, other nozzles right up against garden hedges. Imagine being a pollinator—a moth or a solitary bee—going about your business. Your body is gradually being degraded, and your behaviour modified disastrously: all the impacts that we have just started to understand, with 16 active ingredients—poisons—introduced right into the depths of your world and your home.
The person applying the pesticide, quite likely from an air-conditioned tractor cab with protective equipment, has protection—still not enough, but protection. You, the local resident or pollinator, have none. You have no idea what it is in that spray, and even the experts really have no idea what impact that cocktail of chemicals will have. I refer to Defra’s own former chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir Ian Boyd, who, in an article in Science in 2016 said the impact of “dosing whole landscapes” is being ignored, and the assumption that it is safe to so behave is simply false. Even the person applying the pesticides will suffer ill-effects, as a recent Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine journal entitled Influence of Pesticides on Respiratory Pathology set out. It notes that there is a
“significant increase in respiratory problems within the population”
of people working in agriculture because of this.
Turning to look particularly at the pollinators, many of the UK’s most valuable crop, including apples, strawberries and runner beans, are pollinated by insects. The monetary value of that—if you can put a monetary value on it—is put at £430 million a year. Honeybees are important, and there is often a lot of focus on them, but they probably do only 10% or 15% of the work. These wild creatures are crucial, and they are perhaps the ones that are suffering the most.
We are talking about food security being at risk, and in particular the supply of healthy food: fruit and vegetables. The chemical industry will say, “We need these chemicals to grow food”. I would very much agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and others that the closeness between the Government and the industry is a grave concern. There is something of an infamous paper from 2011 titled Without Pesticides, Apple Production in the United Kingdom Would Not Be Viable. Well, I ask noble Lords to look back and think about before we had pesticides: we actually had apples, a lot of apples.
This is where I would, perhaps, slightly disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who talked about convenience. I think what we have is a broken system. Farmers are being forced to use these chemicals, and forced to use production methods to suit the supermarkets and multinational food production. We can produce the food in different ways, and it may be sold in different ways. Potato blight has caused much use of chemicals. There are varieties that can do very well with little or no application of chemicals, that are blight resistant, but they are not necessarily to the exact specification of the international fast food giants, who want their chips all around the world to look and taste exactly the same. But each field is not a global field; it is a local field, and we need to be growing the right crops in that field for the right conditions. This is something noble Lords may already be aware that I am quite passionate about, but I am going to restrain myself here and just make one final point.
In Defra’s 2019 report on pesticide usage on food crops, there is a graph entitled “Area treated with the major pesticide groups”. In that graph, fungicides tower above the rest. The weight of fungicides increased by 5% from 2017 to 2019. Yet, increasingly, as we were discussing a few weeks back in the soil amendments, we understand that fungi are a crucial part of healthy soils. We are heaping a specific targeted poison on our environment to kill the essential life in our soils. This is also, of course, damaging the pollinators that this amendment refers to, and is having impacts on our health.
There is also the issue of antimicrobial resistance. Here we come back, as so many debates do, to Covid. There is something called “black fungus”, which is a problem particularly in India. Its technical name is mucormycosis. It is infecting—utterly horribly—patients already very ill from Covid. Treatment is prolonged and difficult. We have a huge problem with resistance to anti-fungicide drugs. We have also seen, in the US and the UK, increasing levels of infection from Aspergillus and from Candida auris. All these fungi that we target out in our natural environment are a threat to our health. We are using the same kinds of drugs in the environment that we are then using to treat the diseases in our bodies.
In summary, we have a natural world—a world of air and ground in which we live—that is out of balance: a poisoned world. These amendments are very modest. They are small steps towards turning that around. When we were talking about the state of nature and about a species target, the Minister said, “Well, things are going to have to get worse before they get better”. He said we need time to turn the curve around. Well, I would say that in this area there is no time. We absolutely have to act on pesticides now.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and indeed the other speakers to this amendment. I have added my name to both of these amendments. There is really very little to add to what has been said. I found that my main theme was slightly taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I was going to emphasise that, when we talk about pesticides, we are talking about poisons. If you refer to them as “poisons”, perhaps that has a little bit more significance for people.
As has been said, one amendment is about human health—very important—and the other one is about the natural world and pollinators. Although I put my name to it, I could have added some other pollinators that have been left off. I have a feeling that moths and bats were not there. Moths are very important. However, I am not going to quibble about this.
The real point is that we are doing as the Government wanted because, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, the Government said during the passage of the Agriculture Bill that the place for it was not there but in the Environment Bill. So I am delighted that we are doing the Government’s work in bringing this back. I am sure it will have the same reaction in your Lordships’ Chamber and that we will be passing it back to the Commons, so I would have thought it would be wise for the Government to accept these amendments when they can.
Because I am in a particularly generous mood today, I am not going to refer to an earlier life of the Minister, who did sterling work in this area before he had to accept responsibility for government positions. I understand his position admirably and I think that he is doing a fantastic job. I know he has got extremely good history on this and I hope he can prevail with the powers that be.
I look forward to hearing his response—and, indeed, the Government’s response when this comes back on Report, if it is not accepted.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. I also declare my interest as someone who is involved in a major beekeeping operation.
As has been pointed out, this is not the first time that noble Lords have discussed this issue, and no doubt nor will it be the last. I would like to speak against Amendments 152 and 254 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and other noble Lords.
Neither of these amendments achieves anything that is not already covered by existing regulations and practice, but both might be not only counterproductive but harmful to food production in this country. Farmers need to grow healthy, affordable, sustainable food, at the same time as addressing environmental and climate-change issues. It does not make sense to push farmers out of food production, with the consequence of increasing imports from countries with lower standards. We need to accept that the UK has one of the most stringent regulatory systems in the world for the use of plant protection products.
With regard to Amendment 152, the existing PPP regulations cover the impact on bystanders and residents living or working near the area of treatment. There is already a strict code of practice, and incidents of harm and noncompliance are investigated. Operators must have appropriate qualifications and equipment is regularly tested under various protocols and insurance schemes. Please remember that farmers spray only when it is strictly necessary as part of integrated pest-management approaches. PPPs are targeted and not used in isolation. However, failure to use PPPs for weeds, pests and diseases can result in significant crop losses, which have been estimated by some at around 30% to 40% of our food.
Turning to Amendment 252, appropriate and robust risk assessments on all active substances are already performed. With the current pressure on farming to improve sustainable practices, as it moves from the blunt instrument of the basic payment to that linked to public good, there is considerable likelihood that the amount of land under food production will decrease. This will be compounded by pressures for land from forestry and housing. Therefore, improvements in productivity are essential. This will be brought about largely by technology, and agritech in particular. Plant breeding, precision farming and pest control, together with gene editing, are all part of the armoury to make sure that we can feed people in a sustainable and affordable way. Investments in these areas need to be encouraged, not discouraged by introducing more regulation regarding areas that are already sufficiently regulated, with the regulations recognised as being among the most stringent.
Humankind faces many challenges and I applaud this Bill for addressing many of them. But we need to bear in mind proportionality. Let us not, albeit guided by the best of intentions, limit our capacity to feed the population of this country in an affordable way. Just look at the number of food banks in the country today. Empty stomachs have caused many a revolution and riots.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 152 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and colleagues, and Amendment 254 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, regarding the use of pesticides and their impact on the environment. I vividly recall similar debates last year in Committee and on Report during the passage of the Agriculture Act.
I believe, like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that there has to be a level of proportionality and balance, but I live in a rural area and I know what it is like to be impacted by the use of pesticides. There is a clear need for a pesticide management plan, because there has been an excessive use of pesticides, which have been damaging not only to the pollinators, as expressed through Amendment 254, but to human health and the environment, as conveyed by Amendment 152.
Amendment 152 is a cross-party piece of proposed legislation and is crucial in that its focus is the protection of human health and the environment in rural areas by prohibiting the use of agricultural pesticides near specified areas and the vulnerable groups within them, such as rural residents’ homes, schools, childcare nurseries and other healthcare facilities. As detailed in the UK Pesticides Campaign’s submission to the Public Bill Committee, it is highly noticeable that, although human health and the environment are inextricably linked—particularly when it comes to the use of agricultural pesticides—and the Environment Bill includes priority areas for regulations to be set, including in relation to air quality and the listed air polluting impacts, there appears to be a total omission of any requirements for the protection of human health and the environment from agricultural pesticides. Quite clearly, a level of balance and proportionality is required in the use and the location of pesticides.
As it stands, the Environment Bill does not appear to recognise in any capacity or even have any specific reference to pesticides, when in actual fact they are the biggest contributor of damage, pollution and contamination of the air, soil, water and overall environment in rural areas. The UK Pesticides Campaign asserts that the existing pesticides standards here in the UK fail to protect human health and the environment in rural areas.
Because improving air quality is a major public health issue, long-overdue regulations for the protection of human health and the environment from agricultural pesticides now need to be set in the Environment Bill, most importantly for the protection of the health of rural residents and communities—hence the need for Amendment 152 to be put on the face of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, outlined.
Furthermore, on Amendment 254, the reality of crop spraying in the countryside is that it involves the dispersal of innumerable mixtures and cocktails of pesticides sprayed on crops, so the critical point about the exposure of any species—whether it be humans or bees and other pollinators—is that it will be to mixtures of different pesticides.
There is also the risk of adverse impacts on bee health from the cumulative effects of multiple exposures to mixtures of different pesticides. The only way to properly protect bees and other pollinators is to prohibit the use of such harmful pesticides in rural areas. Maybe another way to address this issue would be if farmers were allowed to set aside greater areas that were fully covered by all the subsidy schemes.
The Soil Association wants to see a different approach to farming and the use of pesticides. It believes that the Government and society should support UK farmers to transition to whole-farm agroecological systems, ensuring that there is no lowering of environmental or health standards as a result of any new trade deals, and that they should introduce a clear quantitative target for significantly reducing the overall use of pesticides in agriculture.
Therefore, pollinators must be protected from pesticides as Amendment 254 requires. I look forward to the response from the Minister and I hope that he will see fit to accept both amendments to ensure that our environment, our natural life and biodiversity and the human health of individuals in rural areas can be protected from the harmful impacts of pesticides.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is very good to have the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in the Chamber. He has been very active on the screen but there is no substitute for being here in the flesh. I very much hope that it will not be too long before we see the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, here too. She also has been very assiduous in taking part in debates and making her contributions, but I ask her to come here if she possibly can, please, because that is what proper debating is about.
My heart is entirely with those who have moved these amendments, but we owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for making this a proper debate. I was a Member of Parliament for a rural constituency for 40 years. I got to know many farmers and many of them became close friends. A person I would like to quote is perhaps the greatest countryman I have ever known. Some of your Lordships may remember Phil Drabble and his programme “One Man and His Dog”—he was its originator—but he was far more than an accomplished shepherd. He had his wilderness, about which he wrote books, which was a wonderful corner of Staffordshire with the second largest heronry in the country. I often used to talk to him about these things. He used to say to me, with his inimitable burr, which I will certainly not try to imitate, that it is a question of getting the balance right.
Nobody could dispute that pesticides are indeed poisonous, as my noble friend Lord Randall said, or that their indiscriminate or careless use causes enormous damage. It is right that colleagues in this debate should point out some of the dangers—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, was particularly forceful on this. It is also very important indeed that the dangers to pollinators should be properly recognised. Without pollinators there is only one end, which is extinction, and we have to be conscious of that. But the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was right when he asked us to consider whether the current regulations are adequate. He came down on the side of saying that they were. I am not absolutely convinced, but we have stringent regulations and, although one case of poisoning through pesticides is one too many, there have not been enormous numbers and we have to bear that in mind.
The Minister, who will reply in a few moments, is, as someone said a little while ago, someone with a good track record in this field. I hope that he will bear in mind that your Lordships’ House—as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and several others reminded us—voted for a similar amendment during the passage of the Agriculture Act. I well remember the debate and the graphic and gruesome examples that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, drew to our attention. But, at the end of the day, farming is there for one overriding purpose: to produce the food to feed the nation.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest through my involve at Rothamsted, which carries out research on pesticides and pollinators.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty—and welcome him back—for introducing his amendment on the impact of pesticides on human health with such knowledge and such detail. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for championing the very important case of pollinators, to which I have added my name.
As my noble friend Lord Whitty reminded us, these issues were debated in some detail during the consideration of the Agriculture Bill, and it is right that we return to them today. I very much commend his Amendment 152 because I think that it is a common-sense and reasonable proposal that we have before us today.
During this debate, noble Lords have shown considerable concern, passion and determination about these issues. As noble Lords have said, we are talking about the application of poisons here, so we cannot take these issues lightly. My noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, have given powerful examples of the public health concerns which can arise from close contact with pesticides. As they said, asthma, respiratory problems, skin disorders and even cancers are destroying people’s lives. Sadly, all too often, our experience has been that the health problems come to light when the damage has already been done. We discover in retrospect that what was promised to be safe turned out not to be. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out, we are still learning and we are also storing up problems for the future, for example, given our understanding of the impact that antimicrobial resistance can have on public health.
The point at issue here is the particular concern about the impact on those living and working adjacent to fields that are regularly sprayed. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, at least farm workers have access to protective clothing but no such provision is made for the local population. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that spraying is already covered by the regulations, but the problem is the difference between the regulations and practice. It is obvious that the rules are not being adhered to in their current form, which is why we need to spell out more specific protections. This is what my noble friend Lord Whitty’s amendment does and why it particularly singles out spraying adjacent to homes, schools and health facilities. I would have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would have understood and agreed with that. We are not trying to ban the wholesale spraying of crops; we are just trying to put some limitations on it.
The UN report The Right to Food, published in 2017, highlighted that chronic exposure to agricultural pesticides is associated with a range of diseases, including cancer, sterility and developmental disorders. The local population, rather than professionals, were often subjected.
We welcome the Government’s commitment to reduce levels of pesticide use, combined with integrated pest management. We can all see the potential of harnessing the natural power of biodiversity and the advantages of precision applications in the future. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty that the action plan on pesticides does not go far enough. We have to bear in mind the huge vested-interest lobby trying to draw out the reforms, which are needed more urgently. This does not answer the problem addressed in this amendment: we need to have confidence that, in any consultation, the voice of residents will have the same weight as that of the farming community. This is why we need the best independent scientific evidence to underpin our policies.
The Government clearly feel that we can farm with fewer pesticides. They have said that during the Agriculture Bill and in the action plan since. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, presented us with a false dichotomy. It is not a choice between growing food and public health; we can cut back on the application of pesticides and still grow food but live a healthier life.
However, for the foreseeable future, spraying will still take place and, as the UK Pesticides Campaign makes clear, the real problems often lie in exposure to mixtures of pesticides. Therefore, we cannot just sit back and wait for the technology or for nature-friendly applications of the future. We need measures to protect people from the suffering that is occurring now. It is clear that the regulations in existence are inadequate to protect the local population. I hope that the Minister has listened to this debate seriously and will give assurances that the Government will take these concerns on board.
We also wholeheartedly welcome the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, which would provide added protection for pollinators, particularly bees. We are now much more aware of the importance of pollinators to our crops and to levels of biodiversity, yet since 1990 the UK has lost 13 out of its 35 native bee species. All the evidence shows that pesticides, and particularly neonicotinoids, are seriously harmful to our dwindling bee population. This is why the EU has a ban on the use of neonicotinoids.
We understand the concerns of sugar beet farmers, but sugar beet is a complex crop and ending the ban is not necessarily the solution to tackling crop blight. To quote a much-quoted Michael Gove again,
“Unless the evidence base changes again, the government will keep these restrictions in place after we have left the EU.”
In a Commons debate on the issue earlier this year, the Minister Rebecca Pow said:
“We supported the ban in 2018 and we stand by that now”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/21; col. 262]
So we have to ask what has changed, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has pointed out, the Government have now lifted the ban, even though evidence of its harm has not altered. To the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I say that a risk assessment was carried out, but the Government chose to ignore it.
This is why we support the eminently sensible amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, which would take the decisions out of the hands of politicians and pass them to an expert scientific authority. We need to be assured that the Government are not being put under undue pressure from the business sector to maintain its market access. I therefore hope that the Minister takes both these amendments seriously and comes back with a government proposal that adequately addresses these concerns.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I shall start by addressing Amendment 152 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Noble Lords are right to shine a light on this topic today, and I hope I can reassure them on the Government’s position. The Government fully agree that pesticides should not be used in a way that harms human health.
Under the current regulatory system, pesticides are authorised for use only where a comprehensive scientific assessment determines that there are not expected to be any harmful effects on human health. The assessment, carried out by the Health and Safety Executive, covers all situations where people may be exposed to pesticides. It specifically covers the potential impacts on those who live, work or take their leisure around treated areas. I am not going to pretend that it is a perfect system—if it was, we would not be having this debate. Historically, there has been an unnatural, unhealthy closeness between the regulated and the regulators, here and across the European Union. I remember the lobbying efforts which were deployed to prevent the European Commission introducing a tough approach to the regulation of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. It was probably the biggest lobbying exercise that I have ever witnessed, and I remember writing about it years ago. That situation is true of the UK too, and I suspect of most countries. There is no doubt that despite the existing protections—which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, described as one of the toughest approaches, which is probably true—harmful chemicals have been poured into our soils, our waters and throughout our food chain. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right that the status quo is not sufficient. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack that it needs to be put under the microscope.
With that said, authorisation is frequently refused because the proposed use of the product is not demonstrated to be sufficiently safe to people or the environment. These controls allow pesticides to be used where they are deemed to be safe and where they are considered necessary for UK farmers. Unfortunately, in the current system, pesticides are a core part of the control of pests, weeds and diseases. Without them, it is estimated that UK farmers would produce around one-third less food. At the same time, we must—and do—recognise the need to change the current system and to reduce our dependence on the use of pesticides. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, talked about productivity, and I want to throw into the debate that it is not always the case that large intensive monocultures for export are more productive than the smaller, more diverse and perhaps more traditional farms that they often replace. A seminal report was conducted by the UN FAO and the World Bank, which surprised themselves by discovering that the small diverse mixed farm was productive per unit of land, where the large intensive monoculture for export was often more productive per unit of labour. In terms of getting food off the ground, it is not always the case that modern industrial farming produces more.
Under the 25-year environment plan, the Government committed to developing and promoting integrated pest management. Applied properly, this approach maximises the use of non-chemical control techniques and minimises the use of chemical pesticides, including by pursuing nature-based, low-toxicity solutions and precision technologies. This will reduce risks from pesticide use and the amounts used over time. In addition to that, as noble Lords will know, we are moving to a system away from the common agricultural policy toward the environmental land management system which will be rewarding and paying farmers for the delivery of public goods. That means, among many other things, a clean environment. I add that in their consultation on the draft revised national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides, the Government also committed to reviewing the code of practice that governs all professional users of pesticides. The code’s statutory basis means that it can be used in evidence if people are taken to court for offences involving pesticides.
Turning to Amendment 254, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, she is of course right that the use of pesticides must not put pollinators at unacceptable risk, for all the reasons that she gave and which I will not repeat. It is impossible to exaggerate the existential damage that would be done were we to see the continuing decline of pollinators on the scale that we have seen in recent years, so I will not take issue with her at all on that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I have received one request to speak. I call the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
I am most grateful, and I thank my noble friend for his answer. He may have said this in his reply, but I ask again because I could not pick it up. When authorisations are given for substances, is the mixture—the toxic cocktails, if you like—actually checked? I am no scientist, but I do know that when you mix certain chemicals together, they have a different effect from what they have when they are on their own. I am just wondering whether that is checked to make sure that the effects are not harmful.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend raises an incredibly important point and I have to be honest and say that I cannot give him an authoritative answer. He is right that the synergistic effect of mixing chemicals creates entirely new qualities, and two relatively harmless chemicals, or not particularly dangerous chemicals, mixed together can create something that is lethal. A decent, proper and thorough regulatory system absolutely would test new chemicals as they enter the market on the basis of how they are likely to interact with chemicals that they are likely to meet. I am afraid this is not an area I have any expertise in, but I will look into it as a matter of urgency, and I will write to him and place my answer in the Library.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and all noble Lords who supported my amendment. I find the Minister’s reply slightly equivocal. I have been in his shoes, and I know that sometimes you have to read out stuff with which you do not entirely agree. I rather think that, in the light of his final remarks, that is the position the Minister finds himself in today. Nevertheless, there are some points that we on our side have to take into account, but I ask that the Minister takes our position into account.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for welcoming me, but he was wrong to say that there are relatively few cases. There is a significant number of cases, some of which are due to historic exposure but, nevertheless, there is a large number of cases—thousands. Around the world, there are several tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of people who are seriously medically affected, in some cases lethally, by the use of pesticides.
I applaud the Government's long-term aim of reducing pesticides, in one sense. I would prefer the long-term aim to be the elimination of non-organic pesticides, but that is for the long term. The amendment deals with a very specific and, as I said, modest proposition in the more or less immediate term.
To reply to the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Cormack, the present regulations are not effective. They largely depend on codes of practice, which are not directly legally enforceable. The rights of residents are only minimally covered. I agree that we need to put those regulations under the microscope, but my belief—and that behind the amendment and shared by those who support me and the thousands of people who have been affected by pesticide exposure—is that, having put them under the microscope, we must reach the conclusion that those areas where people permanently live, work or attend must be permanently removed from airborne crop-spraying application of pesticides.
It is not a simple question, and there is not a simple scientific argument, about how far that should be, because the wind changes and methods of application change. I was slightly alarmed, although I think it was supposed to be reassuring, that part of the medium-term development of pesticide application could be the use of drones. On one level, they may be more precise, but on another, they are less controllable. Rural residents will certainly be fearful of that.
All those issues must be taken into account. Some of us may want different and more radical long-term objectives, but the amendment relates to the distance between places where people are in our countryside and where toxic material is being put into the air which they can breathe and which touches them and can affect them and their children.
Any putting under the microscope of the present situation would reach the same conclusion: we need a distance. As I said earlier, the exact distance and regulation is a matter for further discussion with the Government, but the principle needs to be in the Bill, and I shall return to this at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 157. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 73: Environmental recall of motor vehicles etc
Amendment 157
Lord Berkeley
Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause appears to enable the Government to recall pieces of internal combustion engines that are no longer compliant with emissions legislation. This amendment, as well as others in Lord Berkeley’s name, is to probe why trains, ships and aircraft are not included as they are capable of similar emissions.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 158 and 159 and comment on the other amendment in this grouping. This is to do with the environmental recalling of motor vehicles, which covers everything in Clause 73(3). As I read it, this is for the purpose of the environmental impacts, which in Clause 73(6) include
“any impact on the environment caused by noise, heat or vibrations or any other kind of release of energy or emissions resulting from the use of the product.”
I have tabled this amendment to probe Ministers as to why the clause relates only to motor vehicles, which I think are effectively road vehicles, and does not include emissions from trains—there are a lot of diesel trains around—from ships, certainly within UK territorial waters, or aircraft. We have had many debates about emissions from aircraft, although fewer about ships and trains. They all have the same ability to emit harmful emissions and do everything mentioned in Clause 73, a clause that I of course support.
Amendment 159 relates to similar pieces of equipment. Construction equipment, bulldozers and cranes, and agricultural plant or equipment are all powered by motors that emit possibly—in fact, almost certainly—harmful emissions. I want to probe the Minister on why these are not included in this rather excellent piece of legislation. It will be quite difficult to get them into the regulations. On the principle that most of this equipment has motors that cause noise, emissions or a combination of the two, I think they should be included in the same clause.
Some vehicles are major polluters because there are so many of them, and you can include cars and trucks in that. There are probably fewer agricultural vehicles, such as tractors, but some of the ones that I have seen certainly do their bit to pollute the environment. I would be pleased to hear from the Minister why they have been excluded.
There has been a lot of talk of biomass being able to fuel aircraft in order to make them zero carbon, but if we ever got to a stage where aircraft could be powered by a fuel that was 100% biomass, it would need so many hectares of land on which to grow that biomass that we would probably all starve around the world. That is not a long-term solution. Aircraft cause just as much pollution as everything else. Obviously we need to have international agreements on all these issues, but we still need to do our national bit.
So those are the big numbers. Conversely, Amendment 279 in the name of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester and other noble Lords is a plea for an exception to Clause 73. Railway locomotives, road vehicle chimneys and even stationary steam engines emit quite a lot of harmful emissions, but there are so few of them around that one could argue from a heritage point of view that they should be excepted from Clause 73. I shall listen carefully to what noble Lords say about this amendment, but because there are so few of these vehicles around there is a strong argument for excepting them from the clause. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 279, which is grouped with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I tabled it with noble Lords from across the Chamber, the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, because we believe that the members of the heritage steam alliance—heritage railways, steam boats and ships, steam road vehicles, engineering museums and historic houses—are entitled to have confirmed the guarantee given by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, in a private meeting on 25 May and repeated by him at Second Reading on 7 June, that they will be permitted to continue to burn coal. That guarantee should be placed in the Bill and enshrined in the Act when it finally passes.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord said:
“The Government are very confident, as am I, that heritage railways will continue to operate, because although our electricity systems will no longer rely on coal, it can still be used by a range of industries that need it”.—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. 1306.]
In our meeting a fortnight earlier, he said that banning heritage coal use would be a disproportionate response to the clean air and climate change agendas and would damage the great cultural and economic value of the steam sector to our tourism economy. There is no need for me make again my Second Reading speech about the value of the heritage rail sector and other aspects of the heritage steam alliance to tourism and the regional economy in particular. I simply make the point that all Amendment 279 does is to put it beyond any doubt that the assurances Ministers have repeatedly given us that the heritage steam sector will remain in being have the force of law and cannot be reversed without fresh primary legislation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, like all noble Lords, I support this Bill in the round. Having said that, it contains hints of an ugly intolerance; it sometimes gives the impression that those responsible for it know all the answers. A more open attitude would pay dividends and avoid error. After all, a short while ago, some of the same people were confidently and wrongly demanding that we all switch to diesel engines. The truth is that science evolves and new discoveries are made all the time. Humility in scientific matters is essential.
My concern in this group is with a small matter, economically speaking, where I fear an error could be made. It matters because this Bill could bring about the death of Thomas the Tank Engine and his or her nautical steamboat equivalent. Noble Lords will recall my repeated requests for cost-benefit analyses and my concern about the perverse effects of legislation, however important and well intentioned. I rarely receive a satisfactory answer, but that does not mean the request was not valid.
By making it impossible in practice to use British coal for heritage trains, boats and steam engines, we would, I fear, be consigning them in time to the scrap heap. This is unjustified. It is not in the spirit of reuse and recycle, which some of us supported earlier in Committee. Without a small exemption for the use of coal sourced in the UK, we will be importing coal from elsewhere. This would be worse for climate change, as you would have travel emissions as well as the impact of coal use. Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, explained to me this morning—we often agree across the political divide—we are talking about small and often impecunious operators who need one or two suppliers to source, pay for and distribute this coal. What supplier would think of taking that risk if it had to be imported from Russia?
Alternatively, of course, we will be consigning these heritage vehicles to a sad death. That would lead to a loss of tourist engagement and income as travellers move elsewhere, often overseas by air. The rotting of the vehicles and railways would create its own waste pile, and the whole dismal process would be a wholly unnecessary and self-inflicted harm and error. As is often said by our Green colleagues—I am sorry that they are not here this evening—we must look in the round at these resource issues. I am very hopeful that my noble friend the Minister will listen to the concerns expressed by me and others and propose a suitable amendment on Report. Like others, I support Amendment 279.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too support Amendment 279 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. Steam locomotives, in particular, and the associated steam engines employed elsewhere are generally now maintained to the highest standards by the most enthusiastic people, and they bring lots of tourists into the most remote areas of the country. The effect on the areas where these railways and other such things operate is immense. Many areas such as north Wales would be immeasurably harmed if the use of steam locomotives was banned. I want simply to say that I support Amendment 279 with enthusiasm. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said that he has received assurances from the Minister. I hope this is true, and I agree with him that including this in the Bill would be something we would all look back on with pride.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I want to address two aspects of Amendments 157 to 159. First, looking at the underlying clause, what do the Government intend to use these provisions for? Once a motor vehicle has been out in the world for a while, it tends to have drifted a long way away from the ability of the original manufacturer to do anything about it. Is the clause saying that a second-hand car that someone cheerfully bought a year or two ago will be hauled in and scrapped? If so, where is the provision for compensation? If that is not what the clause means, what does it mean?
Secondly, I will take the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, a bit further. If we are looking at aspects of our lives that emit a lot more carbon dioxide than they need to, why are we not looking at cement? Standard cement is a very heavy emitter of carbon, and inevitably so, as it involves taking the carbon dioxide out of limestone. But, as the Romans knew, you can get a very strong material by mixing about 70% standard cement with 30% volcanic ash, in the Romans’ case, or in our case maybe steel slag. You can get a material which is just as strong and durable, yet there does not appear to be any focus on doing that. I hope it will be possible to pursue this with officials between now and Report, to help us understand in which bits of our lives it is considered important that we focus on CO2 reduction, which bits are to be left alone and, in each case, why.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about exactly what this provision in the Bill refers to. The word “recall” usually implies some kind of faulty manufacture which does not live up to the technical specifications. It can also mean something that, when manufactured, seemed safe but has since been proved to be unsafe. At what point has a fault that develops in a motor vehicle got nothing to do with the original manufacture? It could be due to the way it has been used or misused.
When I first read this, I thought that I entirely understood why the Government wanted this clause in the Bill, because I thought that it referred to a series of incidents a few years ago where some car manufacturers made false claims about the environmental emissions efficiency of their vehicles. They went further than that: they taught them to cheat in the emissions tests that we were then following as EU standards—we are still following the same set of tests, but we refer to them rather differently now. At the time, I was aware that the UK Government took rather less strenuous action on this than some other Governments. Therefore, as a result of various government statements, I was led to believe that perhaps the Government did not have the powers that they felt were necessary. When I first read this part of the Bill, I thought that it was a very reasonable requirement by the Government that they should want more powers to deal with this.
It is rather difficult to get through to the true meaning of this because so much of it is going to be left to regulations. If you read this section of the Explanatory Memorandum, it has sentence after sentence saying to us “This is going to be left to regulations” and “That is going to be left to regulations”. It is such a bald original statement with so much to be filled in by regulations. So I look forward to the Minister’s explanation as to exactly what the Government are concerned about.
However, if I am right on that, can I then ask the Minister why the recall is restricted, apparently, to motor vehicles? It seems to me like a remarkable lack of imagination to do so, because manufacturers of component parts in trains, ships and aircraft will have as great an incentive to cut corners, misrepresent or downright cheat in the future as car manufacturers have had in the past. The environmental restrictions and limits that have been placed on car manufacturers in the past will very soon come to aviation, shipping and the rail services, so there is every reason to apply this throughout the transport industry. I ask the Minister to explain why that has not been done so far. I support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his amendments.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 157 and 159, in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, and Amendment 279, in the name of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester. As has been outlined, the amendments in this group have different intentions, but, nevertheless, they allow us to reflect on the fact that, when we consider emissions, it is not just cars that we need to worry about.
Amendment 279 focuses on heritage vehicles and buildings, which have already been the subject of some debate. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and other colleagues across the Committee speaking on this very important point. We need to make sure that we recognise the great value of the heritage vehicles sector. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to add on this particular point.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley’s amendment speaks to other transport modes, including aviation, where progress towards cleaner technologies has been slow compared to the car market. Indeed, when the sector asked for dedicated support during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Government missed an opportunity to strike a deal with airlines and airports to improve environmental performance. The Government also have a somewhat questionable record on rail modernisation. While HS2 is going ahead, Ministers have cancelled the electrification of certain rail lines, meaning that older diesel-powered trains will continue to run.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley touched upon aviation and recognised that it is an area that we have to do a lot more about. I ask the Minister specifically about the discussion around the sustainable aviation fuel concept that the Biden Administration in America are looking at. I know that this is not the focus of these amendments, but it has been mentioned by speakers. What discussions are the Government making in this particular area?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his amendments, and I thank other noble Lords who have participated in this debate. Regarding Amendments 157 and 158, I assure the noble Lord that the Government’s intention in Clause 73 is to ensure that polluting vehicles and non-road mobile machinery not meeting environmental standards will be taken off our roads and brought back into compliance. The policy was designed for motor vehicles, their components and non-road mobile machinery, and it was designed in line with the regulatory framework governing their environmental standards.
In response to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, this is analogous to an equivalent power in relation to safety standards—so, yes, vehicles can be recalled by manufacturers long after they have been on the road if we find that they are not compliant with the relevant environment regulations. Specifically to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, this power could be used to recall vehicles that do not meet the standard that they should have met when they were originally authorised for sale, not standards that have since come in. However, I shall write on the detail of what we should put in those regulations.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I should say that all recalls will be fully funded by the manufacturer, and there will be provision for the Government to compel the manufacturer to pay compensation to the owner. I am also pleased to confirm that train engines, as outlined in the amendment, could be recalled under the legislation as drafted without these amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and others mentioned the incentive to cheat. Increasing the scope to include aircraft and ships would add significant complexity to this regime. These would also be outside the remit and expertise of the intended enforcement authority, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, and would not be within the scope of the Bill nor necessary to achieve the wider policy aims. I reassure noble Lords that there are already robust systems in place to ensure that aircraft and ships comply with environmental standards. Compliance for marine engines already exists through our enforcement of requirements under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Civil aircraft are required to meet the environmental certification standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization before they are allowed to operate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that biomass may not be the way forward to fuelling aircraft but, as the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said, we must encourage research into alternative fuels.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, brought up something that is really rather out of scope of the Bill—cement. It is indeed a heavy carbon emitter, but I am aware of really innovative and attractive solutions being worked up in the private sector that could in time transform heavily carbon-emitting cement.
I move on to Amendment 159. The legislation specifically enables the Government to recall the engine of non-road mobile machinery if it is found not to comply with environmental standards. Again, I want to be clear for the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that his amendment would fall within the definition of non-road mobile machinery, termed “machinery that is transportable” in the Bill, and would already be subject to the proposed recall regime. I thank the noble Lord for his contributions, and I agree with him that it is important to ensure that all vehicles are properly regulated, especially in relation to emissions in air quality. I hope that I have provided reassurance that this is the case such that he will not press his amendments.
I turn to Amendment 279 from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. The Government understand the important contribution that the heritage sector makes to our national culture, and I appreciate the concerns raised by the noble Lord and others who have participated in this debate. I can confirm for noble Lords that heritage vehicles are not within the scope of the legislation, and that includes trains and boats. As for historic buildings, I confirm that local authorities, when declaring a smoke control area under Section 18 of the Clean Air Act 1993, have the power to exempt specific buildings or classes of buildings under Section 18(2)(c) of that Act. They could exempt specific historic houses or historic houses in general from the requirements applying to the smoke control area. The Bill will not impinge on that ability. We listened to the concerns raised by the heritage bodies during consultation on the measures, as well as engaging with the inquiries of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail. I can confirm that there will be no direct impact on the heritage steam sector as a result of this Bill. The Government do not intend to bring forward policy that would have a direct impact on it.
I reiterate that I understand the concerns raised by the noble Lord. I thank him for the recent discussion that he and others, including my noble friend Lord Forsyth, had with my noble friend the Minister on this issue. The Minister and his officials are happy to continue to engage with him as guidance is developed. I hope that the assurances that I have set out at the Dispatch Box are persuasive and that I am able to reassure noble Lords about the Government’s view about the importance of the heritage sector and that nothing in this Bill will impact on it. I hope that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I have had one request to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her assurances in respect of the amendment concerning steam-powered vehicles. I declare an interest as president of the Steam Boat Association of Great Britain and as the owner of a steamboat. Can the Minister explain why she is not prepared to put in the Bill the exemption for historic vehicles of the kind to which she says the Government are committed?
I was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Goldsmith for agreeing to a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, myself and others where he gave that assurance. However, Ministers are here one day and gone the next—indeed, they can be here one afternoon and gone by evening. It is not enough, despite Pepper v Hart, just to have an assurance from the Dispatch Box. We are dealing here with a major industry. I was on a steam train on Friday, the Jacobite Steam Train that runs from Fort William to Mallaig. It was absolutely packed with people—and not all of them were tourists; there were also people from the UK. At every point along that journey where it was possible for people to gather, they did so in order to wave at the steam engine; you could see the smiles on their faces. It is not a lot to ask of the Government to make it absolutely clear that there will be an exemption for these important vehicles.
There are some 400 steamboats in the country that regularly go to events and gatherings. They support an industry and skills that would otherwise die. We are the leading makers of steam engines in the world, with people such as Roger Mallinson and others. The costs of operation are enormous, many of them supported by volunteers for heritage railways and their kind. There are hundreds of thousands of pounds invested in steam traction engines, which we see at every country fair, and in their maintenance. It is important that people have the assurance of primary legislation, especially when we see so much legislation that contains powers for Ministers under Henry VIII clauses, pretty well to do as they like, and which this House can do nothing about by tradition because we do not vote against secondary legislation. Will the Minister say why the Government are resistant to putting a clear commitment in the Bill that heritage vehicles not only are not within the scope of the Bill but are protected from the whims of any Minister?
After all, it was only a few years ago when Michael Gove announced that all coal was going to be banned in households, which has wiped out both coal merchants and the distribution system. It meant that, on Friday, when I asked the driver of the steam engine that I was on where he got his coal from, he said, “We’re having to get our coal from Russia now. That is where we get it from.” I asked, “How much coal does your steam engine burn?” and he said, “Three and a half tonnes a day, and there are two of them and there are many like them.” I find it very difficult to understand how it is protecting the environment to bring coal in on ships and then trying to find a new distribution system to those vehicles. I urge the Minister, as was put so eloquently, to recognise the cultural importance of this and not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I understand the passion that I could detect in my noble friend’s voice. However, I repeat that we cannot list everything that the Bill does not apply to. I can reassure my noble friend that the Government are not doing anything that would impact on heritage vehicles, nor would they plan to do anything that would. An exemption is just not needed because these are not caught within the scope of the Bill. Again, I say that the Minister and his officials are happy to continue to engage with him and others as this guidance is developed.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. We have had a really good discussion, especially about older steam engines. I certainly would support an amendment that put this in the Bill, because it is a really serious issue, and it does affect stationary engines as well as moving ones, as noble Lords have said.
I shall also read with interest and in detail the Minister’s response to my three amendments. I find it odd that we are not looking at legislation that applies to all machines—if you can call them that—that emit emissions. Whether they are air, sea, river or road-based, they all emit emissions, and so to me, they should all be treated in the same way in this legislation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 160A. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 77: Water resources management plans, drought plans and joint proposals
Amendment 160A
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places specific requirements upon water companies to engage stakeholders in the development of plans.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, we now enter the chapter in this Bill on water, which has attracted a lot of attention in both Houses and in the outside world. The first thing to say is that undoubtedly Defra and the Government have recognised the concerns across the nation about the state of our waterways and, in this chapter, have tried to put in place actions to improve the situation. So at least from my perspective, there is none of the indignation I felt when trying to sort out the set-up of the OEP.
I hope all my amendments to this chapter are as helpful as intended. I, and others, are trying to make certain that what the Government are trying to do really works for all those whose lives are touched by our aquatic environment—and that is probably most of us.
Amendment 160A is on “may” or “must”. I know the Minister, in his letter to us today, indicated that the point of the word “may” is to allow the Government to consult, but the Defra fact sheet that also came out today indicates that it has already consulted the water companies on this matter. I guess my point is that, if the idea is good and the water companies have been consulted, it must be done—and this is a good idea.
We know for a fact that some parts of England, notably the south-east, will be stretched to provide enough water for all human needs over coming decades, let alone for nature. If we are going to build 1 million new homes along the Oxford-Cambridge arc and 300,000 new homes every year, which we probably need to, if Southern Water is predicting a supply-demand deficit by 2030 equivalent to 50% of its current supply, and if we are going to get hotter summers, meaning less rain and more evaporation, we have to do some serious planning sooner rather than later, as proposed new Section 39F in Clause 77 rightly suggests we do.
I like the idea of moving water between catchments; I also like the idea of more reservoirs, probably numerous smaller reservoirs, which might be easier to plan, bearing in mind that there have been no significant reservoir constructions in England for over 40 years. I know we are coming on to abstraction later in the Bill, but this is a serious issue that needs serious long-term planning. There is no “may” about it; it quite clearly “must” be done.
The purpose of my next two amendments, Amendments 160B and 160C, is just to bring the necessity of putting the all-important wider consultation process, and the stipulation of who is to be consulted, under the “must” part of the clause as per Amendment 160A. Note that this is consultation on what the regulations should cover, not on whether they should actually be introduced because, in my view, they should all be “must”s. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my environmental interests as in the register. I support the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and his Amendment 163A, which encourages sewerage under-takers to consider nature-based solutions for wastewater treatment.
We have new and emerging threats in trying to treat wastewater. We have microplastics and increasing levels of hormones and other pharmaceuticals, as well as an increasing range of chemicals flushed down toilets to clean them. These are called contaminants of emerging concern—CECs—and the traditional approach would be to use different and even stronger chemicals to neutralise them, although I am not sure how one can neutralise microplastics. This is where nature-based solutions can play a big part. We all know that nature-based solutions near and on rivers can reduce flooding, cut down on nutrients getting into rivers and the sea and improve biodiversity. They can do the same thing before treated water even gets to the rivers.
In the next group is the new clause from my noble friend the Minister on stormwater overflows, which is long overdue. We must stop ordinary rainwater from entering the sewerage system and adding millions of gallons of clean water to wastewater, making the whole lot in need of treatment. In addition, we need a campaign to educate householders not to pour gallons of poisonous cleaners down the loo. I think we are still trapped—well, some older noble Lords might remember this—in the old Harpic advert of the 1980s, with its slogan of it being essential to clean “right round the bend”. It was a great slogan that has encouraged millions of us to use unnecessarily powerful chemicals to tackle a non-existent problem of cleaning sewerage pipes and not just the toilet itself.
In addition to reducing the amount of water which becomes wastewater in need of treatment and reducing the poisons we add to it, we need sewage treatment works to adopt, where possible, alternatives to chemical treatment. The main alternative has to be reed beds, which work exceptionally well and do a perfect job. Of course, reed beds and treatment require space and they are not the solution for many urban areas but they can be a much greater solution than they are now. Amendment 163A merely states that a sewerage undertaker in its management plan must address
“the opportunities for nature based solutions”.
As I read it, there is no compulsion, no fixed targets; it merely asks them to look at the opportunities to do it. In my opinion, that does not impose an unreasonable burden on them and I urge my noble friend the Minister to accept it, or accept the concept, anyway.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I welcome this part of the Bill. I refer to my interests as in the register, in particular that I am vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities and that I worked with the Water Industry Commission for Scotland for a number of years. I also declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Water Group. I welcome Amendments 160A, 160B, 160C as probing amendments and would like to follow up the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra.
In the regulations to which the Government refer, and as referred to specifically in the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, it would be helpful to know who the consultees are. I wish to place on record what an enormous difference it has made since the Environment Agency became a statutory consultee to applications for major new developments. I know that at one stage drainage boards themselves would have liked to have been considered as statutory consultees in relation to similar amendments, but they are focused more now on the provisions of the Bill which relate to drainage authorities, which I personally welcome, and which we will come to later. It is essential in my view—and I do have an amendment down to this effect—that water companies be considered as statutory consultees, for reasons which we will discuss elsewhere.
I welcome the references to water efficiency in earlier parts of the Bill, and I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, referred to water moving between catchments. Catchment management control is a very positive way forward. He also referred to reservoirs. Has my noble friend the Minister had the chance to look at—and, if not, will she look at—the most recent advice given by Professor Balmforth on reservoirs? I particularly support what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said about smaller reservoirs, particularly in the context of what my noble friend Lord Blencathra said about nature-based solutions. We had an extremely successful scheme with the Slowing the Flow at Pickering pilot project, which only involved public bodies, and I am delighted to say that Pickering has not flooded since we have had this scheme in place. I pay tribute to all the partners—albeit public partners—that have been involved. We can slow the flow not just by building reservoirs, as those of a particular size do pose problems because of the current legislation, but smaller bunds and dams, and smaller reservoirs all have a role to play.
I welcome these as probing amendments to see specifically what form of consultation the Government have in mind in the context of these provisions in Part 5.
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and I welcome the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on the important issue of consultation.
As noble Lords are aware, the Bill as currently drafted would delete subsection (8) of Section 37A and subsection (7) of Section 39B of the Water Industry Act 1991, which provide for a list of statutory consultees that “shall” be consulted, to use the wording in that Act. It replaces those subsections of that Act with a new Section 39F which would allow, but does not require, the Secretary of State to make provision for preparing and publishing a water resources management plan, a drought plan and a joint proposal. It fails to set out the list of stakeholders which must be consulted, as required in the existing Act. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, would address that.
I note that, back in 1991, it seems that Bills that came before Parliament were a lot less equivocal than what we have now. The word “shall” rings out throughout the Water Industry Act 1991, whereas the word “may” is the dominant phrase of this Bill. Of course, the use of “may” puts far more power in the hands of Ministers and far less power in the hands of Parliament. Beyond the issues directly addressed in these amendments, there are a number of subsections in the new Section 39F which involve “may” where, in my view, a “shall” would be much the preferred formulation. Section 39F(5), for example, provides that
“regulations may make provision for the purposes of ensuring that persons likely to be affected by the plan or proposal have a reasonable opportunity to make representations to the Minister.”
Again, it would be useful if that was a “shall”, and the Bill would be considerably improved if most instances of “may” became “shall”. But for the moment, we on these Benches are happy to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 160A, 160B and 160C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. This is the first of a number of debates on water. While they cover different aspects, they are all important and we hope that the Minister will have detailed responses to the questions asked this evening. This set of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, is relatively straightforward but could have a significant impact on the success of the various plans envisaged under this chapter of the Bill.
Consultation is an area that has been raised repeatedly thus far, with many colleagues feeling that the requirements throughout the Bill—whether on targets, environmental improvement plans, waste or water—are insufficient. The Minister may well say that water companies are already subject to a variety of requirements around consultation and community engagement, but current arrangements clearly are not working. Environmental performance is not good enough, and neither is customer satisfaction.
I totally agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said about tightening the language. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, later agreed, nature-based solutions will play a big part. I totally agree that “opportunity” is vague. We need to have stronger and more definitive language to ensure that the process of consultation and working with stakeholders in relation to this landmark Bill does not end up being a process of post hoc rationalisation of predetermined decisions.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for tabling these amendments. Before I turn to them, the noble Lord made a point about the use of “may” versus “must” in legislation, which I hope is helpful to touch on in a general sense before I go into the specific use of “may” in relation to his amendment. The Environment Bill, as with other primary legislation, provides powers for the Secretary of State to make some regulations by using the word “may” and others using the word “must”. I assure the noble Lord that where we have used “may”, it is because we want to regulate effectively, allowing for effective consultation and proper consideration. The term “must” is used to impose a statutory duty to take a specified action—for example, to make regulations—as soon as it can reasonably be achieved; the term “may” provides a power to take that action while preserving some flexibility to make regulations as and when appropriate.
On Amendment 160A and the specific use of “may” here, the Government understand that water undertakers need certainty about the requirements for fulfilling their duties when preparing water resource management plans, drought plans and joint proposals. However, when exercising these powers, Ministers will need flexibility to be mindful of when to introduce new water planning requirements. This is to avoid causing unnecessary impacts on the preparation of water companies’ plans, which are revised every five years and prepared by water companies at different times within their own five-year cycle.
On Amendments 160B and 160C, the Government recognise that planning for water resources is strengthened by the involvement of a range of stakeholders. It is the Government’s intention that these stakeholders are involved in the preparation and delivery of these plans in England. Clause 77, as drafted, enables Ministers to set out in regulations who should be consulted. Under existing powers, Ministers have set out a long list of relevant consultees in the Water Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007 and the Drought Plan Regulations 2005. The clause as drafted will enable the Government to set out in regulations all existing statutory consultees—including, for example, water companies, the Environment Agency and Ofwat—as well as a range of other stakeholders to be consulted. Therefore, I am pleased to confirm that the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment is already delivered by the clause as drafted.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Cameron of Dillington, mentioned reservoirs. These measures will support ongoing work to improve regional water resources planning, as set out in the Environment Agency’s national framework for water resources. They will help to improve the assessment and selection of water resources, such as water transfers or shared new reservoirs, which will provide shared benefits.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and hope that I have provided enough reassurance for the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this very short debate. These amendments were very much probing amendments that were designed, I hoped, to provoke a robust declaration of intent from the Government—which, if I understood the noble Baroness’s remarks correctly, we actually got, so I am pleased to thank her for that. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his remarks on nature-based solutions, and I will save my remarks on those for a later grouping, if I may. So, again thanking all those who took part, and in the hope of further positive statements on water from the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 161. Anyone wishing this press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 161
“Duty on water companies: untreated sewage
In Part 1 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after Chapter 1 (appointments) insert—“CHAPTER 1ZADUTY ON WATER COMPANIES: UNTREATED SEWAGE17ZA Duty on water companies: untreated sewage (England)(1) A water company in England must take all reasonable steps to ensure that untreated sewage is not discharged into inland waters.(2) The Secretary of State, the Authority and the Environment Agency must exercise their respective functions under this and any other Act to seek to secure compliance with that duty.(3) In this Chapter, “water company” means any company holding an appointment under Chapter I of this Part (appointments).17ZB Requirements in connection with section 17ZA duty Reasonable steps to be taken by water companies in accordance with the duty under section 17ZA include, but are not limited to—(a) maintaining and publishing a register of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and any other sewer catchment assets from which discharges of treated or untreated sewage may be made to inland waters;(b) publishing biannual reports on the operational status of those assets;(c) progressively installing capacity to monitor continuously all discharges of treated or untreated sewage into inland waters from those assets and publishing the data so obtained;(d) monitoring and publishing reports on the quality and duration of discharges made from CSOs;(e) as part of drainage and wastewater management plans, setting out steps to ensure that—(i) biological or nature-based treatments are progressively installed where practicable and made operational at wastewater treatment works discharging to inland waters that do not otherwise provide for the tertiary treatment of effluent; and(ii) reliance upon CSOs is progressively reduced; and(f) any requirements specified by the Secretary of State under section 17ZC(2)(b).17ZC Report on measures to assist water companies in fulfilling section 17ZA duty(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on measures to assist water companies in fulfilling the duty in section 17ZA—(a) within one year of this section coming into force; and(b) in every calendar year after the year in which that first report is published.(2) Each report under subsection (1) must for each of the measures listed in subsections (3) to (7) set out—(a) the Secretary of State’s assessment of the contribution that measure could make to reducing treated and untreated sewage discharges to inland waters in England; and(b) what steps, if any, the Secretary of State intends to take in connection with that measure, including any specific requirements on water companies in relation to their duty under section 17ZA. (3) Measures intended to separate surface water and sewage collection including—(a) requiring all new developments of more than two residential or commercial buildings to have separate surface water and sewage collection systems;(b) bringing Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 into force for England;(c) requiring all new surface water collection systems to incorporate sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS);(d) requiring all major retrofitting or redevelopment projects of buildings where practicable to incorporate SUDS and separate surface water and sewage collection systems; and(e) amending strategic guidance to the Authority to require it to facilitate capital expenditure on—(i) nature-based drainage systems, such as integrated constructed wetlands, and(ii) SUDS.(4) Measures intended to reduce the volume of sewage produced by domestic properties, including—(a) requiring by 2025 all domestic properties to have a metered water supply when being leased, rented or sold;(b) requiring the Environment Agency to maintain a register of all private sewage treatment systems;(c) amending Building Regulations to require efficient processing of grey water (sullage);(d) requiring all new domestic and commercial outside ground-level surfaces where practicable to be made from permeable materials; and(e) introducing water efficiency labelling on household appliances.(5) Measures to reduce the polluting content of sewage, including—(a) establishing a regulatory standard for flushable products;(b) prohibiting the use of plastics in sanitary products and wet wipes;(c) reducing the use of microplastics in flushable products; and(d) prohibiting the disposal of fats and oils into sewers by food service establishments.(6) Measures intended to reduce the impact of CSO discharges, including—(a) requiring the Environment Agency to work with water companies in reducing harmful discharges from CSOs; and(b) directing the Environment Agency to research the effects of CSO discharges on water quality in inland waters and water bodies.(7) Measures intended to promote improvements in bathing water quality in inland waters, including—(a) setting statutory targets for the increase in the number of bathing waters classified as “good” or “excellent”;(b) designating a minimum of two inland bathing waters, to include one in-river inland bathing water, in each water company area for each year of any price review period; and(c) amending strategic guidance to the Authority to require it to facilitate capital expenditure on the improvement of water quality in inland bathing waters. 17ZD Reports on performance against section 17ZA duty (1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the performance of water companies against the duty in section 17ZA—(a) within one year of this section coming into force; and(b) in every calendar year after the year in which that first report is published.(2) Reports under this section must include assessments of—(a) the performance of the sewerage assets of each water company; and(b) the quantities of treated and untreated sewage discharged into inland waters from those assets.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts into the Environment Bill the provisions of the Sewage (Inland Waters) Bill, which was prepared by Rt Hon Philip Dunne MP in the last parliamentary session.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving Amendment 161 in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Hayman and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Our amendment would insert a new clause based on the wording of the excellent Private Member’s Bill tabled in the Commons by Philip Dunne, which fell without a Second Reading. It sets out the requirement for water companies to take all reasonable steps to ensure that untreated sewage is not discharged into inland waters. It sets out the responsibilities of the Government and the Environment Agency to ensure compliance. It sets out the monitoring, reporting and wastewater treatment plans that need to be in place. It sets out the requirements to separate surface water from sewage, reduce the volume of sewage, reduce the polluting content of sewage and increase the quality of inland bathing waters. It would require the Secretary of State to report on progress in delivering this duty within one year of the section coming into force, and every year thereafter.
I gather that there have been a number of discussions with Philip Dunne since his Bill was published and that the Government committed to take his Bill forward. I understand that this is what the Minister’s Amendments 165 and 300 are meant to achieve. But, by any measure, the Minister’s amendments are pale imitations of the original. Gone is the obligation on water companies to ensure that untreated sewage is not discharged into inland waters, combined with the obligation on Governments and the Environment Agency to secure compliance. Instead, in the Minister’s version, the Secretary of State must simply prepare a plan, which may include proposals to reduce sewage being discharged by storm overflows. It also includes several exemptions, which could undermine the whole intent of the clause. This is more than a difference of semantics; it fundamentally changes the tone and the urgency of the amendment, when what is needed is swift and strategic action to end the pollution caused by storm overflows.
We therefore also support the series of amendments to the Government’s amendment tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, which put the original bite back into the clause by adding back the duty on water companies, taking out the exemptions and adding in dates to give a greater sense of urgency. These amendments achieve much the same as our original Clause 161 but by a different route.
This issue is urgent. Our rivers and inland waterways are being routinely polluted by raw sewage. It is affecting our biodiversity and wildlife and putting human health at risk. A recent report from the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology shows that water companies are being allowed to unlawfully discharge raw sewage into rivers at a scale at least 10 times greater than the Environment Agency’s prosecutions indicate. Professor Peter Hammond found that, although there were 174 prosecutions of water companies between 2010 and 2020, in the same period there were 2,197 potential breaches recorded.
Earlier this year, Thames Water was fined £4 million when the sewage treatment pumps failed one night in 2016, allowing what was described as an “avalanche of foul waste” to spread over Green Lane recreation ground. Enough toilet paper to fill 2,500 refuse bags was recovered from the scene. It seems that our outdated sewage infrastructure cannot handle the pressures of increased population and climate change that cause these storm surges.
At least that case finally came to court. The fact is that the Environment Agency can no longer cope with the pressures on it, due to huge funding shortfalls. In a letter to the Secretary of State this year, the chair of the Environment Agency, Emma Howard Boyd, wrote that the drop in grant had forced it to reduce or stop critical work such as responding to environmental incidents, allowing it to attend only the more serious ones. In the meantime, the latest data shows that every river in England is polluted and is failing to meet the minimum water quality test—and, as we know, we have the lowest bathing water quality of any county in the EU.
So this is an urgent issue, and the Government’s proposals in the Bill are just not good enough. I therefore hope noble Lords will support our amendment and those in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I beg to move.
Amendment 161A (to Amendment 161)
Lord Chidgey
“(3A) Measures intended to reduce reliance upon septic tanks and cesspits in rural communities, including requiring the progressive connection of such rural communities to main sewers.”
Lord Chidgey (LD)
It was—I was going to say “delightful”, but that sounds rather patronising and I do not mean that at all. It was “reassuring” to hear the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, because I cannot find a single word to disagree with. Nevertheless, I have a few points to add to this debate. I hope to speak to Amendment 161, the insertion of the Philip Dunne Bill, but also Amendment 161A in our name, on the reduction of the number of septic tanks, and Amendments 165 to 174.
We are advised that, despite years of investment, sewage and agricultural pollution still plague the UK’s rivers and coasts. Only 16% of inland waterways in England meet good ecological status, none of them passes the chemical tests and the UK now ranks last for bathing water quality in Europe. We could have a separate, long discussion about where the assets of our water companies throughout our land have gone since the companies were privatised; they certainly have not got into investing in and improving the facilities.
Water users who interact with water are also being put at risk of contracting harmful illnesses and antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, and I want to return to that issue later. The overwhelming cause of this pollution is the UK’s outdated infrastructure, which cannot handle the pressures of increasing population, urbanisation and climate change. Water companies are therefore routinely relying on combined sewer overflows, CSOs, so graphically described by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to manage demand.
Amendment 161 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, brings back into play the provisions of the Private Member’s Bill prepared by the right honourable Philip Dunne MP, which, I am actually appalled to hear, never got to Second Reading in the previous Parliament. Its provisions will be a welcome addition to the Bill. Again, we shall return to that later, I am sure.
Amendment 161 seeks to achieve the progressive reduction of managing domestic sewage waste through septic tanks discharging into rivers. They are mainly located in rural or semi-rural areas unconnected to mains sewers, and are often inefficient and poorly maintained. I understand that in continental Europe, septic tanks are being progressively phased out and are becoming increasingly rare, yet in the UK it has become a national issue yet to be addressed as a primitive legacy of a pre-industrial age.
This is again primarily a question of investment in sewerage infrastructure to connect to the large number of sewage works already handling sewage from smaller communities. As part of that investment, phosphate strippers should be fitted at sewage works serving communities of 5,000 or more. This would start to address the extensive algal growth now known to be as likely to be associated with sewage works as with farming. The investment comes at a cost, but it should be to investors rather than customers.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 161B does not sit very well with the rest of the amendments in this group. It is effectively about the reduction in demand for treated water, whereas most amendments in this group deal with sewage. I strongly support those amendments moved by my noble friend Lady Jones, and tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey—particularly in relation to chalk streams—and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
However, my amendment deals with something entirely different; I tabled it because I thought that as soon as provisions on water appeared in this Bill there ought to be a declaration that one of our main aims is to reduce the demand for water in our system, which not only puts pressure on the system but has carbon implications. At present there is no real regulation driving more efficient use of water in the home or in industry. Therefore, my amendment would require the Minister to set a 10-year strategy to reduce domestic demand. Many of the experts say that it needs reducing to be sustainable and resilient; it must be reduced by about a third. Our domestic use of water is considerably higher than that of many of our European neighbours. In order to achieve that, we will need measures of metering, new water efficiency schemes, water appliance standards and labelling, and much stronger building regulations that require efficient appliances and piping to be installed.
I realise that others want to get on to the sewage amendments. I also realise that there are other amendments covering the same territory as mine, which come after Clause 87. I still think that it would have been useful at the beginning of the section on water to make a declaration about water efficiency. If it is not there, however, I will support amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when we reach that group after Clause 87.
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Her Amendment 161, as she said, is nearly identical to an excellent Private Member’s Bill tabled in the other place in the last Session of Parliament by the right honourable Philip Dunne, Member of Parliament for Ludlow, to whom I pay tribute. It is an excellent Bill; it is a pity that it never got a Second Reading, but my concern is that, as an amendment, there is so much in it that I doubt whether there is a majority in this House to vote for it in its entirety.
At the beginning of this Session of Parliament, the Government announced that they would take over most of the components of Philip Dunne’s Bill by tabling amendments in this House. The result this evening is government Amendment 165. However, I do not think—and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, feels the same—that Amendment 165 goes nearly far enough. Therefore, I have tabled a number of amendments which we are now debating in this group. I have also tabled some amendments to Clause 78, which will be debated in the next group.
I must describe first to your Lordships the purpose of all my amendments. To me and to many others in this House and elsewhere, it is completely unacceptable that in the 21st century raw, untreated sewage continues to be discharged into our rivers. I suspect that the two respected Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and Rebecca Pow in the other place, also find it unacceptable, but government Amendment 165 commits the Government to lay before Parliament by September of next year a plan only to reduce such discharges. To my mind, and I hope the Minister will not mind me saying it, this is an inadequate response to a most disagreeable state of affairs affecting the environment in general and the quality of water in our rivers in particular.
My Amendment 166 would place an obligation on the water companies to prevent any untreated sewage being discharged and not just to reduce the discharges, as the Government propose. The amendment would also require the Secretary of State, the office for environmental protection and the Environment Agency to use their powers to secure compliance by the water companies. Regrettably, there is evidence that illegal and unjustified discharges are occurring regularly with apparent impunity.
My Amendment 167 would strengthen the government amendment by inserting “and eventually eliminating” after “reducing”. The Government are not being bold enough if they plan simply to reduce discharges, which must surely be eliminated in a country which is trying to leave the environment in a better state for future generations.
My Amendment 168 seeks to replace “may” with “must” for a number of provisions in the government plan. A plan which only “may” reduce the need for discharges, “may” require the treatment of sewage discharged by storm overflows, “may” monitor the quality of watercourses and “may” obtain information on storm overflows is clearly inadequate in the face of 403,000 discharges in England last year.
My Amendment 169 requires that the plan includes proposals for nature-based solutions, which my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington has already referred to. It is surely desirable that reed beds, for example, should at least be considered, where possible.
My Amendment 170 proposes a new subsection to the government amendment, to ensure that progress is made every year and that, by 2025, full monitoring is in place. It is essential that those who enjoy rivers—swimmers or anglers—have access to information on discharges in real time.
My Amendment 171 seeks to bring forward the date by which Ministers must bring their plan to Parliament. The proposed plan was announced in May; for the department to have given itself 16 months to do the work shows a certain lack of urgency. These revolting discharges are happening every week, and it seems appropriate to put Ministers and their officials under greater pressure to come up with a solution.
My Amendment 172 would add, through the Secretary of State, some important further requirements on the water companies. It will be necessary to report in detail the extent to which discharges have occurred and the adverse impact on public health. The effect on public health of these regular discharges of raw sewage is, to my mind, not yet fully understood, neither by the experts nor the public.
As I go through these amendments, I would like to say in passing that I support Amendments 172A and 172B in the name of my noble friend Lord Cameron. Storm overflows should certainly only ever occur in extreme weather conditions.
My Amendment 173 is similar to Amendment 172, but places the obligations on the Environment Agency in its reporting to address the extent to which the water companies have complied or will comply, and to give its assessment of the impacts on public health.
My Amendment 174 would effectively delete the let-out clause in the government amendment, whereby the water companies would not have to report discharges if there had been an electrical or mechanical failure or a blockage elsewhere in the system. To me, that is a most surprising exemption—a huge loophole. Disclosure and publication of these very problems would undoubtedly make the water companies tackle the issues concerned with greater urgency.
I also support Amendment 175, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and others. Installation of grey water systems is eminently sensible and long overdue.
To conclude, government Amendment 165 is very welcome, but it really needs strengthening, and my amendments seek to do that. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for signing them. These matters should never be party political, and I hope that there will be cross-party support for our attempts to improve the Bill and to make significant progress in cleaning up the rivers of England.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a real honour to follow the powerful and authoritative speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I agree with every word he said.
I will first speak to Amendment 161, to which I would have put my name had there been more room or had I got there soon enough. Although most of the content of this amendment has now been superseded by other amendments to this Bill, as a general approach to the appalling pollution of all our rivers it still holds good. However, we will cover CSOs, SuDS and water metering in this and future groupings, and we have already spoken about flushable products, so I will not touch on those aspects at this time. But there is one area in this amendment—I am sure there are others—which is not really covered by other amendments and which caught my attention: the question of designated bathing spots.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is one of the groups of amendments which really ought to be just swallowed wholesale by the Government. It has some excellent amendments in it.
I have signed Amendment 161, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, because it is a really good amendment with some very practical solutions for cleaning up our rivers. The way that we as an industrial society treat our rivers is one of the grossest examples of the way we trash our planet. We see rivers as little more than a dumping ground we can use to dispose of our rubbish when we cannot be bothered to sort out our waste disposal systems. It is time to stop that.
In particular, Amendment 161 emphasises the importance of nature-based solutions and other ways of separating our sewage from the clean water that falls on the surface as rain. It is absolutely absurd that we mix these two things together, instantly turning clean rainwater into raw sewage that, as far as we are concerned, is good for nothing. There are a great many nature-based solutions for treating sewage water. In the US, more than half of sewage is treated to become organic fertiliser, although some recent studies show that this can be contaminated by the inclusion of industrial waste. As long as we remove or cut out this waste, there is no reason why the UK cannot develop a well-regulated, safe industry to turn our domestic wastewater into useful resources like that. Alternatively, there are fascinating natural wastewater systems such as constructed wetlands, which use a combination of natural processes to create safe water, with the excellent secondary benefit of creating central wetland habitats.
I know that the Minister is keen on nature-based solutions, so I hope that he can expand on the Government’s plans for using nature to clean up our water and reach zero river sewage. Quite honestly, if I had to pick one amendment as the most crucial, it would have to be Amendment 166 tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, which sets the essential target of zero discharges of untreated sewage into rivers. This is the level of ambition that we should be working towards as a matter of urgency.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and other noble Lords who have spoken in support of this group of amendments dealing with sewage overflows. As I stated at Second Reading, action is needed now because time is short, particularly as we are experiencing much longer periods of heavy rainfall. It is imperative that water companies upgrade their facilities to address this issue and help improve our environment in the light of climate change. I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my voice to these amendments, which address the problem of untreated sewage and propose other measures to prevent further destruction of our aquatic environment.
We are witnessing a gradual but destructive process which is reducing wildlife habitats and choking plant life; it cannot continue. The Environment Bill should be strengthened to place a legal duty on water companies to reverse these impacts on the environment and, in particular, public health, and to help reduce the negative impacts for both young and old, who enjoy aquatic leisure pursuits.
Water companies must take all reasonable steps to prevent the flow of untreated sewage from storm overflows into our rivers, lakes and coastal waters. It has to be stopped. We simply cannot keep saying that just a reduction is necessary; we must go much further, working towards eliminating these discharges. The harm caused by sewage discharges is a serious issue and must be a priority for the Government, who manage approximately 15,000 storm overflows in England. A plan to increase the continuous monitoring of storm overflows by sewerage companies by 2025, with much more detailed data being published at the earliest opportunity, obtained in as close to real time as possible, will stop sewage being spewed into our waters.
Finally, we need to address the use of technical failures as a justification for untreated sewage discharges, which last year increased by 46% compared with 2019 figures. This cannot continue to be condoned. Time is no longer a luxury we can afford. The sewage pollution crisis is here today and needs radical action; the general public know that and support action now.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lady Redfern. There are a number of extremely interesting and pertinent amendments in this group. In a way it is a pity the group could not have been attached or somehow linked to the amendments in the group which follow—obviously it would have been too big. Were the amendments I shall be speaking to in the next group to be accepted, there would be no unwanted sewage overflow or discharge. They refer back to the well-researched and constructive proposals put forward by Sir Michael Pitt, who was responding to the 2007 surface water flooding of that year. Obviously it is regrettable that many of his recommendations have still not been put into effect.
The amendments in this group carry a lot of favour, not just within the House but from bodies such as the coalition of Surfers Against Sewage, the Rivers Trust, Salmon & Trout Conservation, Wildlife and Countryside Link, Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, and the Angling Trust, many of which have been working in particular with my noble friend the Duke of Wellington to put meat on the bones of these amendments, which obviously aim to reduce the sewage overflow. Amendment 161 in particular, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, looked to my right honourable friend Philip Dunne’s Bill in the other place. The aim of that amendment and others in this group is to stop the discharge of untreated sewage going into inland waters. Obviously, I commend that. However, these amendments are only part of the solution.
It is unacceptable that water companies are being forced, in many respects, to connect to major—and sometimes even only minor—new developments but where those connections are unable to be made safely. It inevitably leads to the situation that this group of amendments seeks to address. The amendments in this group are, therefore, a necessary part of the solution but they would go only so far in placing a legal duty on water companies to stop the discharge of water sewage, which I think is what both the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend the Duke of Wellington are seeking to achieve. I hope that we can go further back in the process and look to prevent many of these false or unsafe connections being made in the first place. I am delighted to say that the coalition of Surfers Against Sewage and others is aware of that and it is their intention to support my amendments in the next group.
The reason why I care so much about the amendments in this group is because, when I was an MEP, I participated in a number of Blue Flag awards for beaches in my then Essex constituency—for the first five years I had the whole of the Essex coastline in my European Parliament constituency and, for the next five years, it included part of the Suffolk beaches and most of the Essex beaches. As an enthusiastic swimmer, I went and had a swim after one of these Blue Flag awards—it would have been at some point in the 1990s—and I regret to say that 48 hours after that short swim I went down with gastroenteritis, and I have a pretty good idea of the reason why.
I hope that my noble friend will look favourably on many of these amendments and will also marry up to this idea that the connections should not be made in the first place. I welcome the amendments in this group, but we are dealing with pollution after the event and that pollution could be prevented in the first place. However, I commend to my noble friend Amendment 161 and the amendments in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Wellington and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, as something we should very seriously consider adopting as part of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is a rather substantial group of amendments, and I am a very insubstantial person right at the end of list. Nevertheless, I will have a go, because it is a very important group.
Climate change has an increasing impact. We are seeing lower flows in rivers, more intense rainfall flowing rapidly off land and hard surfaces into watercourses and more occasions when storm overflows are spilling untreated sewage into our rivers. We need to take swift action to ensure that less rainwater and surface run-off gets into the foul water spill-off system. Noble Lords have previously remarked on that; it is a very ridiculous way of managing a drainage system to put clean water with dirty water.
Some 50% of our storm overflows that are in the firing line tonight are in fact probably okay and operating within acceptable limits. However, 30% have unknown impact: we do not know what harm they are causing and there is an urgent need for better understanding of that impact. Meanwhile, 15% are already known to have totally unacceptable impacts and need either engineering or catchment base solutions, so that they do not spill. This means bigger storm tanks, conveyance by pipes to alternative treatment works, increasing the capacity of some sewage treatment works and possibly UV treatment, as well as reducing the amount of surface water that goes into the foul water system.
Currently, drainage from roads can automatically be discharged into the foul water system. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will make it mandatory for all major new roads to have substantial drainage systems with sufficiently large tanks in flood conditions to ensure the foul drainage systems are not overloaded with unacceptable resulting spillages?
For all these reasons I support Amendment 161 in the names of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—one can never have too many Baroness Joneses—and my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock. It inserts the provisions of Philip Dunne’s Sewage (Inland Waters) Bill, which has been praised already by several noble Lords. In my view, this lays out a fairly comprehensive and effective strategic approach with a menu of options. That is very different from the Government’s rather limp and inadequate Amendment 165, which is all about monitoring and publishing and not about doing.
I also commend the spirit of Amendments 166, 167 and 168, tabled by the noble Duke, Lord Wellington, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, which seek the elimination, not just the reduction, of untreated sewage. These amendments talk about using “all reasonable steps”. I suspect that the Government’s judgment of what is reasonable—if we can take their woolly, wishy-washy amendment as a yardstick—would be different from what may be judged reasonable by noble Lords.
I also support Amendment 172A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, which seeks to ensure that CSOs are discharged on a temporary basis only in agreed, genuine storm conditions in terms of volume and duration of rainfall. Too many CSOs regularly discharge in conditions that are far from storm conditions.
I also comment on and commend my noble friend Lord Whitty’s Amendment 161B on reducing domestic and non-domestic water consumption. As he noted, it appears rather oddly in this group since it is concerned with water quantity rather than quality. We simply cannot live with the fact that a rising population could be allowed to lead to a rising demand for water, as increasingly erratic weather patterns could mean more frequent periods of low rainfall and consequent drought and the current over-extraction from rivers and aquifers for agricultural industry use is already a problem.
There are some fascinating statistics in this area, and we may well rehearse them again when we get to clauses covering water quantity. Currently, the average Brit uses 142 litres per day, while the average German person uses 121. The gradient is even more marked between London and Berlin: the average Londoner uses 150 litres per day, and the average Berliner uses 110. To my certain knowledge, using a scratch-and-sniff test, I have not yet detected any difference in the hygiene levels of Berliners, who are using almost a third less water than Londoners. Added to that, customers with a water meter use 129 litres per day, while those without one use 171.
There is clearly big scope for increased water efficiency, and the amendment of my noble friend Lord Whitty would require the Secretary of State to set targets to reduce both domestic and business consumption, which would drive a long-overdue change.
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendments in the names of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to which I have also put my name. As we have heard, they seek to strengthen the new clauses that government Amendment 165 introduces. As the noble Duke said, it is completely unacceptable that, in the 21st century, we are discharging raw, untreated sewage so regularly—or indeed at all—into our rivers. I also welcome the amendment in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Hayman, which has similar objectives and, as we have heard, takes up the initiative of Philip Dunne’s Bill in another place.
There are other important amendments in this group, including Amendment 161A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Chidgey, who made a powerful case for the amendments as a whole, but particularly for his, on the issue of septic tanks and rural connections to mains sewerage, which is a very important issue. He mentioned that, in continental Europe, septic tanks are progressively being phased out. I am lucky enough to have regularly visited a village that is beside the River Charente in south-west France, and I can confirm and attest that, some six or seven years ago, they phased out all septic tanks there and put the whole village on the mains sewerage system. The beautiful cleanliness of the Charente is testimony to the effectiveness of that: it is a great place to swim—unlike some of our own rivers, I fear.
Amendments 170A and 188D, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and my noble friend Lord Teverson, need to be addressed by the Minister. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, explained, they highlight the important role of catchment partnerships and the need for their key role to be recognised in the Bill. I also strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on the need to reduce domestic demand, but, as he said, that issue will be dealt with in other groups that we will come on to.
It is welcome that the Government have at least acknowledged that the existing Bill was substandard in the important area of discharges into rivers, and have brought forward an amendment to tackle that. However, from the debate that we have had this evening, it is abundantly clear that the amendment put forward by the Government falls woefully short. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, it is a very pale imitation of Philip Dunne’s Bill, which it is supposed to take the place of, in some way. As we have heard, it does not impose a duty on water companies to take all reasonable steps to prevent sewage outflows; it aims only to reduce the frequency, duration and volume of discharges and has no ambition to eliminate them. It also does not set any specific targets for reductions.
It does require the Secretary of State to prepare a plan, but, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said, it provides only that that plan “may” include proposals to reduce
“the need for anything to be discharged by … overflows”
or to treat “sewage that is discharged”, or “monitor water courses”, or “obtain information”. It is all “may”—there is no requirement that the plan must include these critical elements. In the previous group we were speaking on, I was not convinced at all by the Minister’s explanation, nor indeed by the explanation in the letter that we received ahead of this Committee stage, on “must” and “may”. We know that “may” puts the power in the hands of Ministers, and they may decide not to do any of the things that we wish them to do. So, that “must” is very important.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I begin by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions on storm overflows. I am grateful to those both in this House and in the other place who have dedicated so much time to giving this issue the attention that it rightfully deserves. We have listened to noble Lords and parliamentarians in the other place, and we are all united in our view that action is needed. This is why we have tabled government amendments to change the Bill.
I shall move Amendment 165, in my name, will commit government to produce a statutory plan to reduce discharges from overflows and the harm this causes by September 2022. Work is already under way to develop the plan, including via the Storm Overflows Taskforce, made up of Defra, the Environment Agency, Ofwat, the Consumer Council for Water, Blueprint for Water and Water UK. I hope that noble Lords can appreciate that, if the plan is to deliver the change we want to see, it needs to be evidence based and developed in consultation with all key stakeholders. When we talk about stakeholders, that is not just the water companies but the NGOs and organisations battling to protect our rivers, as well as Members of this House and the other place. We need to get this right.
Government will be required through this new amendment to report to Parliament on progress towards implementing the plan. These reports will align with price review cycles so they can inform decisions about sewerage company funding. The amendment will also require water companies and the Environment Agency to publish annual data on storm overflow activity. This will improve transparency by ensuring that information on the activity of overflows is made available to the public, and ensure that Governments are held accountable for making progress.
I shall also move Amendment 300, which provides for the new clause after Clause 78, relating to storm overflows, to come into force two months after Royal Assent. Once in law, these measures will become an important step in tackling the scourge of sewage pollution in our rivers. I am pleased to say that they have been very warmly and enthusiastically welcomed by Philip Dunne, who tabled the initial Bill. The key word there is “step”—it is not the end of the journey but a step within that journey.
I turn to Amendment 161 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. My amendments also impose similar requirements to publish information on the activity of overflows. They do not, however, include precise legislative provisions on how a reduction of discharges from storm overflows could be achieved. That is to ensure that options are not limited before due consideration is given to the most productive and effective approaches. However, the plan itself, which the government amendment will require us to publish, will include specific measures to reduce discharges and the harm that they cause. The Government will consider a range of options during the development of the plan, including many of those outlined in the noble Baroness’s amendment, and there will be many opportunities for stakeholders to feed into its development. It is for these same reasons that it would also be inappropriate to change the wording from “may” to “must”, as Amendment 168 from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, proposes.
Amendment 169 was also proposed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I would first like to thank the noble Duke and my noble friend Lady Altmann for taking the time to meet with me again last week. I want to put it on record that I and the Government absolutely agree that we should be making much more use of nature-based solutions, particularly with regard to storm overflows. Nature-based solutions can play a key role in meeting flood resilience objectives in addition to numerous objectives in the Government’s 25-year environment plan at the same time. The beauty of nature-based solutions is that, while they are deployed to tackle one problem, they tend to answer so many other problems at the same time. They are not a silver bullet for all locations and all issues, and we will need to rely on a wide range of solutions to tackle the harm caused by storm overflows, including a combination of green, blue, and traditional grey infrastructure. But where a workable and appropriate nature-based-solution exists—I say this in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—our view is that it should be the default option. Government and water companies are also already investing in nature-based solutions to deliver multiple outcomes for the water environment and for biodiversity.
For example, in the Hanging Langford flood alleviation scheme, the Environment Agency used innovative permitting to allow Wessex Water to discharge, on the requirement that it provide a reed bed to treat the overflows. As a result of this nature-based solution, these sewage discharges are treated naturally and have negligible bacteriological impact on the River Wylye. This is exactly the sort of scheme we wish to see more of, and we are working with the Environment Agency and Ofwat to encourage greater take-up of nature-based solutions. I might add that the process that I have just described on the River Wylye would not qualify as elimination of storm overflows, as specified in Amendment 166—it would be regarded as management—but it is absolutely the kind of solution that we need to back. We need many more such solutions, but the language there is key and I will come back to that later.
I also assure the noble Duke that the current duty in the Bill allows for the government plan to use nature-based solutions where they are the most effective tool. On this basis, the Government do not believe it is necessary to specify them as a requirement in the Bill.
The noble Duke’s Amendment 166 was addressed by most noble Lords who have spoken today. All discharges to the water environment, including from sewer overflows, require a permit issued by the Environment Agency. The Bill contains clauses to place a statutory requirement directly on sewerage companies to produce drainage and sewerage management plans. This will ensure they are able to better deal with sewage discharges and tackle future risks. The statutory plan introduced by the Government’s new amendment will be based on robust evidence and consultation with all stakeholders, as I said earlier. It will be vital to have that evidence base and stakeholder participation to make sure that we have a plan that really works. I promise the noble Duke that the intention of his Amendment 166 is one that I and colleagues in Defra firmly share. We will take it into account as we draw up the plan.
On the noble Duke’s Amendment 167, storm overflows are a last resort in modern sewer design, but the age of our sewerage system means that their complete elimination is a major undertaking. For example, I am told that replacing all combined sewers with a separated sewer system would cost in the region of £200 billion to £500 billion, and would not eliminate the need for overflows in the system to cope with emergency situations. That does not mean that it is impossible or that things cannot significantly improve.
The agreed goal of the Storm Overflows Taskforce is to eliminate harm from storm overflows in the long term. The reason that the harm bit matters relates to the point I made earlier about the difference between appropriate management through nature-based solutions and elimination. The task force is working on options to achieve this goal and has commissioned research to gather evidence on the costs, benefits and feasibility of different options. This research project is due to be completed in early summer. The Government will take full account of the task force’s research findings and recommendations, other relevant evidence and views from the full range of stakeholders in drawing up our new statutory plan. We will decide on the precise details of our plan based on evidence and from weighing up the costs and benefits of all the different options. As I said when we spoke last week, I am keen to continue discussions with the noble Duke and other noble Lords with an interest in this, so we can discuss the options in more detail and look at them exhaustively.
On the noble Duke’s Amendment 170, the Government agree that transparency and monitoring are essential for creating a complete picture of the health of our water environment and to inform our decisions.
On the noble Duke’s Amendment 171, the Government also agree with the need for urgent action on this issue. To deliver a proper, comprehensive and robust plan, September next year does not feel like an exaggerated delay. We need to make sure that the plan is the best it can be, and is based on robust evidence, enabling all the appropriate consultation with all the relevant stakeholders and understanding the impacts of the plan on business, water customers and the environment. We do not yet know what the cost of the full solution would be, and we need to know that before we pass legislation.
On the noble Duke’s Amendments 172 and 173, the Government are already placing new duties on water companies and the Environment Agency to report on storm overflow activity. This includes information on investigation and improvement works. Clause 78 requires sewage undertakers to develop a drainage and sewerage management plan. These set out how they will maintain an effective system of sewerage and drainage and will include considerations of storm overflows.
Amendment 173, specifically, goes beyond information the Environment Agency currently owns, but additional transparency and reporting measures relating to undertaker performance will also be considered in developing the plan and through the task force. The Government do not feel it would be right to pre-empt this work by implementing additional reporting requirements at this stage.
The Government share the ambitions of the noble Duke in his Amendment 174. However, this amendment risks expanding the definition of “discharges” beyond the EA’s permits and creating confusion between the treatment of permitted and illegal discharges. The purpose of proposed new Clause 141E(2) is to define what a storm overflow is and this definition ensures that our amendments to prevent the harm caused by storm overflows apply only to permitted discharges. We already have a robust regulatory regime in place for tackling illegal discharges. They are subject to enforcement and fines by the Environment Agency and therefore it would not be appropriate to bring them into the scope of this proposed new clause. As most noble Lords have said today, the key issue is not illegal discharges but what is currently legally permitted in our waters.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for such a detailed response to this series of amendments. I must admit to some disappointment that we do not seem to have persuaded the Minister—yet—to move very far. It seems generally accepted in the Committee that government Amendment 165 is not strong enough, and I hope it will be possible to strengthen it. As noble Lords will be aware, many of my amendments have been intended to persuade the Government to take water quality as seriously as they clearly take air quality, as we heard in the debates this afternoon. I will continue to press some of these points. I am most grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet me and others between now and Report to see if we can strengthen the new government clause, with the intention—which we all have—of cleaning up the rivers of England. I thank the Minister and look forward to meeting him in the coming weeks.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I simply thank the noble Duke for his interest in and commitment to this area, and reiterate that I am absolutely persuaded and committed to ensuring that our approach as a Government to tackling this problem matches the scale of the problem itself. To that end, I look forward to future discussions with him and other noble Lords.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and supported our amendment this evening. I also pay tribute to Surfers Against Sewage for its excellent campaigning role in highlighting the terrible current state of our water quality.
To pick up on some of the contributions, the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, rightly raised the environmental damage that can be done by septic tanks and the need to link them to the main sewerage system. As he said, their existence is a primitive legacy of a pre-industrial age and a symptom of a lack of investment in the infrastructure over many years.
My noble friend Lord Whitty has a considerable background in the water industry, and I bow to his greater knowledge on all of this. He rightly pressed the point that we need to reduce household consumption of water within a deliverable timescale. As he said, we will have a chance to debate some of these issues in more detail in one of the later groups, so I will hold many of my comments back for that. But I agree with him that a declaration about reducing water consumption at the front of this part of the Bill would be very important. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised issues that are coming up in later groups but equally relevant to this one; we will come back to those.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his thoughtful and detailed contribution. He raised the important point about the need to involve local catchment partnerships in preparing the policies to reduce sewage discharge and the need for stricter criteria on when such discharges should be allowed. He made the point that they could also have a role in designating bathing sites, and I am grateful to him for alerting us to the fact that 1.2 million people are involved in outdoor swimming. We all seem to know somebody involved in it these days, so its popularity is clearly increasing. It is obviously something to be welcomed in terms of health. We also need to know the adverse health effects if people are swimming in these waters. That point was also well made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and I were in exactly the same territory. He echoed a number of the issues that I had raised about the government amendment. As he said, it is not good enough to reduce sewage discharges; we should instead resolve to eliminate them. That point was echoed right around the Chamber this evening. The noble Duke has clearly not been too impressed by the discussions that he has had with the Minister so far. His amendment would also improve other loose wording in the government amendment; again, his thoughtful corrections are very welcome. We could discuss tactics and the right way forward later but, whether we have one amendment or a number of smaller ones, I think the noble Duke and I agree on what the ultimate objective should be.
I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She rightly stressed the context of reforms needing to be based on nature-based solutions, and her point was very well made. She and my noble friend Lady Young raised the importance of setting out as soon as we can to separate storm and drain water from the sewerage system, which would obviously alleviate pressure on some of the discharges.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, made a very important point about why the exemptions which the Government currently have in their amendment simply should not be allowed to apply. His example of the discharges into the Hogsmill illustrated that very well.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s response. We obviously welcome the task force and the extra money that has been made available. I also agree with him that we owe a great deal of thanks to the engineers, who often battle with outdated plant when they come out in difficult circumstances and weather conditions and at all times of the night. It is not an easy job, but their job would be considerably enhanced if they were able to deal with more modern equipment. I will need to consider the Minister’s points, which he raised primarily in response to the amendments of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, in detail, because I know that he went through them point by point.
However, none of this captured the urgency of the situation and the need to get a better grip on the performance of the water companies. This is at a time when they are still paying huge bonuses to their executives, rather than fixing the outdated sewerage infrastructure in a timely way. So I reiterate that the solution to our amendment would be for the Government to table a revised and improved amendment which more clearly matches what was originally put forward by Philip Dunne, which my colleagues in the Commons certainly felt was destined for the Lords and to be in the Bill—so there is disappointment in that Chamber as well as this one that that is not where we are at the moment.
I would be happy to have further discussions about this, if that can be arranged. There is a solution to be had here but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 162. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 78: Drainage and sewerage management plans
Amendment 162
The Duke of Wellington
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to secure continuous improvement of sewage treatment plants and to secure the separation of drainage systems from the sewerage systems through a legal obligation placed on the water companies.
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, the amendments in this group are all to Clause 78 and would place obligations directly on the water companies and others concerned with drainage and sewerage management. In some ways, of course, this is a repeat of the interesting debate we have just had on the new government clause, but it is essential to strengthen the duties placed directly on the water companies. Otherwise, there will always be a doubt in law—I am not a lawyer—as to whether the Secretary of State or one or another agency, or one of the water companies, is ultimately responsible for compliance.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, once again, it is a real pleasure to follow my noble friend the Duke of Wellington and to support his Amendment 162, which seems a very good response to the Minister’s claim in respect of the last grouping that it was altogether far too expensive to prevent CSO discharges and the damage done to our rivers by our sewage treatment works. My noble friend’s amendment asks for continuous improvement of sewage works, and it should be accepted.
I shall speak to Amendment 162A in my name. It is probably superfluous, and I am merely probing to get an assurance from the Government. In the light of what we know about the state of our rivers and of getting to grips with some of the future problems—for example, the necessary but dramatic rise in planned housing provision and the fact that we probably have too many people per cubic metre of water in many parts of our country—it is important that the drainage and sewerage management plans work.
The amendment is designed to ensure that the plans work not only for present and future customers but for the environment. Above all, and I stress this, it is important to get this emphasis on the environment into this part of the Bill, so that Ofwat, in its authorisation of capital expenditure by water companies, is aware that environmental considerations are a legal necessity. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me on that specific point.
Turning to my other amendment in this group, Amendment 163A, on nature-based solutions, I realise that this has already been touched on today, but I thought I would use the amendment to drive home the message. “Nature based solutions” is a better name than the alternative of a sustainable urban drainage system, or SUDS, the point being that these solutions are just as important in rural areas as in urban.
Like trying to fit modern heating systems into old houses, it has to be admitted that retrofitting natural drainage solutions into existing communities can be expensive and difficult, but it is crucial that, starting right now, we insist that all new developments consider nature-based solutions from the start. It should be a compulsory part of the planning system. The main message I wish to get across is that Schedule 3 to the 2010 Act, as mentioned in Philip Dunne’s Bill, must be implemented in England as it already is in Wales, because these schemes have to be planned before the design of the site even starts. They are dependent on gravity, whereas every other service to a site can, as it were, flow uphill. The positioning of these nature-based solutions is therefore crucial, and they should be the first thing designed into any new site.
Let me give a brief example of a retrofitted nature-based solution which also perhaps helps explain what it is all about, and which could even be a model for new developments. I refer to the Greener Grangetown scheme, as it is called, near Cardiff. It consists of 12 streets and is now a series of rain gardens. The water is cleansed, and many trees grow there. What is essentially a drainage scheme has become a community garden scheme looked after by people of the community. The CSO is no longer needed, as storm conditions are already catered for. I admit that such a scheme is probably too expensive for mass replication, but, with its many outputs, it attracted many willing partners and investors. Businesses and local government wanted to get involved, so it is not totally unrepeatable with the right local driving force. When the Severn Trent Mansfield pilot has produced some results, we might be able to introduce more schemes across the country, confident that we know what works and what positive outcomes we can expect.
It is worth stressing that one of the major purposes—in fact probably the main purpose—of nature-based solutions is that they deal successfully with much of the problem of road run-off, which is such a contaminant of our rivers. As well as the oils and grease from roads, 63,000 tonnes of rubber tyre particles go into our rivers every year, plus suspended solids which coat the bed of the river, hydrocarbons and dissolved metals which are toxic to fish, and benzo(a)pyrene, which is very carcinogenic. Highway run-off needs treating, and most sewage treatment works are not really designed to deal with its particular pollutants. Meanwhile, at the moment, highway authorities can connect their drains to sewage works without the water companies being able to deny them. We must do all we can to introduce nature-based solutions, wherever we can.
To summarise—and I apologise if this is over labouring my point—nature-based solutions have four main benefits. First, they slow the flow, which of course helps the CSO problem; secondly, they act as filtration plants to remove road oils, grease, hydrocarbon pollutants and microplastics; thirdly, they clean the water, whether it is going back into the river or down into an aquifer; and, fourthly, and not unimportantly, they provide beauty and habitats. As I said, they should be everywhere.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is genuinely a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who always gives us a master class. Whereas I tend to rely a bit too much on rhetoric, he gives us facts, which are far more robust and demanding of a government response. I shall speak to Amendment 175, although I also put my name to Amendment 175A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, which I support. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for their support.
It was more than 15 years ago that a member of my family opened a printing factory in Cornwall and I heard the term BREEAM for the first time: a building standard demanded at the time because it was partly financed by the European Regional Development Fund. There was a reasonable expectation—in fact, a necessity—that certain standards be built into that building. One of them concerned grey water. I remember saying, “What the heck is greywater?” The answer was that it is recycling water—not water that has gone through the lavatories, or loos, but the rest of it—to make sure that water demand comes down. It was one of the most obvious examples of what we would now call the circular economy. Those technologies can save something like 50% of water consumption.
In those days—all of 15 years ago—it would have been completely unrealistic to apply such a system to domestic houses, because they were not available at that scale. But even then, for commercial buildings, it was the case that those systems worked, and worked well—the system in that building is still working very effectively and reducing water demand. But now those systems are up for use in domestic housing as well. They work. There are criticisms of them: obviously, the cost, technically—I shall come back to that—but also that they raise the demand for electricity, and so the carbon footprint may go up. We should always remember that domestic buildings will probably last for 100 years. We know that we will decarbonise electricity generation anyway, I hope, well before 2050, so that carbon footprint will not be an issue for very long.
I say to the Government that surely we have a real opportunity here to save a major proportion of water consumption. It will not solve leakage, which I appreciate has to be done elsewhere, and there are other amendments to deal with that, but on water consumption we already have a solution which, if it is rolled out in new buildings, whether commercial or domestic, the difference on the cost of that building is far from great—perhaps a couple of thousand pounds. Over the life of that building, clearly there will be savings in both resources and the cost of water.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the debate on this amendment be adjourned.
Environment Bill
Wednesday 7th July 2021
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-VII Seventh marshalled list for Committee - (7 Jul 2021)
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask all Members to respect social distancing.
I shall call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I shall call Members to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding. Participants who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in the group to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I shall collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for, if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Clause 78: Drainage and sewerage management plans
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to continue the debate that was adjourned on Monday. In proposing my Amendment 175A, which is to do with blue-green flood-risk management, I follow some excellent speeches on Monday evening, including ones from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on nature-based solutions, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on grey water. Alongside blue-green, these solutions are all about the need for an integrated, holistic system of preserving the water supply and dealing with wastewater and storm-water.
It is obvious to say this: rain is valuable and belongs to nobody, but its supply is limited and therefore it needs to be used sparingly. It is sometimes used too much and sometimes used too little. There is too much of it and too little. In the home, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said—and I certainly support his amendment—separating grey water is a great idea. I have also heard that there is more to do because, apparently, some washing machine manufacturers refuse to guarantee machines if rainwater is used. Obviously, you would not use grey water, but it seems to me that rainwater could be used. Why is it not used? It is another source of water, rather than using processed fresh drinking water.
Putting rain into sewers, which then causes overflowing, adds massively to the carbon footprint with pumping and treatment. I spent some time in the last few years wondering why it was necessary for the Thames Tideway Tunnel to be built—not because I did not want the River Thames cleaned up, but because the evidence shows that the water in the Thames meets all the regulations now and, if it were to be started today, the tunnel would be found to not be needed. This is a £5 billion project and what nobody seems to remember or think is that pumping the water from very deep shafts, as they will be when they get to the end, and treating the water, which is mostly either flood-water or river water, creates an enormous carbon footprint. If blue-green had been started and was working by then, this could have all been avoided. Also, of course, it would have created quite a few jobs locally, less skilled than those needed for the tunnelling and all the other work that goes into the Thames Tideway Tunnel. We must always recognise that big contractors love these big jobs—a bit like HS2—and there is often benefit in having smaller work done by possibly less skilled and local workers.
However, that is a slight diversion and I will explain to the Committee a little more about blue-green. It is the idea of keeping as much rainwater as possible out of the sewers. It is quite simple really. There are several ways of doing it. The first one, and the easiest one for many people to understand, is to make sure that the rainwater drains from the roofs of properties and does not go into the sewerage system. It should go into soakaways. Soakaways are suitable in many areas but in other areas maybe they are not.
You can say the same about the run-off from roads, car parks and other hard surfaces. It does not really matter whether they are municipally owned, government-owned or privately owned. It is quite possible—it has been done in a number of cities in the United States—to convert some of these what you might call waterproof surfaces into more absorbent ones and/or build soakaways underneath parks to reduce the peak flows into sewers, so that some of the peak flow goes into what I am calling soakaways. Of course, you carry on by separating the outcomes from these soakaways from the sewage going to sewerage works. The outcome from the soakaways goes into the watercourses and rivers.
This is much easier to do with new builds but one bit of work done in connection with the Thames Tideway Tunnel alternative was to look at the two foul sewers going round, I think¸ London’s Sloane Street, both of which are mixed rainwater and sewage. It would not have been that difficult to convert one into one and one into the other rather than having both having a mix. Retrofitting is also something to be looked at; it would certainly reduce the water rates in existing properties. For new builds, it is obvious. I hope Ministers will look at that with some interest.
One of the other problems which blue-green obviously has, and some of the other solutions may have as well, is the need for so many different bodies to facilitate them—local authorities, obviously, water companies, river authorities, highways authorities, building control, commercial companies, as well as residents. One also needs to look at a way of incentivising people to want to do this. For example, residents might see a reduction in their water or sewerage charges if they accept not putting their rainwater into the sewers. All these things need looking at.
To conclude proposing my amendment and supporting the other two I mentioned, together, we have given the Minister a good package of measures to reduce floods, sewage overflows and carbon footprints, all of which are achievable at not too high a cost, by different means and in different circumstances. In responding to this group, I hope the Minister says that he will take away my amendment and the other two, and come back with one combined proposal to sort out all these issues to the benefit of the environment, water quality, costs and the environmental footprint.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I will speak to Amendments 192, 193 and 194 in my name and say a few words about the amendments in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I am delighted to support Amendment 175 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which I have co-signed, being an enthusiastic supporter of grey water. Amendment 194A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness, has much to commend it. I think a combination of these amendments will achieve what the Government are trying to do.
I say at the outset that one of the reasons I ask in Amendment 192 for the right to connect to housing developments is that, at the moment, it is not generally recognised that water companies are not statutory consultees on major new developments of 10, 30 or especially more—200 or 300—houses at a time. If the Government are not minded to make them statutory consultees, I hope my noble friend will look at involving local authorities more actively in the drainage and wastewater management plans. I understand that my honourable friend in the other place, Minister Pow, confirmed at the Dispatch Box that all risk management authorities will be required to participate in the drainage and wastewater management plans. I hope my noble friend takes this opportunity to confirm that; otherwise, I might have to bring forward an amendment on it.
I would argue that my Amendments 192, 193 and 194 are supplementary or the other side of the coin to those of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I would go further, actually; the problem with the noble Duke’s amendments is that the major issue with infrastructure and engineering at the moment is that there is no obvious alternative to storm overflows. Huge investment and disruption would be required, even if no practical issues remained, to provide a solution in the timeframe that everybody would like to see. Closing storm overflows without such alternatives would mean a far greater likelihood of properties and businesses flooding during periods of heavy rainfall. I just recount the visits I have made to, among other parts of the country, my own area of North Yorkshire and Cumbria: it is only when you visit people in the midst of a flood that you see how it affects their health, welfare and well-being. Having sewage in your home through a storm overflow is absolutely disgusting.
The cost estimate for replacing storm overflows is £100 billion and it would probably be much more. I welcome the work being done by the storm overflows taskforce, but could my noble friend put a date on when he thinks there would be any prospect at all of storm overflows being replaced and say what he would like to do in the meantime? Any infrastructure-based solution to replace them would be a massive undertaking in disruption and expense, as I have already set out. We have already spoken, on other parts of the Bill, of the ways that many of us contribute, through wet wipes, cotton buds and other products that trigger blockages.
I am wedded to ending the automatic right to connect, as I have set out in Amendment 192. The Water Industry Act provisions on drainage and surface water are based on Victorian approaches to sewage as a public health, rather than an environmental, risk. This Bill is an opportunity to update that part of the legislation—and not before time. With this amendment, alongside other proposed amendments on overflows, I am calling for a government commitment to review the drainage provisions of the Water Industry Act. With my noble friend Lord Caithness’s amendment on the need to review the Water Industry Act provisions, following these discussions, we could work in great harmony to achieve this together.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I support many of the amendments in this group, and my Amendment 194A is on exactly the same theme.
I liked what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said on Monday and what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said on Monday about grey water. He is absolutely right, of course: there is no reason why this could not be included in every new building. Indeed, my noble kinsman and his noble friend, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and I were involved in a project at the visitor centre at the Castle of Mey 15 years ago, and we did exactly this. It is perfectly feasible, has worked extremely well and is very beneficial for the environment.
All these amendments deal with a common theme: resilience to climate change. The Climate Change Committee has pointed out how behind the Government are on meeting the problems of resilience. The resilience needs to be improved, not only because we are building more and more roads, houses, commercial buildings and railways but because the weather is changing. The rain is getting heavier and often more localised. I refer again to the floods in the West Country 10 days ago, when whole roads were ripped up by the force of water coming down the hill. Most of that water should have been dealt with in a different way.
My amendment seeks to make surface water management more adequate. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for the amendment he has put forward but, like many others, I do not think it goes far enough. It is a good start, but on Report we need to strengthen it.
We have been quite critical of how our water has been dealt with, but one ought to just pause and thank our Victorian ancestors for building in the way they did. The fact that we can still use most of their system and get away with it in a reasonable fashion is a huge tribute to our ancestors. I hope that in 100 years, future generations will say that this generation was as good as the generation I am talking about, that of our great-great-grandfathers.
My amendment is to take away surface water, whether from new buildings or roads, from the sewage system. There is absolutely no need for it to go into the sewage system. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh said—I thank her for supporting my amendment—there is an automatic right to connect to a sewage system. The water companies are not statutorily consulted but told that a development is taking place and somehow have to meet it. If their system cannot meet it, that is where we have the floods, pollution and destruction of the environment.
My amendment is really very simple. It combines with various others to allow the Government to take a slightly different path. You cannot deal with the whole question of water unless you look at surface water. My amendment is to allow the Government to
“amend the drainage provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991 … to ensure they remain fit for purpose”.
At the moment they are not fit for purpose. There are other, better ways of dealing with it. Considering how much new development is taking place and about to take place, and how much more will take place when we get the—as far as I am concerned—dreaded planning Bill next year, now is the time to nail this problem before it is too late.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, just as in the previous group, in this group there are some really forward-thinking amendments that can go a long way to ending our devastating impact on rivers and the wider environment. Some are so good that I have amendment envy and wish I had thought of them—but obviously two Greens cannot be everywhere, although we do our best.
We all seem to agree here that we currently use water in an extremely illogical way. So much clean, drinkable water is flushed down the loo when there is a really obvious alternative: to not use it. The separation and capture of grey water should be routine, and the Government should make it a requirement in building regs, because the benefits are so blindingly clear.
I operate a grey water system at home, which means flushing the loo with my washing-up water. It is very sophisticated. I walk with the bowl from one room to the other, and it works extremely well. The water out of our sinks is likely contaminated with eco-friendly soap, perhaps dirt from our hands, bits of food and things like that, but it is fine for washing our toilets, watering our gardens, even washing our cars—if you have one—and doing a whole host of other things. This relatively simple system will of course hugely cut down on our water usage and the stresses placed on the sewage system, because we automatically cut down our wastewater by almost half.
When we combine this separation and reuse of grey water with the separation of sewage from drainage, we have a much more sustainable water system. I hope that not very long into the future we will look back on the idea of using clean water to flush our toilets and then mixing it with rainwater, before spending huge amounts of money getting the sewage back out, as almost as illogical and disgusting as throwing our toilet contents out of the windows into the open streets, as used to happen a couple of hundred years ago. In truth, we have actually just made it a bit more complicated and put the sewers underground, but in essence it is the same: we are throwing our sewage into our streets.
This should be a priority for the Government, both at home and around the world. The same solutions that will clean up our sewage system in the UK will help clean, safe water systems elsewhere in the world. We have a responsibility to make sure that other countries have safe water supplies. This does all sorts of things, including reducing the risk of disease for millions of people in other countries. Of course, it also significantly reduces our disastrous impact on the earth’s rivers, lakes and seas.
I keep raising the issue of COP 26 but, quite honestly, we have to have something to take there that we are actually proud of. The rest of the world will be watching. It will not be like the G7; it will be a completely different situation in which other countries will judge us on what we are doing here, and I just hope we can measure up.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I very much support the idea that the automatic right of connection should end. We really need an arrangement that puts pressure on developers to make their developments as friendly to the water system as possible, and an automatic right of connection obviously does not achieve that—so that should be a very fruitful direction to go in.
Has my noble friend looked at the Hampshire County Council nitrates credit scheme? This is a scheme it is putting together so that new housing developments in Hampshire, which would otherwise add to the nitrate burden in rivers and therefore to nitrate pollution in the estuary, can offset that additional pollution by purchasing farmland, which is currently a substantial source of nitrates, and taking that out of production. This is an interesting idea, but I very much hope my noble friend will look at integrating such schemes into the overall direction of the Bill.
First, I do not think it is a good idea that developers should have a simple way around their obligations. They ought to be doing things internal to the development to reduce pollution and the stress on the water system. To allow them to buy their way out of it does not seem desirable. On the other side of things, if we are to take land out of production for these purposes, that absolutely ought to be integrated with the other schemes happening in the Bill—forestry, rewilding, biodiversity gain and so on—not just something that happens randomly on the side. I very much hope that between now and Report my noble friend will be able to take an interest in what Hampshire is up to.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, wastewater infrastructure in England is a bit of a mess, as many noble Lords have said. I remember that when I came down from Scotland to live in England 40 years ago, I was amazed because in Scotland surface water and foul water were strictly separated. Discovering with horror that the casual intermingling of surface water drainage and sewerage systems was almost the rote in England—a curious mix of some legal stuff and some illegal arrangements—just staggered me.
We have not made much progress in those 40 years. There has been insufficient investment in drainage and sewerage infrastructure, and Ofwat does not always take the consequent environmental problems seriously enough in its price determinations. I welcome the requirement in the Bill for sewerage undertakers to prepare and, hopefully, implement drainage and sewage management plans, but I support Amendment 162A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. It would give these plans an environmental objective, which, hopefully, would encourage Ofwat to agree more investment for environmental purposes.
Amendment 164 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would end the automatic right to connect, and it has been supported by a number of noble Lords. Water companies need to be able to say no to connecting developments where sewerage systems are already overloaded. The amendment would also kick-start discussions well in advance to ensure that adequate sewage treatment could be provided in appropriate time, at the point where developments can be flexible, and prevent future environmental damage. Amendment 192, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, would have a similar effect, although in the more restricted ambit of major new housing developments.
I am reminded of a dreadful face-off that had to take place between the Environment Agency and the developers of Corby when I was the agency’s chief executive. My noble friend Lord Rooker, who I am deeply grateful is not in his place, was Minister at the time and very keen on the redevelopment of Corby in the interest of jobs. Frankly, he beat me up severely to try to persuade the Environment Agency to provide the necessary licences for that development. Corby was going to increase in size massively but was perched on the top of a tiny, failing Victorian sewerage system that simply would not have coped. The face-off went on for months but eventually resulted in funds being found to improve the sewerage system. The development went ahead, but I must admit that I only ever enter Corby incognito since they appear to have quite long memories in those parts.
I have a particular question for the Minister. On the implementation of drainage and sewage management plans, what assurances can he give that the successive water price rounds, as determined by Ofwat, will provide the right level of funding for drainage and sewage management plans over a reasonably short space of time? Price rounds come round only periodically, and stretching that over several cycles would mean that we were still waiting a very long time for the improvement to our sewerage and drainage systems that needs to be delivered.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments dealing with the improvement of drainage and sewerage systems, and it raises similar issues to the previous group that we debated on Monday evening. I have added my name to Amendments 162 and 163, tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.
At Second Reading we heard from various noble Lords across the Chamber about the devastating effect that the discharge of untreated sewage is having on our rivers, waterways and coastal waters. Amendments 162 and 163 seek to ensure that sewage treatment plants are improved and that there is separation of surface water drainage systems and sewerage systems, an issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has just raised.
Water companies must ensure that they are operating within the law, and their priority should be to ensure that no foul water is discharged into rivers and waterways. That must take precedence over shareholder dividends. Apologies to any Members here today who hold shares in the water companies, but cleaning up the state of our waterways has to move higher up the agenda. The noble Duke has also referred to a deferral of dividends.
Water companies have management plans, and it is time that the safe and effective treatment of sewage had equal status with drinking-water quality. The rest of the world, especially the USA, thinks of our country as a green and pleasant land with flowing gentle rivers and streams, when the reality is very different, with raw sewage and waste floating in our rivers and clogging up our streams.
Ofwat has a role to play here, alongside the Treasury and the Secretary of State, in imposing a legal duty on the water companies to clean up their act. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has spoken about the new drainage and sewage management plans. He encourages sewerage authorities to look positively to nature-based solutions instead of using SUDS. Nature-based solutions must be designed before development begins. The noble Lord also gave graphic details of rubber particles and road oils, which often run off our roads and end up in our rivers. Sewage treatment works are not capable of dealing with these pollutants, so yet another toxic substance enters our waterways.
My noble friend Lord Teverson has spoken of the need for all new buildings to be fitted with greywater systems. This is a far better use of water and reduces the actual demand for freshwater. I too remember the BREEAM standards for all new buildings, promoted by Jonathon Porritt when we were both on the South West of England Regional Development Agency many years ago.
Water is a finite resource and we should reuse it where possible. The housing shortage is acute but so is the need to increase the quality of our rivers and waterways. Conserving and reusing water is all part of ensuring that the country meets its targets on all fronts. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has spoken eloquently about blue-green flood risk management, the collection of rainwater and preventing it from entering the sewerage system.
We all realise that the water authorities are under pressure, but it is time the capacity issue of clean water and sewage disposal was tackled in a cohesive and overarching way. It cannot be acceptable for raw sewage to be discharged into rivers, often where children will swim and play in the summer holidays. If there is insufficient capacity at treatment plants then it is time for infrastructure investment. The Government want to build more much-needed housing. If investment is made in water treatment and sewage disposal then there should be no block on housing development.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has also spoken about the capacity of water treatment plants and the connection of new housing estates. The noble Baroness is correct to identify that there should be a legal obligation to respond for statutory consultees on major new housing developments. They cannot later then say that they do not have the capacity to cope. They must flag this at the start of the process and work with local authorities to ensure that no housing development takes place where the result will be raw sewage discharged into waterways.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has supported ending the automatic right of connection to the sewerage system, and developers should take more responsibility for their actions. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has spoken about the need for resilience in our water management. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has spoken about the using rainwater instead of fresh water.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to this group of amendments, the subject matter of which has been raised several times during our deliberations on this Environment Bill. It is time that we resolved it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords have made some important contributions in this debate. I would like to start by thanking the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for his clear and helpful introduction on Monday evening to his Amendments 162 and 163. As we heard from the noble Duke, these two amendments would embed within drainage and sewerage management plans the requirement to continually improve the sewerage system and reduce the harm caused by wastewater management.
The noble Duke also talked about the importance of improving systems annually, while recognising that the upgrades needed to our drainage and sewerage systems constitute a serious level of investment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, has just said, both the Treasury and Ofwat will have an important role to pay, but as the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, rightly pointed out, this will be a green investment, with an immediate benefit for the environment and for all wildlife. My noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone mentioned the lack of investment over many years; I thought her example of the difference she noticed between England and Scotland when she moved here was really quite striking.
Amendments 162A and 163A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, consider the importance of the new drainage and sewerage management plans to deliver environmental benefits. The noble Lord referred to the dramatic rise in planned housing provision—other noble Lords have mentioned this—and to how important it is that drainage and sewerage plans actually work. His amendment is designed to work not only for customers but for the environment. As he said in his introduction, nature-based solutions should be a compulsory part of the planning system.
Amendment 164, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would end the automatic right to connect, enabling water companies to decline new connections to the sewerage system where this would cause environmental harm. His introduction, and the wider debate, have shown support for resolving this situation.
In the previous group, on Monday, we debated the Government’s new Amendment 165, on storm overflows. As we heard, this followed the huge support for the proposals contained within Philip Dunne’s Sewage (Inland Waters) Bill in the other place. This is welcome, yet, as my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch laid out, government Amendment 165 falls far short of the ambition of the Private Member’s Bill, which is why the amendments we are debating in this group are necessary and why we support them.
We strongly support putting drainage and wastewater management plans on to a statutory footing. However, within the Bill, we have two particular concerns. First, the Bill confusingly refers to
“Drainage and sewerage management plans”,
despite Defra and the industry jointly working on “drainage and wastewater management plans” for many years, and companies already publishing plans with that name. We do not consider this to be a minor point, because the terms “sewerage” and “wastewater” are not interchangeable; “sewerage” has a narrower meaning that excludes many sources of contamination that enters rivers. If drainage plans are to be successful, all areas of contamination must be included.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful and helpful contributions on these important issues.
The drainage and sewerage management plans introduced by Clause 78 will deliver improvements for both customers and the environment. They will be produced at least every five years and cover a 25-year planning horizon, enabling sewerage undertakers to develop and maintain a complete picture of their networks, including their capacity and the future demands on them. This is essential for undertakers to understand risks to their networks, their customers and the environment, and to develop mitigations to address them.
Regarding Amendments 162 and 163 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, Amendment 164 from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and Amendment 192 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the Government wholeheartedly agree that water companies must improve their drainage and sewerage systems and report on discharges. It is for this reason that Clause 78(3) sets out the specific matters that drainage and sewerage management plans must address. Plans must provide an assessment of the sewerage undertaker’s drainage and sewerage system capacity, including “current and future demands”, as well as its resilience. The sewerage undertaker must set out in the plan how it will maintain an effective system of sewerage and drainage and when any necessary actions with regard to this will be taken.
Paragraph 681 of the Bill’s Explanatory Notes makes it explicitly clear that
“environmental risks will include storm overflows and their impact on water quality.”
The relevant Ministers may also make directions specifying additional matters that must be addressed by the plan. I want to be clear that the Government will not hesitate to use this power of direction if any sewerage undertaker’s plans fall short. The Government are also clear that sewerage undertakers must be transparent. Clause 78(5) requires sewerage undertakers to review their plans annually and
“send a statement of the conclusions of its review to the Minister.”
In addition, the new government amendments to the Bill, which we discussed on Monday, will further commit English sewerage undertakers to report annually on storm overflow activity.
Finally, the plans will facilitate collaboration between sewerage undertakers, local authorities and developers to understand proposed new housing developments and possible future pressures that may be placed on an undertaker’s system. Drainage and wastewater management plans will be taken into account for the first price review and every subsequent review. My understanding is that work on the next review begins pretty much immediately after the first review is finished. I say that in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who I think raised that issue.
I move to Amendments 162A, 163A, 175A, 193 and 194A from the noble Lords, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Berkeley, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and my noble friend Lord Caithness. The Government are clear that we expect plans to deliver for both customers and the environment. I am pleased to inform noble Lords that the UK Government, the Welsh Government, Ofwat, the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales will shortly be issuing joint guidance to undertakers making it clear that we expect them to consider green infrastructure and nature-based and low-carbon solutions when mitigating risks.
As I said on Monday, our view is very much that, where a nature-based solution exists, it must be the default. In these days of tightened budgets and reduced access to resources, it is incumbent upon government to make sure that when we purchase a solution, it delivers in the broadest possible way and, almost every time, that is a nature-based solution. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who made a very passionate case for nature-based solutions. Clause 78 must therefore be as broad as possible to enable all this to continue as plans are placed on a statutory footing. Again, I reassure noble Lords that the Government will not hesitate to make directions to undertakers specifying additional matters that must be addressed by the plans if they are inadequate.
I emphasise that it is current government policy that nature-based solutions should be considered first, as I said earlier. The Government promote the use of blue-green infrastructure, such as sustainable drainage systems, grey water recycling and natural flood management. Indeed, the National Planning Policy Framework already ensures that blue-green infrastructure is provided in all new developments unless there is clear evidence that this would not be appropriate, and it should be given priority in new developments in flood risk areas.
Last year, the Government also published the Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management: Policy Statement, which sets out our long-term ambition to create a nation more resilient to these increasingly unpredictable risks. The statement sets out our commitment to
“double the number of government funded”
flood management projects, which includes natural flood management. Alongside this, the Government’s Storm Overflows Taskforce, set up to eliminate harm from storm overflows, is considering a number of drainage issues including blue-green infrastructure, and will be reporting in the summer.
I take this opportunity to add a response to a comment that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on this issue right at the end of the debate on Monday. He suggested that I had dismissed the possibility of eliminating harm from storm overflows on the basis that it would be too expensive. That really is not at all what I said. I pointed out the estimated cost, which is anything from
“£200 billion to £500 billion”.—[Official Report, 5/7/21; col. 1137.]
We do not know exactly how much it is going to cost. It is therefore surely right that a Minister standing at the Dispatch Box should not casually accept an amendment that would lead to that scale of investment over an unknown period. However, we are committed to tackling this area and are doing the work to inform the appropriate policy steps. Like all noble Lords who have spoken on this issue, we do not regard it as acceptable that sewage is poured into our waterways and water systems.
The Government’s environmental land management schemes also have reduction of flood risk as one of the key outcomes eligible for public money. The Government have committed to delivering an integrated approach to managing water, and the actions I have outlined will support water quality, flood risk management and climate resilience goals to protect communities and the environment. They will also contribute towards the Government’s commitment to the UN’s global sustainable development goals.
Regarding Amendment 194 tabled by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, water and sewerage undertakers and internal drainage boards maintain strong relationships and engagement with local authorities in relation to planning. This helps identify significant future developments long before formal planning consent is sought for them and enables early discussion.
Clause 78 provides for regulations as to
“the persons to be consulted”
on drainage and sewerage management plans. The meaning of “persons” is very broad and will enable the Government to set out in regulations all existing statutory consultees as well as a range of other stakeholders to be consulted. As water companies will co-operate with developers and local authorities in the preparation of their drainage and sewerage management plans, this will help mitigate the impacts of automatic connection by planning better for future housing developments. I say that in response to my noble friend Lady McIntosh, who rightly raised that issue.
Also, for my noble friend’s benefit, regarding the assurance provided by my honourable friend in the other place, Rebecca Pow, I can reconfirm and reissue that assurance here in front of this Committee. Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, water and sewerage companies and a number of other bodies are statutory flood-risk management authorities and therefore must co-operate with each other. To avoid any possible doubt, we are committed to preparing an amending statutory instrument to ensure that it is crystal clear.
I will respond very briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. We refer to drainage and sewerage management plans in the Bill because that is the wording used in the Water Industry Act, which this Bill amends. I am assured that it means the same thing in real terms and there is no discrepancy.
Regarding Amendment 175 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I am pleased to say that my right honourable friend the Environment Secretary last week published a Written Ministerial Statement on reducing water demand. This announced actions the Government will take in response to the 2019 consultation on measures to reduce personal water consumption. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, this includes plans in 2022 to
“develop a roadmap towards greater water efficiency in new developments and retrofits”,
including through building regulations and using new technologies to meet these standards. I am happy to confirm that we will be considering the use of grey water recycling further as part of this work.
The lead department in relation to planning is of course not Defra but MHCLG, and I am in regular discussions with that department, as is my noble friend Lady Bloomfield. I have been asked by the Secretary of State for MHCLG to help identify things that need to be included in building regulations that will further add to protections of the environment, not just in relation to water but to a whole range of biodiversity and nature-related issues. That is an invitation that I and Rebecca Pow will greedily accept.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to participate in the earlier discussion. I thank my noble friend for his clear response and for the meeting that he held. Will he clarify the Government’s thinking? Clause 78 requires a plan and an annual review, but who takes responsibility for the urgent action needed to control not just storm overflows but other discharges that are polluting our rivers? What will plans entailing long-term action mean for the Government’s expectation of how this will work? I know that my noble friend passionately agrees that we must deal with this issue. Will he commit to having further discussions with all interested noble Lords?
I thank my noble friend, as I will call him, the Duke of Wellington for all the work he has done to address the issue of who should take responsibility for the urgent action and financing needed to improve this situation and to invest the necessary resources to avoid or reduce polluting our rivers year by year. This could be done together with Ofwat, possibly by passing the costs of sewage waste on to household and commercial water bills. At the moment, it seems that people do not really focus on the costs of the waste they generate: it is waste, it is gone and therefore it does not feature, as it would if there were a perceived or actual cost. Perhaps the Minister would agree to meet to discuss this possibility.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her useful intervention. She is right: the cost of pollution rarely features on the balance sheet. Her suggestion that, in order to move forward, we need to find a way of internalising those costs is spot on. It is also the main thesis of the Dasgupta review. She asked who will be responsible: ultimately, the water companies will need to improve their act in order to prevent pollution of our waterways, but it is for the Government to set the framework and the rules. It is not the Government who will deliver the solution on the ground: that will be for the water companies and they will be required to do so. She also asked if I would be willing to meet. Yes, of course, I would be happy to meet her, my noble friend the Duke of Wellington and anyone else who has a particular interest in this issue. I am very keen to get this right.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for assuring us that he is talking to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about greywater and other related issues. I ask him to work really hard on this, because the longer it goes on, the more homes—hundreds of thousands—will be built that are not up to the standards that probably everybody in this House wants, including the Minister. Can he give us some idea of when we will get the new standards up and running, be it on greywater, flooding, heat conservation, net zero, or keeping houses cool in the future when temperatures rise? This is urgent, and housebuilders need to get on with it.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am not sure that I can give the noble Lord a date, because that is not in the hands of Defra and certainly not in in mine. I can absolutely offer him an assurance, however. There are an enormous number of things that need to be done to building regulations in order to maximise the chance for nature to flourish, to tackle water waste, and to slow down the flow of surface water to prevent flooding. The list goes on and on. I am certainly not an expert: I have ideas of my own, but I am talking to a number of people outside government who really are experts. I am harvesting the best possible ideas and suggestions for building regulations. I cannot guarantee that I will win every argument, but I extend that invitation to Members of this House. If people have ideas about things that should be included—particularly for new-builds, but also retrofit—I will gratefully receive them because I am in the market for ideas.
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, which was interrupted, unfortunately, on Monday evening. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I was very struck by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the difference between Scotland and England in the treatment of wastewater. I must admit that I had not known that. I hope that the Minister and his officials will take note of that discrepancy and consider it an additional indicator of how much we still have to do in England to improve our systems.
I am obviously disappointed that the Government are not yet prepared to place an immediate legal obligation on the water companies to begin to improve, and continue to improve, their treatment plants. I am pleased that the Minister has indicated that he is prepared to meet further. It would be helpful if we could find amendments that are more acceptable to the Government, because I sense a strong cross-party consensus in the House that we have to do more than the Bill currently proposes. I particularly hope that the Government will consider doing more along the lines of the amendments of my noble friend Lord Cameron, on nature-based solutions, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on greywater systems.
There were many good parts to this debate, but the best part was the clear recognition throughout the House that we must do more to clean up our rivers. The Minister has mentioned again this afternoon the disturbingly high estimated cost of upgrading the systems: between £200 billion and £500 billion. Obviously, that is an alarming figure. Is he prepared to write to me explaining how that figure was arrived at? Clearly, the country as a whole would have great difficulty financing that. Nevertheless, we must deal with the problem. It has been a helpful debate, along with the debate we had on Monday evening about storm overflows, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Storm overflows
In Part 4 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (sewerage services), after Chapter 3 insert—“CHAPTER 4STORM OVERFLOWS141A Storm overflow discharge reduction plan(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a plan for the purposes of—(a) reducing discharges from the storm overflows of sewerage undertakers whose area is wholly or mainly in England, and(b) reducing the adverse impacts of those discharges.(2) The reference in subsection (1)(a) to reducing discharges of sewage includes—(a) reducing the frequency and duration of the discharges, and(b) reducing the volume of the discharges.(3) The reference in subsection (1)(b) to reducing adverse impacts includes—(a) reducing adverse impacts on the environment, and(b) reducing adverse impacts on public health. (4) The plan may in particular include proposals for—(a) reducing the need for anything to be discharged by the storm overflows;(b) treating sewage that is discharged by the storm overflows;(c) monitoring the quality of watercourses, bodies of water or water in underground strata into which the storm overflows discharge;(d) obtaining information about the operation of the storm overflows.(5) When preparing the plan the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Environment Agency,(b) the Authority,(c) the Council,(d) Natural England,(e) sewerage undertakers whose area is wholly or mainly in England, or persons representing them, and(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(6) The Secretary of State must publish the plan before 1 September 2022.(7) The Secretary of State may at any time revise the plan, having consulted the persons referred to in subsection (5), and must publish any revised version.(8) The plan, and any revised version of it, must be laid before Parliament once it is published.141B Progress reports on storm overflow discharge reduction plan(1) The Secretary of State must publish reports (“progress reports”) relating to the plan under section 141A.(2) A progress report is to contain the Secretary of State’s assessment of—(a) the progress made, during the period to which the report relates, in implementing the proposals in the plan (or any revised version of it), and(b) the effect of that progress on the matters referred to in section 141A(1)(a) and (b).(3) The first progress report must relate to the period of three years beginning with the day on which the plan under section 141A is first published.(4) Subsequent progress reports must relate to successive periods of five years after the period referred to in subsection (3).(5) A progress report must be published within 12 weeks following the last day of the period to which it relates.(6) A progress report must be laid before Parliament once it is published.141C Annual reports on discharges from storm overflows(1) A sewerage undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in England must publish annual reports in relation to the undertaker’s storm overflows (“storm overflow reports”).(2) A storm overflow report must specify, for each of the sewerage undertaker’s storm overflows—(a) the location of the storm overflow;(b) the watercourse, body of water or underground strata into which the storm overflow discharges;(c) the frequency and duration of discharges from the storm overflow in the period to which the report relates;(d) where the information is available, the volume of each discharge in that period; (e) information on any investigations that have taken place or improvement works that have been undertaken in relation to the storm overflow during that period.(3) Storm overflow reports are to relate to successive calendar years, starting with 2021.(4) A storm overflow report must be published by a sewerage undertaker before 1 April in the year after the calendar year to which it relates.(5) A storm overflow report must—(a) be in a form which allows the public readily to understand the information contained in the report, and(b) be published in a way which makes the report readily accessible to the public.(6) The duties of a sewerage undertaker under this section are enforceable under section 18 by—(a) the Secretary of State, or(b) the Authority, with the consent of or in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State.141D Environment Agency reports(1) The Environment Agency must publish annual reports in relation to the operation of storm overflows of sewerage undertakers whose area is wholly or mainly in England.(2) A report under this section must specify—(a) the location of the storm overflows;(b) the watercourse, body of water or underground strata into which the storm overflows discharge;(c) the frequency and duration of discharges from the storm overflows in the period to which the report relates;(d) where the information is available, the volume of each discharge in that period.(3) Reports under this section are to relate to successive calendar years, starting with 2021.(4) A storm overflow report must be published by the Environment Agency —(a) before 1 April in the year after the calendar year to which it relates, and(b) in such manner as the Environment Agency thinks fit.141E Interpretation of Chapter 4(1) In this Chapter, references to a storm overflow of a sewerage undertaker are to any structure or apparatus—(a) which is comprised in the sewerage system of the sewerage undertaker, and(b) which, when the capacity of other parts of the system downstream or of storage tanks at sewage disposal works is exceeded, relieves them by discharging their excess contents into inland waters, underground strata or the sea.(2) References in this Chapter to discharges from a storm overflow do not include discharges occurring as a result of—(a) electrical power failure at sewage disposal works,(b) mechanical breakdown at sewage disposal works,(c) rising main failure, or(d) blockage of any part of the sewerage system downstream of the storm overflow.(3) Section 17BA(7) (meaning of sewerage system of a sewerage undertaker) applies for the purposes of subsection (1).”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for a plan to reduce discharges from storm overflows, for progress reports on the plan and for reports on storm overflows by sewerage undertakers and the Environment Agency.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 176. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 82: Water abstraction: no compensation for certain licence modifications
Amendment 176
Lord Carrington
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove the proposals for increased powers to vary or revoke abstraction rights without offering compensation to licence holders.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer, as set out in the register. As a farmer, I think it would be more appropriate, in many ways, to discuss ways of stopping the rain than water abstraction licences. However, the climate is a law unto itself, and, unlike the Bill, it defies amendment.
I move Amendment 176 and will speak to Amendments 177 to 187, in my name, including Amendment 178, which is also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain. They follow considerable discussion with and the support of individual farmers, as well as the National Farmers’ Union, of which I am a member. I record my thanks to the Minister and his colleagues at Defra for meeting me and the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, listening carefully and responding to some of the issues.
There is no question over the full support of farmers for measures to protect and enhance water quality. The problem comes with the current lack of detail in the clause to revoke or change water abstraction licences—and, secondly, with the disappearance of compensation. Under current legislation, the Environment Agency has the power to revoke or change licences where environmental damage is being caused and to agree compensation. The new power widens the power of revocation or change to meet environmental objectives and removes the requirement to pay compensation.
If these clauses, as currently drafted, are implemented, they are likely to have severe consequences for agriculture and horticulture, particularly in areas where water abstraction has been the norm for many years. We are talking about some of the most productive land in the country, covering livestock, arable, fruit and vegetable and horticultural farming. We are talking about some of the most efficient farms in the land and some of the most technologically advanced farming in England. We are talking about farms with some of the highest investment costs in specialist buildings and machinery—and about some of the most expensive land in the country. Surely this is the type of agriculture that we should be encouraging, because expertise, technology, productivity and returns attract, and will continue to attract, investment and well-qualified and ambitious people. The threat to abstraction licences and the loss of compensation risks undermining all of this and might cause more agricultural production to locate overseas—to countries that have greater water issues than our own and fewer regulations to mitigate abstraction. Is this really what we want?
As far as Amendment 176 is concerned, this is not therefore a question of seeking to change the Environment Agency’s powers to vary abstraction licences. These can and do change when, for example, new environmental evidence emerges, indicating that abstraction is unsustainable. However, it is also a well-established principle that, when licence changes are made, the abstractor can be compensated for the loss of both the asset and the income resulting from that loss.
Farmer abstractors are vulnerable to licence changes because, usually, they lack the capacity to adapt to them in a timely manner. Water companies can engage with the Environment Agency in advance of proposed changes to agree a structured transition to, for example, an alternative water source. The asset management planning process secures the necessary funding for the water company to invest in the alternative intervention, having obtained customers’ agreement on their willingness to pay for it.
The process for farmers is very different. At present, they do not have the benefit of prior engagement with the Environment Agency, so the effect of the licence change on their business is immediate and often without warning. Access to alternative water supplies for individual farms tends to be limited, and it is unrealistic for them to expect that costs incurred in securing new supplies can be passed on to customers.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, particularly as I agree with a lot of what he had to say, although, as he will see a minute, I come to some slightly different conclusions. Where I agree with him is that this is a tricky problem, and I speak as a farmer who grows and irrigates potatoes—or at least my son now does. I am aware that you can hardly sell unirrigated potatoes nowadays. It is all about skin finish: in the old days, you could, because mostly, of course, we peel the skin off our potatoes before we eat them, so the skin should really not matter. It should be the taste of the flesh underneath that is important but, apparently, or so we are told by the supermarkets, skin finish is king, and for that I am afraid that you need irrigation.
The second thing that makes this a tricky problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to, is the huge capital involved in most of the crops needing irrigating. Returning again to the humble potato, you need stone separators, potato planters, ridgers, harvesters, grading lines and cold stores, not to mention the underground and overground pipes, as well as the pumps and irrigation equipment itself. All this could easily come to well over a million pounds, which huge sum most farmers will have had to borrow from the bank. The threat of all that borrowing going to waste or not returning the required interest is indeed frightening, although if your abstraction licence dates back to the 1960s or 1970s, as some of them do, and your capital is all paid off, it is slightly less frightening.
A third factor that makes this a tricky area is that whereas a water company has a network of pipes and many different sources of water, and so can juggle its extraction plans to cater for where the water might be in abundance, the farmer can get his or her water only from or adjacent to their own land. They cannot abstract water from a different catchment or a different aquifer from the one they farm on.
Why, might the Committee ask, am I wanting to shorten the leeway allowed to farmers from 2028 to 2023? The answer is that I am not; what I am saying is that no compensation for amending an abstraction licence should be allowable after January 2023. However, the Environment Agency should be able to extend the enforcement of the necessary licence modification for several years if it believes time is required by the individual business—for the building of a reservoir, for instance. This should be done on a case-by-case basis, and in that way most modifications can probably happen sooner rather than later. However, and this is my key point, the days when you can be compensated for not causing environmental degradation have, in my view, long since gone: you cannot be compensated for not causing environmental degradation.
At the risk of straying into the realms of the bleeding obvious, I should state that, as has been made clear again and again in our discussions on this water chapter, some of our rivers are in a pretty poor state: sewage overspills, road run-off, agricultural run-off and generally just having too many people or too much livestock per square kilometre all contribute to ever more damaging stuff—to use a highly scientific technical term—entering our rivers. Unless we can ensure sufficient water in the river to dilute that stuff, then trout, grayling, carp and perch, dragonflies, mayflies, shrimps and dippers could all disappear, along with irises, water violets and multi-fruited river moss, to name but a few lifeforms that are important inhabitants of our rivers. This dilution is important, and it must have been obvious to all farmers for years that anyone causing environmental damage by overabstraction was going to have to change what they did and how they did it; but, in some cases, very little has happened, and too many farmers have taken no action at all. There are still people extracting from rivers in the middle of summer.
It is possible for a farmer to build one, two or even three small on-farm reservoirs to ensure that they abstract only during the winter months. It is possible for farmers to share reservoirs. It is possible for licence sharing to exist between abstractors in a single catchment. It is possible to use precision irrigation systems which save huge amounts of water. There are a variety of possible solutions and it is to be hoped that all abstractors will be able to find some form of compromise on rivers and waterways where the environment is threatened. I gather from data produced by Defra last year that this amounts to some 18% of our rivers and waterways and over a quarter of our groundwaters. We cannot just go on allowing abstractors to continue to cause environmental degradation.
My proposal is that the Environment Agency should start talking now to farmers on an individual basis with a view to modifying licences which are deemed to be damaging rivers, especially where there are habitats of particular biodiversity importance. This obviously includes SSSIs, referred to in my Amendment 179A, which largely speaks for itself and I would have thought was indisputable.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, in this House. He speaks with great knowledge and conviction. It is equally a pleasure to listen to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I cannot think of another occasion when I have spoken in this House, following two clearly eminent and very experienced farmers. As a civil engineer, I have to just look at the mechanics of it. Nevertheless, it is easier to be supportive of Amendments 176A, 180A and 187ZA, rather than the perhaps more holocaustic view of “what will happen if” that we have heard in earlier remarks.
These amendments, which we support, would provide for the power that is set out in the amendments to be available earlier than given in the Bill. Given the damage that is already occurring—as has been so eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron—the impacts of over-abstraction can be long lasting and profound. I speak from the point of view of someone who, while not farming, lives close to the farming community in Hampshire. Noble Lords will have heard me speak earlier of the issues concerning the catchment area of the rivers that we live with. Fish and wildlife can be lost from channels that experience low flows, and take many years to recover. We are already experiencing, in Hampshire, salmon failing to meet conservation limits. So it is not a guess that things will be bad—they are already bad.
Sustainable abstraction will the support the Government’s 25-year environment plan commitments and species recovery targets. Many farmers already farm under sustainable licences, and we must use the techniques and innovations adopted by those farmers to support best practice. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has mentioned, with forward planning and investment, on-farm reservoirs are one of the options that can be used.
Amendment 187B would apply to abstraction of water from a river or aquifer that is used by businesses for commercial reasons and related in some sense to agriculture. I am thinking here of businesses such as those that process and distribute cress—watercress and so forth—or fish farms. Water is abstracted, used and then returned to the river by the licence holder. The cost of monitoring inflows and outflows, we believe, should be met by the licence holder as a regular means of, if not controlling what the users are doing, at least being aware of what they are doing.
This has been a very serious issue in our locality. Hampshire is famous for its watercress, but it is reliant, very much so, on pure water. When there is a situation where a successful international commercial company uses your local area as its base for international processing and distribution of their salads, because it has the benefit of a licence to use the water from the chalk stream to clean and remove chemicals and pesticides and so forth on their product, which is then distributed all over Europe, if they are then found to be abusing the licence, and end up by polluting the river, you have a serious problem. I think the Government need to have the means at their disposal to control that. In the particular case I mentioned, it was controlled because individuals mounted a private prosecution to demonstrate the abuse was carrying on, and this exposed it and eventually stopped it.
The terms of the licence will be determined at a level recognising the activities on a particular river or chalk stream, matching or improving on the water quality, and ensuring, by using settlement ponds or recirculation systems, that there are no additional chemicals, nutrients or sediments in the outgoing water compared to the incoming water.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as stated in the register, and as owner of a short stretch of the River Rib in Hertfordshire, a chalk stream with various numbers of brown trout, stocked rainbow trout and too many pike and alien crayfish. I also have two operating boreholes, supplying four different households with water and, over the weekend of our music festival, supplementing the water supply for 17,000 festival goers. Happily, our water table is strong, and the River Rib never dries up, unlike some other Hertfordshire chalk streams. The volume of water that we extract is now below the minimum amount that would trigger the requirement for a licence, but those whose volumes require them to have licences should receive compensation for unilateral and untimely cancellation or revocation of those licences. They provide farmers and market gardeners with the certainty they need to continue to produce food, and to invest in their businesses for the future.
I support Amendment 178, so well proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and seconded by my noble friend Lord Colgrain. Would the Minister recognise that it is just not right, in the year when farmers start to lose a substantial part of their direct grants, that they should also face an additional increased risk of revocation or change to their licences? The risk is increased because clause (82)(1) of the Bill widens the possible grounds for revocation to include supporting environmental principles. It is therefore no longer necessary to claim that abstraction is causing environmental damage. I also worry about the arbitrary removal of excess headroom. The amount of rainfall varies considerably year on year and, whereas in years of ample rainfall a licence holder may use substantially less than his limit, he may well need to use his headroom excess in subsequent dry years.
I agree with the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, rather more than I do with those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, although I sympathise with his Amendment 179A, which he introduced persuasively. Otherwise, I think he is over-optimistic in seeking to bring forward the effective date from 2028 to 2023. I could support acceleration of the date, but only if the evidential bar were raised, as Amendment 179 seeks to do.
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I rise metaphorically to support Amendment 187B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey. I think there is agreement across the House that we must legislate in this Bill to clean up our rivers. There will be many ways in which we can achieve this; we have already debated cisterns and discharges.
As it is necessary and important to monitor air quality, so it is with water quality. Duties to monitor water quality will be placed by the Bill on the water companies. To place a similar obligation on any party licensed to abstract and then discharge water seems both proportionate and appropriate. This point was argued forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the spirit of his amendment and place it in whatever clause will make it most effective. It is an important amendment and the Government would be well advised to accept it.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. I rise to support my noble friend Lord Carrington and to add my name to his Amendment 178. I also echo his words of thanks to the Minister for the time that he and members of his department gave us during our virtual meeting to discuss this amendment and for his subsequent letter.
While my noble friend focused his concerns on abstraction rights for arable and horticultural farmers and businesses, my concern is for licences that relate to spring chambers that are gravity fed from underwater strata. These are most often used to provide water to domestic dwellings and livestock troughs and many of these licences have been granted since the 1960s and before. Consequently, they have attached to them over 60 years’ worth of infrastructure investment, whether pipelines or reservoirs, and have become an integral property right and business asset, as my noble friend has already rightly said.
In the overview paragraph of his letter to us, the Minister says that a licence can be varied or revoked to protect from serious damage to the water environment. How this would apply to gravity-fed licences is not clear, since, after all, water appears from a spring and finds its own way to a watercourse. Where is the potential damage in that? In the paragraph dedicated specifically to gravity-fed licences, the Minister’s letter says that abstraction from springs of under 20 cubic metres a day does not need a licence at all, since at that volume they are exempt, but that over that the Environment Agency will balance the needs of abstractors and work with them to find alternative solutions if a revocation or variation is required. Frankly, I do not understand what that means, unless it refers to utilising mains pipelines, which defeats the original objective.
I am mindful of the words of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, in opening this debate that the Bill must satisfy the five Cs. If there is to be no compensation for the revocation or variation of these licences, the Bill will have failed in its defence of this category, in a manner where no environmental benefit is to be gained anyway.
During our virtual meeting, I understood the Minister’s officials to say that they did not think that gravity-fed licences would be included in revocation or variances. It is, after all, faintly ridiculous to think, King Canute-like, that water would be prevented from discharging itself from geographical fault lines. I look forward to confirmation from the Minister either that there is indeed scope for them to be excluded, or that there is scope for compensation for this category to be paid.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. She is not with us. I call the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the amendments so ably proposed by my noble friend Lord Carrington. I understand from speaking with the Environment Agency locally that these provisions on the removal of water abstraction rights are directed for the most part at large water companies that have for many decades enjoyed the right to extract vast quantities of water from major waterways that they have never used and will likely never need to use. For example, I understand that South West Water enjoys the right to extract over 50% of the water in the River Exe, but it would never use it; if it did, it would cause huge environmental degradation to the sensitive and diverse lower reaches of the river.
If that was all the provisions achieved, they would have my wholehearted support, but they have a much broader impact. Once again, as we have heard, that impact will fall most harshly on the farming community, which will be under such considerable stress in the coming years.
Here, I note once more my farming interests. I also note and pray in aid a number of specific water abstraction rights that our farm in Devon has long enjoyed. Since I took over the farm, I have paid considerable sums each year to preserve those abstraction rights, but I have yet to use them, on the understanding that if those licences were not renewed, they would be lost for ever, impacting considerably the value of the land they serve and permanently restricting the form of agriculture that can be undertaken.
Your Lordships may query why a farmer would pay such sums for water abstraction licences that are not used. That is a reasonable question. The abstraction rights were established in the last century and regularly used then when the farm grew potatoes and other vegetable crops in considerable quantities. Cropping changes since have meant that the rotation now focuses on cereals, for which no irrigation is required, but the ability to extract water has been important, never more so than now.
As we have heard in various recent debates, we need to grow more of our own fruit and vegetables in the UK in the coming years to avoid exporting the environmental impact of a healthier national diet to other countries with lower standards. If we remove abstraction licences, we are in danger of limiting considerably the ability to diversify our nation’s farming, just at the time when we need to be doing the opposite, particularly as global warming is making changes to cropping a necessity. Also, are we not in danger of encouraging farmers now to make use of extraction licences that they do not currently need, solely to preserve them for the future, thereby merely adding to our water consumption?
Finally, it is not clear how these provisions sit fairly alongside basic property rights. Article 17 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights states:
“Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid”.
Given the Environment Agency already enjoys the power to revoke or change abstraction licences where they are shown to be causing environmental damage, thereby securing the public interest, how are the provisions of Clause 82 consistent with the basic right not to be deprived of possessions without fair compensation?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble Earl. I would like to lend my support in particular to Amendment 176 and others in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I commend his preparation and the detail he has given us this afternoon on this group of amendments and on what he seeks to achieve.
I am nothing other than a farmer’s friend, a fisherman’s friend and a friendly eco-warrior—I speak as a lay person in this regard. But I recall that, when chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place, for five years, there were two opportunities for our then Government—the coalition Government of my own party, the Conservative Party, supported so ably by the Liberal Democrats, when we had Ministers in each department from both parties—to consider abstraction policy. The first was in the context of the water management Act, which was adopted in 2010, and the second was in the Water Act 2014. Despite enormous efforts from the cross-party members of that committee, we were told that that was not the right time to come forward with an abstraction policy. The Government wished to take time, quite rightly, to consider a proper, well thought-out abstraction strategy and policy.
I look at the Bill and Explanatory Notes before us and I do not think we are quite there yet. That is why these well thought-out amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, serve a useful purpose in that regard. We have to accept that none of us wants to damage the watercourses, large or small, in any way, shape or form, and that we want to protect our aquifers and water, and particularly the fish and other habitats that are served by our watercourses. But we also have to accept that there are many competing uses of water.
From what I have seen and experienced, the farmers seem to be left as the last thought-about in that list. The mover and supporters of the amendment have explained that it is often the water companies and then industrialists who are considered. For example, it could be a brewery or a manufacturer; on a number of occasions I have visited Wilkin’s jam manufacturer—I admit to having a sweet tooth, and it is always a joy to visit. Many companies such as that are users of water and responsibly control its use. I urge my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist to look carefully at ways in which farmers can have adequate provision of water supply.
The grace period should remain until 2028, for all the reasons that those speaking in support of the amendments have given. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, requested, there should be a licence plan, a formal appeal system and clarification of a new agreement—in fact, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who suggested it. I entirely agree with what he signed up to, but moving that proposal forward to 2023 would be extremely ill advised.
I shudder for the future of farmers and their use of water at certain times of the year. I am concerned because, when one considers North Yorkshire, as one of the most rural counties in the country, there are times when there could be a flood in one part of the county and severe stress in its north-east. We must be mindful of the fact that there may be a need to abstract water in the summer months. I urge my noble friend the Minister in her response to express a note of caution, and I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to come forward with a proper, well thought-out abstraction policy within the context of the Bill.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the pressure on our wetlands, rivers and aquifers is huge and growing. Demands for water from domestic and business customers, and from agriculture, are increasing. Climate change is reducing the supply and reliability of rainfall, as well as increasing our demand on water resources. I cannot believe that it is 20 years since I started campaigning for the withdrawal of damaging abstraction licences; it is a sad state of affairs that the argument has not yet been completely won.
I cannot support Amendment 176 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Water is a resource that we all must share. Historic abstraction rights are just that—historic happenstance—and can be inequitable in their impact on the environment and other water users. Overabstraction of water from low-flow rivers can have long-lasting damage; it can cause fish and other wildlife to be lost for ever, particularly in chalk streams. None of that will help with the Government’s biodiversity target if overabstraction continues. It can also result in salt water contamination of water resources, including groundwater, which is difficult to remediate.
In the Water Act 2003, we made some progress with the right to compensation for holders of licences that were causing serious damage being withdrawn, but that was a small provision, and rarely used. The Water Act 2014 removed the requirement to pay compensation for water company abstraction licence changes, which was another step forward.
Many farmers already farm under sustainable abstraction licences and have developed innovative solutions for reducing the amount of irrigation water needed, and developed more on-farm reservoirs, as outlined knowledgably by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. We need to pay farmers under ELMS for developing innovative solutions in adapting to a changing climate. Amendments 176A, 180A and 187ZA, tabled by the noble Lord and outlined so eloquently by him, are highly reasonable, practical and fair, and would enable an acceleration of the deadline by which abstraction should cease. His amendments are based on a lifetime of practical agricultural experience and gain much stature from that. There can be no argument at all about removing compensation for variations to licences to remove excess headroom, where historic licences with unused headroom are hampering the more flexible allocation of water.
I also support Amendment 179A—again, one of the splendid amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Dillington—which would correct the narrow definition of ecological health and enable changes to be made in licences that are preventing the effective conservation management of sites of special scientific interest and where abstraction is causing damaging low flows in chalk streams and the main salmon rivers.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I always remember with great gratitude when she came to my constituency to help with a particular problem, and went to infinite trouble so to do. She speaks with knowledge and authority.
I have never heard a debate in your Lordships’ House that has been opened with two more impressive speakers, who illustrated the expertise we have here. A powerful case was made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I was almost totally persuaded by it—until I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. They both made powerful points, but what has emerged from the debate for me, as a pure lay man in these discussions, is that the prime purpose and overriding concern of an environment Bill—as underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, who has an extremely sensible amendment in his name—must be the health of the environment, and you cannot have a healthy environment unless you have healthy rivers. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, made a perceptive point when he underlined his support for the Chidgey amendment.
Where do we go from all this? Of course there has to be fairness at the end of the day, and an appeal procedure that can be respected by all concerned. I very much hope that, in the discussions that take place between now and Report—we say that again and again on this Bill—there can be an agreement on an appeal process whereby people do not feel that they have been harshly dealt with and, when following practices that they have followed over the years, they are not abruptly penalised. That is the direction in which we must go because—I come back to the prime point—the health of our rivers is fundamental to a healthy environment, and nothing must be done that further damages them. We referred in earlier stages of the Bill to the crucial importance of clean waterways—the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has his own Private Member’s Bill in that regard—and we are a long way from achieving the cleanliness that is, I hope, the desire of us all.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and I have listened carefully to the informed and thoughtful contributions from all sides. They have well represented the two sides of the dilemma. On the one hand, we recognise that water abstraction plays a vital role in the economy, generating power, driving industry and helping our farmers to grow food. On the other hand, we recognise that unsustainable abstraction can do serious environmental damage, particularly by changing the natural flow of water, with lower water flows and reduced water levels, and ultimately contaminating water resources, thereby affecting fish and wildlife and in some cases contaminating by allowing salt-water intrusion.
I think that we all accept that an abstraction licence should not give an automatic right to extract water whatever the environmental consequences. As my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone said, water is a shared resource. The actions of one individual or business can have devastating effects on another farm or community downstream, so we have to manage it on a collective basis. In this regard, I welcome the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, which would require a licensee to measure water quality in an aquifer and share that information publicly. That is all part of that collective management of a very scarce resource.
We also have to recognise that climate change has already varied the supply of water since many licences were granted, and all the Government’s indices point to looming water shortages. We accept the point made by several noble Lords that the rights experienced by a water company are of a very different scale and impact from those experienced by farmers. It is on this latter group that we are focusing today.
The Government place great emphasis in their proposals on the Environment Agency managing the changes to licences through local consultation. In his letter to us of 10 June, the Minister said that
“we expect the Environment Agency to work closely with the affected licence holders before using these measures.”
But when I visited Norfolk with the NFU a couple of years ago, this was far from the case. Their licences, which underpinned a thriving horticultural sector producing fruit and vegetables for the UK market, were under imminent threat and, despite numerous requests, there was no dialogue with the Environment Agency—indeed, at one point, I even got the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, involved to persuade for some consultation to take place. As we discussed in the earlier debate, the Environment Agency is struggling to meet all its statutory obligations because of the funding crisis. I hope that the Minister has received sufficient assurance that the Environment Agency has the resources to manage the renegotiation of all the licences so that we can have more sustainable licences in the future.
Ultimately, we agree that we have no choice but to withdraw a licence if the evidence shows that the environment is being damaged. We agree with the premise of Clause 82 that there should be a negotiated settlement, with a reasonable compliance period for changes to be introduced rather than an automatic right to compensation. We also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that the new agreements should be for a minimum of 12 years. As he made clear, we should take a catchment-based approach and look to introduce the best techniques available for water efficiency in parallel with the negotiations.
We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that an operative date of January 2028 is far too long a time. I was alarmed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, talk of deadlines as far ahead as 21 years. The current timescale does not appear to grasp fully the severity and immediacy of the problems facing our waterways. We need to move all farmers on to sustainable abstraction licences as soon as possible. We cannot wait until 2028 to start revoking licences.
If compensation remains payable until 2028, there is a danger that budgetary constraints will limit the scope of the Environment Agency to act to protect the environment in the interim. There is also the danger of perverse outcomes whereby people start to behave in their short-term interest just to protect their rights and potential access to compensation. As we have heard, the Government are already beginning to address this issue through the 2017 abstraction action plan, so there is even more reason for bringing the date forward from 2028, since presumably action on many of these areas is already in hand.
This has been a difficult debate, and I understand the arguments on both sides but, ultimately, we think that a date of 2028 is too long away and we therefore support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for another interesting discussion on this Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has just observed, the Government are endeavouring to perform a careful balancing act by delivering on their manifesto commitments to improve the environment through addressing the consequences of unsustainable abstraction and modernising the licence system while minimising the impact on farmers.
To put things into context—I was grateful for the balanced comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone—I say that we expect that, out of the 13,000 permanent abstraction licences, there may be up to 1,200 that are unsustainable and to which these measures may apply. However, the Environment Agency expects that the number of licences will reduce in any case before the need for the measures to be applied following local site investigations and discussions with licence holders.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his Amendments 176 and 177 to 179, and understand his concerns about the effect of the proposals on licence holders. My noble friend the Minister and I were grateful to be able to meet the noble Lord alongside my noble friend Lord Colgrain the week before last to discuss this issue further.
As we have heard from other noble Lords, unsustainable abstraction can have very negative impacts on the aquatic environment, including causing low flows. Low flows can lead to reduced levels of dissolved oxygen, harming fish and insects. It can also lead to increased temperatures and impede the migration of fish species, which may not be able to reach spawning grounds. I say in response to the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about salmon stocks—an interest of mine, of course—that Defra, the Environment Agency and partner organisations have committed to the salmon five point approach to restore the abundance, diversity and resilience of salmon stocks, ensure that river flows are adequate for the habitats they support and increase spawning success by improving water quality.
Of course, low flows have a knock-on effect on other parts of riverine ecosystems, including specialist species which rely on the aquatic environment. Low flows can also lead to dire consequences for internationally important chalk streams, 75% to 80% of which are found in the UK.
However, we also know that abstraction is vital for food production, as farmers provide drinking water for livestock or abstract water to irrigate their crops. I hope that my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering is reassured that I put that firmly on the record.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, with respect to his potatoes, skin finish is vital, and the Government recognise the importance of maintaining the high quality of British produce. We must therefore balance the needs of agricultural and other abstraction licence holders with public water supply demands and the need to protect the environment. That is why the Environment Agency is using a catchment-based approach and trialling innovative approaches in priority catchments with a range of local stakeholders, including water companies, the National Farmers’ Union, local abstractor groups, environmental groups and navigation interests to solve issues of access to water and unsustainable abstraction.
As we have discussed in our conversations to date, the Government want the Environment Agency to continue to work closely with abstractors to explore all voluntary solutions to unsustainable abstraction. I do not agree that this is a blunt regulatory process; rather, it is the last resort in a collaborative process.
On removing compensation rights, which a number of noble Lords mentioned, we want to protect licence holders’ ability to abstract where it is fair and right to do so. Unless a licence risks damaging the environment or is underused, we believe that licence holders should be eligible for fair compensation for any loss if licences are revoked or varied.
Farmers hold more abstraction licences than any other sector and so a higher number of farmers may be affected than other sectors. However, the Government expect the Environment Agency to work closely with affected licence holders to find alternative solutions which balance the needs of the environment and the needs of farmers. We expect these powers to be used by the Environment Agency only after all other options have been exhausted.
The Environment Agency, as the statutory environmental regulator, has the relevant expertise to determine which licences may be affected by the changing of the threshold from “serious damage” to “damage”. The Environment Agency grants licences and proposes their revocation or variation based on monitoring of abstraction and the water environment from which the water is being taken.
To reassure my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who appealed for an appeals process, as currently, an abstraction licence holder will be able to appeal to the Secretary of State in respect of a proposed revocation or variation of their licence, as well as to put forward any additional evidence from other experts, if they wish to do so. Therefore, the Secretary of State is already required to consider relevant expert evidence when using this power as it is an intrinsic part of the existing process. Furthermore, I reassure noble Lords that the Environment Agency has already started conversations with a number of farmers, which I hope will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who asked about the ability of the Environment Agency to undertake all these powers.
We should expect that these measures will be used only after other solutions have been exhausted. Partly for this reason, they will not be available until 2028. In the meantime, we expect the Environment Agency to work closely with affected licence holders on a case-by-case basis, to provide data and evidence for why a licence needs to be varied or revoked, to consider the type of abstraction when making decisions, and to take a risk-based approach and consider what the abstraction is being used for.
On the noble Lord’s Amendments 180 to 187, I hope he can see that the Government have designed these provisions to make more water available to other abstractors and to reduce the risk to the environment. These measures will be focused on permanent licence holders who consistently abstract much less water than they are licensed to take, but the Government are well aware that not all licence headroom indicates a lack of need. It is appropriate to safeguard licence headroom in some cases—for example, to manage higher demands during dry weather as well as the planned future growth of a business. The 12-year period specified in the Bill allows for weather variations and crop rotations and fits with the current abstraction licensing strategy timeframe.
On Amendments 176A, 180A and 187ZA from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, I hope that the arguments I have given have convinced him that introducing these measures from 2028 strikes the right balance between protecting the environment and recognising their impact on abstractors.
As I think the contrast between the amendments in this group illustrates, the Government have worked hard to reach a fair compromise on this issue. As well as allowing time to find voluntary solutions, the 2028 date will give time for licence holders to adjust. We understand that this is particularly important for business certainty and continuity. Furthermore, it will allow time for the catchment-based approach to water resources to produce solutions. In the abstraction plan, published in 2017, the Government committed to update abstraction licensing strategies for all catchments by 2027, and a 2028 date aligns with this.
Regarding Amendment 179A, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the Government simplified Clause 82 following feedback received during our consultation in 2019 that our original proposals were far too complex. Licences can be varied or revoked without the Environment Agency being liable to pay compensation where the Secretary of State considers the licence change necessary, having regard to the relevant environmental objectives under the water framework directive or to protect the water environment from damage. As such, I am pleased to confirm for the noble Lord that the clause can already apply to licences that may affect all sites designated under existing legislation, including sites of special scientific interest and Ramsar sites.
The Environment Agency also already considers the impact on flow when assessing the environmental impact of an abstraction licence, including when it is considering whether to revoke or vary a licence. The Environment Agency will continue to do so when these new powers are available on or after 1 January 2028.
Lord Carrington (CB)
I thank everybody who has participated in this debate. There have been some very informative contributions from all noble Lords. I may not agree with all of them, and I must say, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that maybe we should limit our conversations in future to the growing of potatoes in Devon, which he does very well, and the growing of potatoes in Lincolnshire, which I reckon we do quite well.
Leaving that aside, the most important thing that has come out of this debate is the uncertainty about some of the rules and regulations and the data that is used. It is this lack of certainty over the data behind licensing decisions, together with the use of the precautionary approach behind many of those decisions, that is causing great concern to farmers. I repeat my request, as I stated earlier, that proportionality should govern all this.
My other point is that the definition of damage is extremely vague, for understandable reasons. How and why should growers rely on the say-so of the Environment Agency, particularly in the light of the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch? You can understand where the concern comes in.
In the meeting with the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, a helpful promise came out. I shall read from the letter, which states: “We will set out in guidance what we expect the Environment Agency to seek to find collaborative, non-licensed change, such as habitat restoration and mutually agreeable voluntary solutions wherever possible. Responsibility for demonstrating that a licence is damaging or risks damaging the environment will lie with the Environment Agency.”
My conclusion is that the word “damaging” needs, if possible, to be defined very carefully and the guidelines given by the Ministry to the Environment Agency need to be circulated well in advance. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for her support for farming and, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Some were perhaps less concerned about the importance of productive farming in this country than they. I also refer to the excellent speech of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who mentioned the importance of property rights and the issue of compensation. That is a major issue, and I cannot underline enough how much money has been spent by some farms to put all this equipment in place. Although certainty is difficult, it is required for them.
In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Before we move on, perhaps we need a pause to allow people to escape from the Chamber.
They have escaped. We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 188. Anyone wishing to press this amendment or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear during the debate.
Clause 83: Water quality: powers of Secretary of State
Amendment 188
“having regard to the constraints of the periodic price review to which water companies are bound.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to move and speak to Amendment 188 in my name and to speak briefly on the other amendments in this group. I revert to what my noble friend said in summing up two groups ago. He said: “It is for water companies to improve their act and, indeed, under the Act, they are required to do so.” I put in an early bid, because I am starting to feel left out. I am one of the few who has not actually met the Minister, so I should like to meet him to discuss this point, together with the others who have already expressed interest.
I shall briefly sum up what the water companies are being asked to do. I am grateful to the Minister for referring to Clause 78(3)(a) to (g) and all the measures set out therein, which are not insubstantial. I also refer to my earlier remarks, which I shall not repeat, about the fact that we are grappling with Victorian infrastructure, combined with intense climatic changes, leading to sewage overflows. Not inconsiderable new expense is required to replace that infrastructure, so that is a new expense.
In my Amendment 188, I ask my noble friend to say at the outset that the Government will have regard to the constraints of the periodic price review to which water companies are bound. Essentially, non-regulated companies and regulated companies alike, such as water companies, which are regulated, are able to raise funds in the financial markets from either debt or equity investors. Non-regulated companies might typically do so to invest in additional capacity or new products or services so that they can increase future revenue from higher sales or higher prices, from providing a higher value service to customers and, from this increased revenue fund, the additional investment on a sustainable basis. However, regulated companies such as water companies, may be providing services largely on a monopoly basis, as here. Water companies are, rightly, being required to reduce water consumption—that is, sales of their core product—rather than increase it and cannot increase prices beyond the limited set at price reviews. This means that ensuring that price reviews focus sufficiently on the investment needed to meet long-term challenges is crucial.
I am asking for an acceptance that many of the obligations which water companies are required to meet are outwith their control. I referred earlier to the fact that they are not, as yet, statutory consultees. I welcome my noble friend’s reference to them being consulted on the new drainage and water management plans. I think we will all watch like hawks to see that that is the case.
I remind the Committee that houses built on floodplains after 2009 are not covered by Flood Re for insurance purposes if they flood. People frequently overlook that. Also, connections should be made only if the infrastructure is securely in place to carry the raw sewage safely away and not cause it to flow into combined sewers, which will lead to spillage, such as we discussed in previous amendments.
My question to my noble friend is precisely how much water companies can raise as part of the periodic review to cover that essential expenditure. He is absolutely right to say that the water companies are just about to embark on the next stage price review, so this is very timely.
My noble friend referred to the Explanatory Notes. Did the Government consult on the content of the Explanatory Notes and Clause 78 as regards the expenditure the water companies are being asked to make? Also, if we are unable to raise the money through the price review, or there is a limit on what we can raise, how can the Government encourage more private partners into flood prevention schemes under ELMS? I commend the partnership schemes that the Government have encouraged, but there is that little niggle.
On Amendments 188A, 188B and 188C, and Amendments 189 and 189A on water efficiency, there were three substantial reports in the 1990s. The Cave report on competition has largely been considered in relation to the competition aspects of retail and household delivery. I referred earlier to the Pitt review, all but a few recommendations of which have been actioned. Then there was the Walker review, under Anna Walker, on water efficiency, which has largely been overlooked. Much of that can be achieved by building regulations or, as we see in the amendments before us, labelling as well as building regulations.
I make a plea to the Government about how important it is to encourage the use of labelling. Without an accompanying label, with changed building regulations and minimum appliance standards, it is simply not possible to get household consumption down to the levels we need, which is the Government’s target. Introducing a labelling scheme alone will save 13 litres per person per day, but by accompanying it with minimum standards, that increases the saving to 27 litres per person per day. The difference between those numbers equates to about 1,000 megalitres per day by the second half of this century. That is roughly equivalent to a third of the current leakage losses. On their own, without any labelling initiative, changes to building regulations reduce consumption by a further 14 litres per household per day by 2065, equivalent to another third of current leakage losses.
I welcome those amendments and hope the Government will focus as much on water labelling and water regulation as on giving the water companies the ability to raise money they need through the price review.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I apologise in advance since I shall probably speak for too long on this group, but many of the amendments are either in my name or of interest to me.
My Amendments 188A, 188B and 188C really speak for themselves. To some extent they are probing amendments. The question of water quality, how such quality is defined in relation to current and future possible pollutants and how these substances should be dealt with is clearly important to businesses and individuals across the country whose lives are in many ways touched by our rivers and waterways. As my explanatory note says, there is significant public interest in water quality, so we feel that the Secretary of State should set up a technical advisory group with the purpose of providing independent—I stress that word—advice to Ministers on the measurement and improvement of water quality standards. It is only in this way that the public will have confidence that the regulations, introduced by the Secretary of State and properly discussed by Parliament under the affirmative procedure, will be fair and equitable to all parties, including, most importantly, to the rivers themselves.
I turn to Amendment 189 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and others. I particularly support subsection (4) of the proposed new clause, the bit on compulsory smart metering; I was going to table my own amendment on that subject but they beat me to it. The 2009 Walker review, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, gave a clear message that metering is the fairest way of charging for water, and that after meters were installed the majority of households found that both their water charges and their consumption of water fell.
I believe there is no other commodity for which we do not pay according to use. That seems strange to me, particularly as we know that the commodity can be in very short supply. I am told that we are the only country in Europe that does not charge for water by volume. Metering also has the benefit of making people realise that water is not a free good of which there is an endless supply.
In 2014, during the passage of what is now the Water Act, Southern Water, the leader in this field at that time, reckoned that 100% metering would result in a 12% saving in water. As I said then, that is a gigantic amount of water to remove from the system day in, day out. I also said, thinking of people who might be detrimentally affected, that
“if there was a universal tariff for every litre of water used, some poor households with large families”
might suffer from such a change.
“However, with transitional tariffs, social tariffs and even block tariffs and the like, and with the meter in the house and not at the end of the garden, it is perfectly possible for everyone to benefit from 100% metering. There is absolutely no doubt that the environment would win hands down”.—[Official Report, 27/1/14; col. 1028.]
That is what I said then. Now, however, with smart metering, not only have the costs come down but the benefits to the environment are considerably greater. For instance, last year Thames Water announced that its smart metering programme in London has helped it to locate and repair 200 leaks across its network every week, leading to a reduction in overall leakage of 15% in one year—the biggest reduction in a century, I believe. Anglian Water has also said that in its trials it appeared that smart meters could reduce consumption by an average of 18%, considerably higher than the 12% being put forward by Southern Water seven years ago.
Meanwhile Arqiva, which has probably been lobbying us all—and one should always take private lobbying with a pinch of salt—said that its analysis shows that fitting just 1 million smart water meters in the UK each year for the next 15 years could result in saving at least 1 billion litres of water—one thousand million litres— per day by the mid-2030s. That is the most enormous amount of water and it would be the most enormous boost to the environment that we could possibly give.
Bearing in mind the conversations that we have had in this chapter about the excess demands on our sewage treatment works and the problems of storm overflows, we should think about the reduction of household outflows into sewage treatment works that universal metering would have. If the use of water goes down, that will inevitably be reflected in the amount of water sent down the drains. Maybe that figure of billions of pounds that the Minister was talking about to sort out CSO issues could be dramatically reduced if less water arrived at our sewage treatment works in the first place.
So, what has to be done? The first thing to do is to remove the link between metering and the water-stressed area classification; that is vital. Secondly, we should ensure that the 2024 price review investment planning process is used to enable water companies to accelerate the rollout of smart water meters. Thirdly, picking up on Philip Dunne’s Private Member’s Bill, I believe the Government should regulate, and I quote from his Bill,
“requiring by 2025 all domestic properties to have a metered water supply when being leased, rented or sold”.
I would add the word “smart” before the word “metered” because of the evidence that I have already quoted from the Thames and Anglian water authorities.
Lastly, the Government should mandate the rollout of smart water meters to every household and business by 2035 at the latest. These are all firm government measures that would not only benefit the consumer but give back to the environment—and, for that matter, other abstractors, bearing in mind the last group of amendments—literally billions of litres of water.
I will not say much about Amendment 189A in my name because in many ways its length and detail speak for itself. The Bill has a lot of new strategies and plans in its water chapter: water resources management plans, drought plans, drainage and sewerage management plans, and now of course storm overflow discharge reduction plans. However, this is the Environment Bill, which we hope over the next few days will give us a vibrant, sustainable and well-managed environment in terms of our air, soils, seas, countryside, woods and other habitats. Although we have discussed the management of our water over our recent groupings and how it affects water companies, farmers, anglers, canoeists and other users over the short term—and by the short term I mean anything under 10 years—we do not seem to have an overall long-term strategy for creating a high-class water environment that will ensure that our aquatic biodiversity flourishes.
In the context of the myriad human uses of our waterways, how do we ensure that we have enough water for the flora and fauna that should rightly belong to our aquatic world, including the 500,000 hectares of wetland habitat promised in the 25-year environment plan? From the smallest of bugs through amphibians, fish, mammals, birds and our rich aquatic flora, we need an all-encompassing water strategy for England and its nature, as my amendment proposes.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I have added my name to several of those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I shall speak to my Amendment 189, which is about reducing household water usage, and I am grateful for the support for it from the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley.
It is predicted that by 2050 there will be an increase of 7 million people in the UK and our water level supplies will be down by 15%. Indeed, a recent report from the climate change adaptation sub-committee said that tackling water metering is one of the issues that we need to address urgently, that it would deliver some of the best cost-benefit ratios and that the sooner we started tackling it, the better. We need to do it so that there is enough water for people and for our rivers; I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, are no longer in their place, because clearly our chalk streams also need all the water they can get. It is right for tackling our climate change emissions because heating water in homes accounts for 4% of total greenhouse gas emissions. Equally, farmers, whom we heard from so eloquently in last debate, need the water to maintain successful farming and other business. We need the Government to act.
I was therefore pleased to see the announcement in the Secretary of State’s Written Statement in the House of Commons last week that the Government intend to introduce mandatory labelling on the water efficiency of household appliances. That is a positive step and I congratulate the Government on making it but, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, so eloquently said, we will not make the cuts we need in amounts of household water—down from around 142 litres to 110 litres per person per day, which the Government say they want—unless we have labelling and minimum standards, combined with changes to building regulations. It was notable in the comments of the Secretary of State last week that he did not definitively commit to minimum standards or changing building regulations. There was a vague date and “We might look at it in the future”. We cannot get the figures we need without those.
Frankly, I am coming to the conclusion that the Government will not go anywhere near changing houses, because of the influence of various property developers. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who is not in his place, made a point in the debates last week about the influence of Taylor Wimpey on this Government and on housing developments. It is a scandal that we are not building houses that are carbon efficient and water efficient now. We are leaving the tab to be picked up by the environment, in the future, and the Government should be ashamed of that.
I partially congratulate the Government on taking up part of my amendment on labelling appliances but they have made no commitments on compulsory water metering. I raised this back in 2014 with an amendment to the then Water Bill. That is the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke so passionately about. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that when you are a junior partner in a coalition, you do not always get what you want, whether about water abstraction or metering.
Since then, people who are more significant than me have added their voices to the cause for compulsory water metering. In addition to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, the Climate Change Committee is now saying we must introduce compulsory metering. The majority of respondents to the 2019 Defra consultation on reducing household waste supported compulsory water metering, and even the National Infrastructure Commission, which is not well known for supporting measures in this area, is in favour. I will not repeat the figures that were so well articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, but will say that, at the moment, only half of UK houses are on compulsory water metering. We need to reduce usage hugely, and the only way to do it is through compulsory metering.
I ask the Minister if he can give the Committee any idea how the Government intend to meet their target of 110 litres per person per day, if they do not accept all the recommendations of my Amendment 189.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 188A, 188B and 188C in this group, which are also in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I also add my support to Amendment 188 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. These amendments have already been extremely well explained, but I will add a couple of points.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, suggested that metering is the fairest way of charging. I completely agree on that. It is important to note the improvement in water usage that has occurred when metering has been installed. Therefore, controlling the supply and use of water is a major step forward in trying to ensure that our water supply is sustainable.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 189 of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on domestic water efficiency. I understand that the Government are committed to water efficiency standards and labelling, as signalled in their recent ministerial Statement on reducing water demand. The Government’s helpful brief on the water issues in the Bill says that they are currently considering the most suitable and effective mechanism for water efficiency labelling. This amendment does the job for them. I hope the Minister accepts it and makes swift progress to tackle the demand side of the supply-demand balance.
For too long, the water products industry has dug in, dragged its heels and resisted labelling. I remember being involved in endless discussions on water efficiency and labelling products 15 years ago. We are drinking in the last-chance saloon—if that is not a pun in the context of water.
As I said earlier on the Bill, our average water consumption has barely changed over the last 15 years. The Government have a target of at least 125 litres and preferably 110 litres per person per day. The national average is currently 142 litres, so we have a way to go. Reducing water use, both cold and hot, reduces greenhouse gas emissions created by water processing and heating, so there is a double benefit. Voluntary schemes have not worked. Research and evidence from schemes already in place have shown that mandatory water efficiency standards and labelling water-using products could reduce household consumption by as much as 20%. It is a no-brainer and has been for 15 years or longer. Pushback from the manufacturers needs to be put in its box and there needs to be better join-up between Defra and BEIS. I ask the Minister to just do it.
Smart water metering is in that category too, having been shown to deliver significant water savings of around 17%. Meters can help water companies to detect and fix leaks, and customers to understand and manage their water use and reduce their carbon impact. At the current rate of water meter rollout, we will reach only 83% of homes by 2045, which is not exactly speedy; we need 1 million smart meters a year. Reducing water demand means avoiding environmental damage and the high cost to consumers from major water infrastructure, such as reservoirs. You know it makes sense, Minister; accept this amendment and just go for it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I can be very brief because I have great sympathy with most of the amendments before us. The amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, spoke to briefly but eloquently should commend itself to my noble friend. I hope he will be able to give some encouraging comments on that. Water metering is clearly essential and must be brought into effect as soon as possible. In the context of this Bill, I think the Parminter amendment has a great deal to commend it.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I am pleased to support the very simple but very important amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. In 2009, the Environment Agency said that all houses in London and the south-east should be fitted with water meters by 2015 and that the rest of the country should have a water meter by 2020. Well, here we are in 2021.
I shall not repeat all the excellent stats that people have given. We are indeed the only European country without this facility. My sister was here from Denmark, and remarked again how astonishing it was. It is, of course, the fairest way for people to pay for water, and it is culturally important, because then we realise that water is a valuable commodity—indeed, so valuable right now that I read last week, to my horror, that in northern California the water shortages are so severe that farmers in the north are selling water to farmers in the south for their avocados, almonds and oranges. It is actually more economical to farm water, which would almost be funny if it were not so extreme.
I have a couple of final points. The Climate Change Committee is incorporating in its carbon budgets the assumption that domestic water use will decrease. For example, the introduction of low-flow showerheads could lead to 5% less heat demand and thus lower electricity demand. It is very good news that our appliances will be better labelled in future.
It is also a really important amendment, as we as a nation must adapt to using less. Hose-pipe bans are very common all over the south-east in the British summer but, unless we try to have limitations on how household appliances are used and how often, which would be impossible to enforce, we need some way of using less water. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, let us make no further ado and bring this in right now.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I very much support the purposes behind this group of amendments, and I support many of the amendments. The quality and management of water is one of our most important strategic priorities, as has been reinforced numerous times in debate this week. I appreciate the reassurance given by the Minister that he agrees with this.
I will first comment on Amendment 189 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I live in Northumberland, and we are extremely fortunate that we rarely have a shortage of water. Kielder Water is just up the road from where we live, but even in the north-east there are occasions during prolonged periods of dry weather when reservoirs can fall to quite scary levels. The truth is that we are very profligate with this precious resource called water.
Other members of this Committee will have been to Africa, as I have, and visited other parts of the world in which water deficiency is a massive issue and every drop of rainwater is conserved, as was referred to earlier in the debate on the need to capture grey water. I shall not comment on that, but it is important that we take pressure off our water supplies wherever we possibly can, domestically as well as in businesses.
Some 50% of our households and many businesses have absolutely no idea how much water they are using, so it is essential that we adopt the measures outlined in this amendment to improve water efficiency, and in particular that we introduce the compulsory installation of smart meters. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, articulated convincingly why we need to do this, supported by comments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Boycott, so I will not repeat the arguments except to say that, if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it. As has been stated, until households and businesses know how much water they are using, they are unlikely to reduce usage and improve the efficient utilisation of it.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington—Amendment 188A suggesting the establishment of a technical advisory group and Amendment 189A, which requires the Government to prepare a water strategy—are very interesting and well worth consideration. In my view, a water strategy, as proposed, should be extended to address the quality of water and the management of water.
I was one of those who took part in the Water Bill in 2014, but this is a different issue and is not addressed in the Water Act. It is a huge issue of the highest priority. Without a co-ordinated water strategy that involves all the key bodies, demolishes silos and requires both departments and agencies to engage in meeting agreed targets on water quality, conservation and usage, we are unlikely to address the serious challenges that we face. Is it too ambitious to expect the office for environmental protection to work with the Environment Agency, Natural England, the drainage boards, the water companies and Ofwat, together with Defra—particularly in its application and targeting of the ELM scheme—and other departments to rise to this challenge? A water strategy should be seriously considered, and I wish I had thought of this in more detail before these amendments were tabled. I ask the Minister to give this serious consideration.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for tabling this amendment and to all noble Lords who have spoken. I add to the noble Baroness’s plea for a meeting with the Minister. Everybody except us seems to having Ministers, so she is not alone. Perhaps at some point the Minister can respond to some of our asks as well.
I return to the issue at hand. We are concerned that, as it stands, Clause 83 gives the Government extended powers to amend the regulations implementing the EU water framework directive. This directive was hard fought for and is an iconic part of our continuing EU water quality standards, so the Minister will understand why we are suspicious of this proposed change. Of course, we understand that the composition of chemical pollutants might change over time, and there is an urgent need to manage the impact of these pollutants. The Environment Agency’s own data show that not a single lake or river in England that has recently been tested has achieved a good chemical status. This has an inevitable negative impact on wildlife as well as being a threat to public health, particularly as a result of the new trend towards wild swimming.
We have to be assured that any change will be absolutely based on the best technical and scientific standards and not used to dilute our current high standards of regulation. This is why we support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, which would create a broad-based statutory advisory group to advise on these changes. It is also why we support his amendments to seek advice from the new OEP and to require the regulations to be approved by the affirmative procedure. In this way, we can be assured that the standards and targets can be altered only in line with the best scientific advice and following appropriate stakeholder consultation. It would lay to rest our concerns that the Government seem to have a very different interpretation of non-regression of environmental standards from what we understood during the course of the withdrawal Act.
We also very much thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for tabling Amendment 189. We have had a very good debate on this, and she has set out a compelling argument as to why it is necessary. All the evidence shows that we are running out of water and wasting water at alarming rates. The Environment Agency has warned that within 25 years England’s water supply will simply not meet demand. We have to start dealing with it as the scarce and valuable resource it really is, so it is important that we incentivise manufacturers to make water-efficient appliances, in the same way that they are incentivised to make energy-efficient appliances.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Before I turn to individual amendments, I want to assure noble Lords of our commitment to improving water quality. Our rivers and lakes are an essential and valuable part of our countryside and urban landscapes, and the power we are taking in Clause 83 is to enable us to continue to monitor their health, so that we can better improve it.
I will begin with Amendment 189A from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, so that I can assure noble Lords of the Government’s strategic approach to this issue before elaborating on the specifics. The Government fully agree with the intent; that is why we are already taking a strategic approach to the management of the water environment, in particular through river basin management plans. Additionally, through the Environment Bill, we are introducing the requirement to create a new, legally binding target for water quality. This will drive forward action needed to improve the water environment.
River basin management plans establish the goals we set for our water bodies and set out the steps required to meet them, guiding investment and action. The plans are updated on a six-yearly cycle, following extensive consultation. The Environment Agency will consult this year on the draft river basin management plans covering the period until 2027, and I encourage all interested parties to engage with that process. The 2015 plans confirmed £3 billion of investment over the period to 2021. In England this has led to more than 11,000 kilometres of surface water being enhanced and a further 2,349 kilometres being protected.
We are also working at a strategic level with the Environment Agency, Ofwat and water companies to ensure that the water companies’ investment through their next periodic review delivers the best possible outcomes for the environment. Requiring an additional strategy would therefore be unnecessary.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for Amendment 188 on priority substances and the price review. I will be very happy to speak afterwards to arrange a meeting with her. On that point, I was a bit surprised by the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, about meetings. I have just checked with my office, and we have had numerous meetings to discuss the Bill. We have had at least three, including with the Secretary of State. I have had five with groups of opposition Peers. The noble Baroness herself told me last night that we have a meeting planned for the 19th, so she clearly knows about it, and I offered another meeting in addition to that when we spoke. I hope she will reflect on her comments because they are a little misleading for the House.
On the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I would like to explain why it is critical that we have the power in Clause 83 of the Bill. The current priority substances list was frozen in our law at the end of the transition period under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. Without appropriate regulatory change powers, the UK Government and devolved Administrations would be left operating an out-of-date list of substances and standards potentially harmful to the water environment. Section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which enables the UK to transfer EU Commission powers to UK Ministers by regulation, does not apply in this case so we need primary legislation to obtain the powers to update the priority substance list.
Updates to the list of priority substances, which must be tested for in the water environment, will take into account the latest scientific and technical evidence. It would not be appropriate to constrain our ability to make updates and react rapidly to emerging substances which pose a threat to the aquatic environment. Under the EU system, the list was updated by introducing a new EU directive. Data needed to be collected across the EU and, as in the case of all new directives, member states were given long grace periods to transpose updates, resulting in a lengthy process.
We can act on emerging substances much more quickly outside the EU if we do not unnecessarily prolong the process of making updates, which tying the process to the cycle of the price review would entail. Furthermore, as the noble Baroness suggests in her amendment, I reassure her that the price review already takes into account water company obligations, including those in relation to the water environment. The price review has flexibility to allow for changes in circumstances.
The Government have regularly updated key stakeholders, including the water industry, on the progress of this measure and any proposed changes to the priority substances list will be subject to statutory consultation requirements. In response to her question about consultation, we consulted on the policy of Clause 78 through the January 2019 consultation on improving our management of water in the environment but we did not specifically consult on the Explanatory Notes, which I understand is normal practice.
The noble Baroness asked about the price review and planning for water quality monitoring. Ofwat’s price review process is clearly key for water company business planning. Water companies’ current non-statutory drainage and wastewater management plans will help inform their business plans and required funding for 2025-30 to deliver them. Companies will complete their plans by spring 2023 to feed into the PR24 process. Ofwat has a mechanism that allows for consideration of additional funding requests made by companies during the price review period, but there are strict rules governing this. We are confident that companies are undertaking comprehensive assessments of their plans to set out their priorities in price review 2024, including priorities around sewerage assets to mitigate any impacts on water quality.
I turn to Amendments 188A, 188B and 188C from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I reassure the noble Lord that the power in Clause 83(1) will allow for only relatively narrow changes to be made to water quality standards for certain chemicals in existing legislation. For example, in 2013 the priority substances list was updated via a new EU directive. We were required to transpose into our regulations 12 new substances, and a new requirement for the EA to make provision for these substances in river basin management plans. This update also instigated biota testing for some toxic bioaccumulative substances.
This new power in the Environment Bill is critical in enabling the same kind of narrow technical changes. Changes will be informed by the latest scientific advice from the UK technical advisory group, a working group of experts convened by the EA and drawn from the environmental agencies for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It consults appropriate stakeholders when carrying out its work and its recommendations are published.
We designed the clause to include a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the EA before exercising this power. As the noble Lord’s amendment proposes, the Secretary of State must also consult any persons or bodies likely to be affected by the regulations. This may include water companies and environmental groups as well as, no doubt, many others. This is exactly what the Government intend to do. The OEP will not have a role in setting technical standards for water. That is not its area of expertise. The Environment Agency has deep expertise and long experience in this area, and is therefore best placed to continue this role.
Clause 29, however, does allow the OEP to provide advice to Ministers on any aspect of environmental law, so it will be able to hold Ministers to account on any changes. As such, we do not believe that it is necessary to specify the OEP as a consultee.
Regarding Amendment 188C, the noble Lord’s suggestion of a standard affirmative resolution procedure is disproportionate and unsuitable in this instance. This power can be used only to make narrow changes, subject to the extensive consultation that I have already set out, to certain water quality standards involving highly technical discussions. Indeed, the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not feel the need to highlight this delegated power as one which needed stronger parliamentary oversight than the Bill currently provides for.
Finally, regarding Amendment 189 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, reducing household water demand is clearly a priority, as it is for the Government. This is why the Government published a Written Ministerial Statement last week on reducing water demand, announcing numerous measures that they will take forward in response to the 2019 consultation. In answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, this includes plans to introduce a mandatory water efficiency label to inform consumers and encourage the purchase of more water-efficient products. We will encourage local authorities to adopt the building standard of 110 litres per person per day in all new builds where there is a clear local need, such as in water-stressed areas. We will also develop a road map towards greater water efficiency in new developments and retrofits, to be published in 2022. These measures can be taken forward without the need for new primary legislation.
To reiterate a point I made in an earlier debate about building regulations, which was picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, we are having discussions with MHCLG, and my colleagues in Defra and I are pushing for the highest possible standards. There is a huge number of opportunities and we do not want to lose them. She is right about lobbying. As anyone who has been in government knows, lobbying happens. We all get lobbied in government. It is the job of government to discriminate between positive and less-helpful lobbying. However, when the zero-carbon homes policy was cancelled during the coalition Government, there was a lot of pushback by some of the bigger developers who found it unhelpful. They had adjusted their business models, considered what needed to happen, enjoyed the certainty and felt that it was driving innovation, so I think it was a mistake by the coalition Government. It is not always the case that bigger businesses push back on these kinds of regulations.
The Government are not currently making changes to existing rules around when people can be charged for their water use through water meters, but water companies in seriously water-stressed areas may implement wider water metering programmes where it is shown by their water resources management plans that there is customer support and it is cost-effective to do so.
The Government take the health of rivers, waterways and our wider aquatic environment very seriously indeed. A key plank of our 25-year environment plan includes improving the ecological status of our aquatic environment and ensuring that water is both clean and plentiful. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to debate these issues today. I thank noble Lords for their amendments. I have tried to provide a thorough explanation of our approach and respectfully ask them not to press their amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. Lord Randall? Uxbridge is offline. I call the mover of the amendment, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, especially those who spoke in support of Amendment 188.
I pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister. It must be pleasing for him to see his work on the quality of life come to life. I commend a slightly shorter report that we did on bricks and water, which goes to the point of building regulations and minimum standards. I am pleased that he is committed not only to labelling but to the work being done with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on minimum standards. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, that is extremely important. I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that Clause 83 allows a potential weakening of the EU water framework directive. I hope this will not be the case and that, if anything, we might impose higher standards, which we would wish to meet.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Before the amendment is withdrawn, apparently the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has reappeared. Lord Randall? No? He should talk to his MP.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 194AA. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 194AA
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“Flood risk report
(1) Within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on flood risk.(2) The report under subsection (1) must contain—(a) an assessment of the number of—(i) people, and (ii) householdscurrently at risk of flood,(b) analysis of the expected impact of measures contained in this Act (including but not limited to those relating to planning) on flood risk, and(c) proposals for further policy or legislation to mitigate or reverse flood risk.(3) In preparing the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must seek advice from—(a) the Committee on Climate Change,(b) the Environment Agency, and(c) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on flood risk, with a particular focus on whether (and to what extent) measures in this Act will help to mitigate or reverse it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 194AA is in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on flood risk, to help realise the potential of the nature restoration intended to be delivered by the Bill and to reduce flooding risk. Disappointingly, “flood” appears in the Bill only once, on page 188, in Schedule 10, relating to enforcement powers. It is a huge omission that an environment Bill is not seriously addressing flood risk, leaving many communities woefully unprepared to tackle flooding.
The new office for environmental protection, created by the Bill, is responsible for scrutinising government policies to safeguard the environment, but it has no powers to improve measures to tackle flooding. In the Agriculture Act, the environmental land management schemes include provisions to tackle flood risk, but this is not an issue just for farmers and landowners to manage. For example, planning and development can have a serious impact on increasing flood risk, as can how we manage our reservoirs. Currently, water companies have to manage reservoirs and take drought into account—we know that drought reports have to be prepared—but not flooding or flood reports.
The UK has a legacy of development within areas at risk of flooding from river water, surface water and groundwater. Continued development of rural and low-lying areas has led to about 6 million properties being at risk of flooding. In addition, a Defra report has predicted that this number is set to increase and identified flooding as the greatest risk posed to the UK by climate change—so why is flood risk not a central part of this section of the Bill?
The Minister may well refer to the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework, which requires local authorities to demonstrate that the issue of flood risk has been considered as part of the planning process, through the flood risk management hierarchy. Alongside the NPPF, the planning practice guidance on “Flood risk and coastal change” sets “sequential” and “exception” tests and thresholds to protect property from flooding, which all local planning authorities are expected to follow. Where these tests or thresholds are not met, new development should not be allowed. But none of these recommendations means that developments or redevelopments in flood risk areas will not be approved. The planning process is there only to ensure that flooding is taken into account in development proposals.
In your Lordships’ House, in response to a Written Question in February 2016, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, said:
“Development can not be ruled out in high flood risk areas”.
I know of too many cases where a developer has been able to build in flood risk areas, despite serious local concerns, offering mitigations to ensure that the development would not flood. However, flood waters have to go somewhere, and the outcome is too often the flooding of properties that have never experienced this before.
I am particularly concerned that the Government’s new planning proposals will only increase the numbers of homes being built in areas of flood risk—a number of noble Lords mentioned this concern in earlier debates. We could end up with new houses and other developments being built in the wrong places, and, once built, they will present a long-term and continuing flood-management problem. Government must make sure that planning policy keeps up with climate change and that, despite the housing shortage, planning must take increasing flood risk into account in deciding where new homes should be built.
A key problem in effectively managing flood risk is the lack of an integrated approach to catchment management and the number of regulatory bodies: the Environment Agency is cash-strapped, the water companies are regulated by Ofwat—with a focus on keeping bills down—and farmers are regulated by Defra and incentivised through the CAP and now ELMS. The Environment Bill is an opportunity to pull together all the different strings of the water sector to have an integrated catchment approach to tackling flood risk.
Floods happen; they always will. The question is how to limit their impact. When serious flooding occurs, as it did in 2015 in the community where I live, and in many others around the country, everyone works flat out to do whatever they can during the crisis. Government praises everyone involved and promises the moon—but terms like “unprecedented” and “climate emergency” do not alter the fact that the current approach to tackling flooding and future flood risk is clearly not fit for purpose.
Understandably, the main focus when extreme flooding happens is its impact on human lives and livelihoods, but it is also an environmental disaster. Floods increase surface run-off, exacerbating erosion and introducing more soil, organic matter and pollutants into watercourses. Studies have shown that plant biomass and the abundance of both vertebrates, such as fish, and invertebrates can be dramatically reduced by extreme floods. Noxious hydrogen sulphide fumes and lead poisoning are among the threats from floodwater contamination. Many animals are at risk of being poisoned by floodwater redistributing pesticides and toxic chemicals from industrial sites. Hibernating bumblebees, ground beetles and caterpillars are at risk of dying at greatly elevated rates because the floods and heavy rainfall are drowning them and interfering with their hibernation. Hedgehogs are already undergoing a national decline, and floods just put extra pressure on them: unless they get to areas of high ground, they drown.
We need an integrated approach to flood management that works with the environment to manage land and water in ways that benefit both people and our ecosystems. Why are the Government not using the Environment Bill as the opportunity to deliver this? I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to speak to and support Amendment 194AA, on a “Flood risk report”. Too often, where there have been major floods, as there were many times in the 2000s and since, people tend to forget and Governments fail to take major action once the flood waters have receded, so I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said in moving her amendment.
I make a plea to my noble friend the Minister, particularly on the issuing and updating of planning guidance. I mentioned earlier the fact that, at the moment, developers are building on flood plains and not making the buildings secure, flood-proof and resilient to floods. It is only when the householder makes a claim that they find out that it will not be met, in part or in full—particularly if they bought without a mortgage, in which case they probably have no idea that they are not covered by insurance.
On many occasions, in both the other place and here, we have tried to make it a requirement for developers to have regard to building sustainable drainage systems—SUDS—to take surface water away from sewers and combined sewer outflows. This amendment is an opportunity to ask my noble friend if the Government have moved on this and whether they plan to update and amend planning guidance to make SUDS the preferred option for managing surface water in all new developments.
I make the simple suggestion of empowering sewage undertakers to discharge rainwater downpipes, with nothing nasty in them, into local soakaways, as opposed to the current legislation, which requires a new public sewer to be provided to take the flows away, immediately mixing them with sewage—this seems a wanton wastage of resources and infrastructure. I hope that my noble friend will look favourably upon this.
Such a flood risk report as this amendment would allow for would give the opportunity for my noble friend and his department to review the partnership approach. As he mentioned earlier, the environmental land management schemes—ELMS—will allow flood prevention schemes to take place, and so allow the Government to do an audit in that regard. That is another reason I hope that, if not in this amendment, the Government will look favourably on some way of monitoring flood risk going forward.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, whose comment about building on flood plains reminds me of the simplest, clearest explanation of why this should not happen: a flood plain is not beside the river; it is part of the river. I greatly appreciated her focus on sustainable urban drainage schemes.
I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for tabling Amendment 194AA, and I commend the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bakewell, for supporting it. Indeed, I would have done so myself, had I not simply missed it. We are talking about joined-up government here, with two critical issues that have a huge impact on people, businesses and the natural world coming together: the environment and flooding. We know that the Government talk about joined-up government thinking and nature-based solutions, but it is a great pity that, up until this point, we have not seen this added into the Bill.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords I have put my name to this amendment in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Hayman of Ullock. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has comprehensively introduced this amendment. I have added my name as someone who was once leader of a council, which had and still has large areas of flooding on a regular basis. In some cases, the same land and businesses were flooded year after year.
I will not rehearse the details of the flooding during the winter of 2014, but I mention that, after action was taken by the Government and Environment Agency, major works took place in an attempt to prevent flooding of such a serious nature in future. This is welcome, but is of little comfort to those who lost everything from flooding in the first place.
Flooding from rising water is devastating. It can be immediate, with a town or village and properties being submerged in a matter of minutes from catastrophic water flow from continuous rainfall and run-off from higher ground. It can also be slow and insidious, as in the case where rainfall has swollen the local rivers, and householders and the Environment Agency watch the rising water with trepidation, knowing that at some stage the banks will be breached, the muddy waters will engulf their homes, the sewers will overflow and drinking water will be contaminated. We have all seen the television coverage of such incidents, but we may not have experienced the smell, nor had to wade through the slime covering the floor of our lounge or kitchen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked why flooding does not have greater prominence in the Bill and I share her concerns. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, spoke of the hazards of developments on flood plains which, if built since 2009, are not covered by insurance. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also raised the dangers of building on flood plains. It is time that developers in this process provide their own insurance to those living in homes that they have built on flood plains. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also gave some excellent examples of flood protection measures, including beavers—some have been introduced into Cornwall.
The amendment is extensive. Flood risk reports are important. The areas liable to flood are well documented and it is now possible to assess the number of people and households at risk from flooding and to take action to mitigate the risk, thereby reversing the possibility of flooding. The Committee on Climate Change, the Environment Agency, local drainage boards and others on the ground in an area should be consulted to share their first-hand knowledge with the Secretary of State in preparing flood risk reports.
The Government must take action, as this matter is very serious, and so bring some reassurance to flood risk areas that they are not forgotten and that measures are being taken to help protect them. Catchment plans are a vital tool in flood prevention measures, which are needed to protect people.
I fully support this amendment and look forward to a favourable response from the Minister on this critical issue.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, flooding incidents have an utterly devastating impact on communities. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for raising this important issue in her Amendment 194AA and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her thoughtful introduction.
The Government are committed to ensuring that our country is resilient and prepared for the challenges that a changing climate brings, including flooding and coastal erosion. The Government are taking a holistic and wide-ranging approach to flood risk, including through, for example, the England tree strategy, which will have a direct impact on flood prevention if trees are planted in the right place or if land is allowed to naturally regenerate in a way that slows the flow of surface water and increases the ability of land to absorb water. Likewise, our peat action plan will be crucial in reducing flood risk and showing that communities downstream of restored peatland are better protected and that, again, the land’s ability to hold water is improved.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will agree that nature-based solutions can play a vital role in meeting flood resilience objectives in addition to so many other objectives in the Government’s 25-year environment plan at the same time. I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for the examples she gave. I very much share her enthusiasm about the introduction of beavers, which has had the most extraordinary impact already.
The combination of green, blue and traditional grey infrastructure, which we discussed in detail earlier, will minimise the number of households at risk of flooding. The Bill takes important steps to help achieve this. It amends the Land Drainage Act 1991 to make it easier to make new internal drainage boards, which play a key role in managing water levels, reducing flood risks, supporting local growth, and protecting critical infrastructure in urban and rural areas.
Furthermore, by placing a statutory duty on sewerage companies to produce drainage and sewerage management plans, we are addressing long-term drainage planning and capacity, which helps to address sewer and surface water flooding. Section 13(1) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 already requires risk management authorities, including sewerage companies, to co-operate with other risk management authorities such as the Environment Agency and lead local flood authorities. But we will also make secondary legislation to ensure that the preparation of a drainage and sewerage management plan is captured as a flood risk management function to ensure that the new plans form part of a holistic response to flood risk.
I should be clear that the Bill has not been designed with the sole intention of addressing new flood risk legislation. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010, for instance, sets out the legislative requirements for flood risk management. It includes a duty on the Environment Agency to produce a report in relation to flood and coastal erosion risk management under Section 18. The Environment Agency report on flood and coastal erosion risk management is published every year and includes information on flood risk and progress to tackle that risk.
The Government are also taking ambitious non-legislative action to address flood risk. I mentioned the tree plan and the peat plan earlier, but we are also investing a record £5.2 billion to build 2,000 new flood defences over the next six years. This will better protect 336,000 properties from flooding and coastal erosion. In addition, the Government are investing a further £170 million to accelerate the building of 22 flood schemes across the country.
Alongside this, a further £200 million is being invested in the flood and coastal resilience innovation programme, which is helping over 25 local areas to take forward wider innovative actions that improve their resilience to flooding and coastal erosion. Pioneering projects, led by local authorities and delivered over the next six years, include apps which alert residents to flooding, permeable road surfaces to improve drainage and schemes to protect vital sand dune beaches.
Last July, the Government also published a policy statement setting out the Government’s long-term ambition to create a nation more resilient to future flood and coastal risk. This aims to reduce the risk of harm to people, the environment and the economy, and aims to ensure that our country is better protected and better prepared to reduce the likelihood and impacts of flooding and coastal erosion. It was informed by advice from the National Infrastructure Commission and the Committee on Climate Change.
The Government also have a statutory duty to respond to the Committee on Climate Change’s annual progress reports. The most recent report by the committee, published on 24 June, acknowledges that the government’s policy statement provides
“the required policy basis for increasing the level of ambition in tackling flood risk.”
The policy statement includes five policies and over 40 supporting actions which will accelerate progress to better protect and prepare the country against flooding and coastal erosion. Alongside the record investment I mentioned earlier, we are strengthening the reporting of progress towards the Government’s goals by spring 2022 so that it is clearer and more accessible.
The Government are also developing a national set of indicators to monitor trends over time to better understand the impact of policies. Indicators and reporting will include the local picture, providing the information needed to further drive progress at a local level and recognising the different challenges faced in different areas.
I hope this has reassured the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken passionately about this issue that the Government share their concerns, and that we are already taking significant steps to deliver on our plan for greater resilience to flooding. I respectfully ask that she withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her kind words and support and for the concerns she raised about new development, which I worry greatly about. She also mentioned insurance, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I know this does not come under the Minister’s brief, but it is worth saying that Flood Re, which is designed to cover properties that flood, does not cover new homes built after 2019. It does not cover multiple occupancy of more than 10 homes. It does not cover businesses, which is particularly a problem in areas such as Cumbria, where I live, for small bed and breakfasts. The reason that it does not cover new homes built after 2019—I know this following a meeting with the chief executive of Flood Re—is because it was considered that planning rules meant that no home built after 2019 could flood, because the rules would stop homes being built in areas that would flood. That is absolute nonsense; homes built after 2019 flood. This really needs to be looked into. I know it is not in the Minister’s portfolio, but I would be grateful if he could raise it with his colleagues in the appropriate department.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 194B. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 194B
“Biodiversity gain in nationally significant infrastructure projects
Schedule (Biodiversity gain in nationally significant infrastructure projects) makes provision about biodiversity gain in relation to development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause introduces Lord Goldsmith’s proposed new Schedule relating to biodiversity gain.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
In moving government Amendment 194B, I will speak to all government amendments consequential to it. I am pleased to be introducing today a new biodiversity net gain requirement for nationally significant infrastructure projects. This complements the existing provisions in the Environment Bill for biodiversity net gain for all other development and fulfils the Government’s recent commitment in response to the Dasgupta review. This will ensure that new nationally significant infrastructure projects, such as new roads, railways or airports, will contribute to our vision of a nature-positive future.
These government amendments will also enable the Government to extend net gain to major projects in the marine environment in the future, once a suitable approach has been developed, so that developments at sea will be required to increase marine biodiversity as well. I hope that this is welcomed by the noble Lords, Lord Teverson, Lord Randall and Lord Blencathra, in particular, who have spoken with great passion on the protection of the marine environment. The detail of the requirement will be brought forward through policy statements following consultation, and we will waste no time in implementing this measure. We will publish a consultation later this year, which will include proposals for an appropriate transition period and a range of other important details.
In addition, I am pleased to say that the new version of the biodiversity metric for development under the Town and Country Planning Act was launched earlier today by Natural England. It is accompanied by a draft small sites metric, which is designed to provide process simplifications for small sites aiming to achieve biodiversity net gain. We will be looking at the responses to this draft small sites metric and wider engagement later this year, and will consider further opportunities to simplify net gain for small developments.
I know the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is due to speak to this group, and that the net gain clauses were the subject of one of the recommendations of the report on the Bill from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I am therefore pleased to take this opportunity to inform him that the Government will be accepting all the recommendations of his Committee. I will write to the Committee today, and of course I will deposit a copy in the Library, and I will table a couple of government amendments on Report.
To return to the subject at hand, I look forward to hearing contributions from noble Lords about biodiversity net gain more broadly as part of this debate. I thank all noble Lords—there are too many to name—who spoke at Second Reading in support of extending biodiversity net gain to nationally significant infrastructure projects. I hope they will take some comfort in knowing that they have played a part in moving the Government and that the Government have listened to them. I beg to move.
Amendment 194C (to Amendment 194B)
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, alongside others to amendment 201A, extends the application of Biodiversity Net Gain to major infrastructure beyond the nationally significant infrastructure regime, to include projects consented through hybrid Bills and any future consent mechanisms.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 194C I shall speak also to Amendments 201AZA, 201AZB, 201AZC and 201AZD, in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 196, in the names of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I also express my support for Amendment 198A, in the name of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone.
Clause 92 allows developers to purchase credits from the Secretary of State to satisfy biodiversity obligations imposed as a condition of planning permission. Revenues raised through the purchases are then used to create and improve nature sites. Our Amendment 194C would amend government Amendment 194B, introduced by the Minister, and is designed to enable a discussion around extending the application of biodiversity net gain to major infrastructure, beyond the nationally significant infrastructure regime, thereby including projects consented through hybrid Bills and any future consent mechanisms.
Currently, environmental considerations are too often considered a constraint in the planning system. A fundamental shift is required to enable the planning system to play a fuller part in nature’s recovery, protecting our finest wildlife sites and connecting them into a coherent network. We welcome the planning reforms proposed in Part 6, including the imposition of biodiversity gain as a condition of planning permission and the creation of local nature recovery strategies. Developers, planners and land managers will be mandated to leave biodiversity in a better state than before, and now government Amendment 194B and new Schedule 14A include biodiversity net gain for nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIPs, as they are known.
Despite the explicit commitment in the 25-year environment plan that net gain would cover both housing and infrastructure, the Government’s amendment does not cover other major infrastructure projects granted outside NSIPs. This would include HS2 and major housing developments. I know the Government have given us assurances about HS2, but this kind of development will not be covered in legislation as it stands, and simple assurances are not good enough, either for this project or for those in the future.
The August 2020 planning White Paper proposed using development consent orders, DCOs, to give permission to large housing developments. It has also been suggested that such housing-focused DCOs could sit outside the NSIP regime, which could mean they are excluded from biodiversity net gain. Our Amendment 194C would extend the proposed legislation, so that the biodiversity net gain principle applies to all major infrastructure projects.
Amendments 201AZC and 201AZD would carry this widened scope through into new Schedule 14A. Amendments 201AZA and 201AZB would ensure that biodiversity net gain applied to non-NSIP major infrastructure projects, to keep to key commitments; namely, the compulsory use of a biodiversity metric and the maintenance of biodiversity gains in perpetuity. It is vital that funds raised from the biodiversity credits system are used to deliver meaningful biodiversity net gain in a timely way, and that these are maintained in perpetuity. The time-limited nature of biodiversity net gain as proposed in the Bill is a significant flaw. Concerns have been raised that developers may be more likely to turn to biodiversity credits rather than local biodiversity gain for a project. This would result in local communities losing out. Developers need to fund habitats over the long term and maintain them, otherwise they simply will not thrive.
Under Schedule 14, habitats delivered through biodiversity net gain could be ploughed up or degraded after 30 years. This would destroy any ecological gains and carbon storage benefits. This goes against the grain of ecological best practice, which emphasises the need to let nature recover for the long term. Habitat restoration projects now often have end dates a century or more away. A requirement to maintain a habitat for only 30 years undermines the intention of compensation for habitat destruction. The lifetime of developments covered by net gain is likely to be much longer than 30 years, and land use changes are likely to be more permanent, so the compensatory habitat should be permanent too.
In the Public Bill Committee, last November, the Minister in the other place, Rebecca Pow, acknowledged the importance of maintaining biodiversity gains for the long term to provide
“long-lasting benefit to wildlife and communities”.—[Official Report, Commons, Environment Bill Committee, 17/11/20; col. 511.]
However, she did not support a requirement for habitats to be maintained in perpetuity, claiming that a requirement to maintain them for longer than 30 years could reduce the amount of land available to host such habitats, due to some land ownership being time limited and to landowners being reluctant to maintain sites in perpetuity. This argument does not seem particularly convincing and, to me, makes the whole approach look completely half-hearted. If land can be found and agreements reached to maintain buildings on it in perpetuity, as is the case with most development, so too can land be found and agreements reached to maintain biodiversity net gain habitats in perpetuity. If we do not do so, ultimately we could end up with overall losses.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as on the register. It was an absolute pleasure to hear my noble friend introduce this vital new clause, which is quite superb. It is also amazing to hear that he has accepted every recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I am privileged to chair. I think, in all my time in the House, I have never known a Minister or a department accept every single recommendation. I have already said to another very big, powerful government department that if it wants to see how to do delegated powers properly, it should look at the Defra Delegated Powers Memorandum and see the way in which it has drafted a very large Bill, in eight parts, covering an awful lot of delegated powers, and done so with proper parliamentary scrutiny. I commend that to every other department.
Officially, I shall speak to Amendments 200 and 201 on biodiversity net gain—or nature net gain, as I would love to have it called—and to support my noble friend the Minister and his wonderful, large new clause. As someone who passionately believes in recovering our nature, I consider this to be one of the most important clauses in the Bill. When we add up the clauses on biodiversity targets, local nature recovery strategies, species conservation targets and now 10% minimum net gain, this is the greatest step forward this country has ever taken to bend the curve of nature loss and begin full-scale nature recovery. The only principal differences between my noble friend’s amendments and mine are that mine attempt to apply biodiversity net gain to the first two legs of HS2 and the Minister’s amendments are much longer with a lot of detail—that always makes me slightly suspicious, of course. However, my noble friend has pulled off an absolute blinder in getting other departments to agree to extend net gain to all national strategic infrastructure projects.
A few months ago, I and others made the case in this Chamber that 10% net gain be extended to HS— the Birmingham to Crewe leg—but that was resisted by the DfT. To be fair, the excellent Transport Minister in the other place, Andrew Stephenson MP, has been pressing HS2 to go further than “no net loss”—the current policy—and it seems to be moving in that direction. I want the Government to make sure that HS2 follows up on the welcome aspiration of a commitment to BNG.
I hope that will not be a watered-down version of net gain—it should be open, transparent and open to scrutiny. Net gain should be net gain, whether its supported by legislation or not. While we in this Committee may be urging my noble friend to go faster or do more, we must acknowledge that he and Defra have persuaded the Treasury, BEIS and DfT to accept 10% biodiversity net gain for all national strategic infrastructure projects. Quite frankly, that is an astonishing achievement and I did not expect to see it. It is important that NSIPs can and should deliver BNG to at least the same standards as those expected for other developments.
I welcome the reference to NSIPs having access to the statutory biodiversity credits scheme in the case of market failure. Natural England is currently developing this credits scheme. I like how BNG is to be embedded within national policy statements through biodiversity net gain statements and that there are mechanisms to be put in place for those sectors where the NSIPs have yet to be updated or where there is no national policy statements. I consider that this will allow for sufficient flexibility to allow biodiversity net gain to be tailored to any sector requirements if and where needed.
I am delighted to see it also extended to marine. That issue is contained in my amendments and I thought that I would have to argue the case for it. All I need to do instead is say, “Well done, Minister.”
That is enough praise—now for a few little queries. As I said at the beginning, I am always suspicious when we get a massive new clause to deal with what is really a simple matter of amending the schedule. First, I note that the amendment allows for developments to be excluded from this requirement by the Secretary of State. I cannot see grounds for granting such an exclusion and would not wish to see it enacted. However, I suspect that it is perhaps one of those safeguards Defra had to offer in order to get the other departments to sign up to BNG in the first place. I hope that it is merely a comfort blanket for the Treasury.
I hope that the requirement for NSIP net gain will be the same as for TCPA schemes. I would like to be reassured on this. Also, there is no commitment to a minimum period in which the biodiversity net gain must be secured on or off-site in the legislation. TCPA schemes are required to legally secure biodiversity net gain for a minimum of 30 years. I would expect NSIP schemes to secure outcomes for at least the same period, if not longer. Will my noble friend assure me that this omission is simply because the Government expect these schemes to last for evermore and thus a 30-year requirement is not necessary? I cannot imagine that in 30 years’ time any Government would consent to NSIP net gain schemes being ploughed up. Of course, the better guarantee of schemes lasting more than 30 years is conservation covenants—an excellent innovation in the Bill that we will come to in due course.
I note that there is reference to the use of alternative metrics other than the one developed by Natural England, metric 3.0, for use by TCPA developments. I can see no reason why NSIPs should not use the same metric. Any alternative metrics developed would mean that one NSIP’s 10% BNG would not necessarily be comparable with another’s. The current version of this metric is in use by major infrastructure delivery bodies such as Network Rail, Highways England, National Grid, et cetera. Of course, as my noble friend has said, no metric currently exists for marine developments; these will require a specific approach to be agreed on, and then some statutory instruments made in due course. It is a complicated area; it is better we get it right than rush it.
Finally, I note that there is no requirement for land delivering NSIPs’ biodiversity net gain to be registered on the national net-gain register developed for TCPA schemes. As I understand it, the statement by the developers must set out the gain to be achieved and how it is to be recorded. If they do not use the same register as the TCPA then, even if they are publicly available elsewhere, that is an unnecessary hassle. I would expect to see all terrestrial and intertidal NSIPs using the national net-gain register. There is nothing about the design of that register that would preclude its usage by such NSIP schemes. Furthermore, as quasi-government-funded projects, I cannot see an argument why there should be any reason why an NSIP should not see its net gain registered in a public and transparent manner in the same way that we expect private developments to be. NSIPs and TCPA schemes will both be engaging in the same net-gain market and it is critical that each is held to the same high standards that having net gains registered on the national register will provide for.
The only exception I can see to the above is an argument possibly requiring a different mechanism for marine NSIPs. At present, the register has been designed for terrestrial and intertidal schemes, and it does not cover sub-tidal. However, as soon as there is greater clarity about the nature of marine net-gain schemes I think that Defra and Natural England can discuss how the register could be adapted, and what resources would be needed to allow it to accommodate marine net gain.
With these technical queries—and they are technical queries. not criticisms—I am delighted to support this excellent new clause. I reiterate that it is an incredible achievement for my noble friend and Defra to get BNG for national infrastructure projects, and get every other department, including the Treasury, to sign up to it. I will be happy to accept my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, it is a particular pleasure to commend his Amendment 201, also backed by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, although my perspective on it is a little different. This is potentially one of the most important amendments that has been tabled. If we are to see biodiversity net gain actually survive and thrive, we should look at the last paragraph of the lines that would be left out by Amendment 201:
“Paragraph 13 does not apply in relation to … development of such other description as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”
That is a get-out clause for the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—perhaps being very charitable and coming from a slightly different political perspective —said, “This is perhaps just a comfort blanket for the Treasury.” I think it is a get-out-of-jail-free card that simply cannot be allowed to remain in the Bill. That is absolutely crucial.
This is a very long list of amendments, and amendments to amendments, so the easiest way of approaching it might be to run through them chronologically. I am happy to commend all the amendments in this group, including the government amendments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that the Minister can be proud of the additions that are here. This is a very clear sign that campaigning works: we know that a great many NGOs, campaign groups, individuals and Members of your Lordships’ House have been working very hard to ensure that biodiversity net gain covers our nationally significant infrastructure projects. There is real progress in government Amendment 194B. However, the number of amendments shows how much that still needs to be strengthened.
Running through some of the most significant of those, and those to which I have added my name or tabled myself, I begin with Amendment 196 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and myself. Obviously,
“maintained for at least 30 years”
is grossly inadequately in the kind of circumstances that we are talking about. As noble Lords have already said, the destruction is going to effectively be permanent. If we are seeing replacement structures and natural conditions put in, they have to continue indefinitely. Thirty years, in terms of nature, is merely a blink of an eye.
Amendments 198 and 199, both of which appear in my name—also kindly backed by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—seek to ensure that what is done in securing biodiversity gain continues. Amendment 198 refers to
“proof that sufficient funds have been allocated to implement the plan in full, including contingencies.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was referring to HS2, I was thinking about some horrific case studies associated with that from a couple of years ago. We saw trees—little saplings that were planted as part of HS2 offsetting plans in a very dry, hot year—left to die because it was cheaper to do that and replant them than to water them. That really is a demonstration of the way in which externalised costs and the need to ensure that biodiversity is allowed to establish and thrive have to be built into the Bill. Ensuring that the money is there is not going to guarantee that totally, but at least it is a start.
Amendment 199 strengthens the argument on sufficient funds. Of course, we know that many developers of all kinds of projects go broke. They undergo restructuring; they mysteriously disappear into offshore entities that are impossible to trace, and ownership is impossible to trace. We need to ensure that the funding for any biodiversity net gain is fully provided.
Amendment 201AB on monitoring is particularly important, and I commend those who identified the issue. It requires that an independent body be established to check the reality of biodiversity gain. Reading this, I was thinking about the practical reality of the huge issue we have with building standards, and the fact that we know that most of the buildings constructed in the UK now do not even meet our inadequate standards to which they are supposed to be built when they are actually put to the test. That is very often under a self-certification scheme. It is absolutely crucial that we have genuinely independent verification of this gain being made.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, making biodiversity net gain a mandatory requirement for most development is a good thing, though it will need several safeguards. Extending the net gain provision to nationally significant infrastructure is welcome, and I congratulate the Minister on that amendment. However, I believe that we need Amendment 194C in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to also include major infrastructure projects consented in other ways, including hybrid Bills, Transport and Works Act orders and whatever the new consenting mechanisms are that the Government invent in the new planning Bill. It is a pity that we have not yet seen the proposals arising from the consultation on planning. Can the Minister give us an indication of when we will see the Government’s proposals for planning? It would be extremely disappointing if major projects such as HS2 and East West Rail were not required to deliver biodiversity net gain.
I know that, latterly, HS2 has opted voluntarily to deliver biodiversity net gain on some of its later sections, if you can call being frog-marched into this by the NGOs, local protest groups and the Government a voluntary agreement. These big government-sponsored, taxpayer-supported and highly controversial projects should be like Pharaoh’s wife and be obligated to deliver the highest standards of biodiversity net gain. Of course, HS2 can never deliver biodiversity net gain as long as it is damaging ancient woodland, which is an irreplaceable habitat and therefore represents an irreplaceable biodiversity loss.
The Minister kindly wrote to noble Lords last week about HS2 in response to issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham. His letter, alas, fuelled my concerns about the potential misuse of the term “biodiversity net gain.” He indicated that HS2 phase 2b—Crewe to Manchester—would deliver biodiversity net gain, but he then went on to say that, because ancient woodland could not be replaced, it would simply be out of the scope of the net gain objective for HS2. Therefore, HS2 will be able to boast publicly of being a net gain project, while still being the single biggest cause of damage to our declining and irreplaceable ancient woodland. This is, frankly, misleading if not mendacious. Defra, we understand, is planning a consultation, expected to start this summer, on the development of regulations and guidance on irreplaceable habitats. Can the Minister assure the House that the regulations and guidance will not allow projects that are, in reality, not delivering net gain to portray themselves as net gain projects?
Biodiversity net gain needs other safeguards. Amendment 198A in my name would make sure that existing and possibly long-standing nature sites and habitats were not simply regarded as tradeable for newly created sites elsewhere—as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, possibly quite far elsewhere—under the net gain provisions. My amendment would ensure that the mitigation hierarchy had been followed. I am sure that noble Lords read the mitigation hierarchy every night before they go to bed, but I shall explain.
The mitigation hierarchy is part of the National Planning Policy Framework and outlines a set of principles that local planning authorities should work through in determining whether to approve a planning application impacting on biodiversity. It is a sort of stepwise, catechism approach. First, developers would be asked to seek to avoid impacts on biodiversity and, if that was not possible, to minimise them and then take onsite measures to rehabilitate or restore biodiversity, before finally resorting to offsetting residual, unavoidable impacts offsite. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the mitigation hierarchy will remain a requirement of the planning system and that there will be sufficient safeguards to ensure that offsite net gain is a last, not a first, resort under the net gain and planning provisions? It is on both the net gain and the changes in the planning system that the Minister needs to assure us.
A further strengthening of the net gain provisions is required. This is pointed out by my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in Amendments 196 and 201AZB. They would require habitats created under net gain to be maintained in perpetuity rather than only for 30 years. Previous speakers have debated this. The reality is that some created habitats will only just get going in 30 years; they certainly will not have reached the richness, complexity and resilience of long-standing habitats. The Government’s carbon scheme requires woodland sites created for carbon storage to persist for 100 years, so if it is possible to get that sort of longevity for a site despite changes of hands and ownership and the length of the policy, why can we not do it for biodiversity net gain?
We must not get into the crazy position that arose in south Wales with the extension of the M5 over the sensitive wetland sites in the Gwent Levels. Compensation habitat was created but, when the M4 relief road proposals came forward 20 years later, they planned to go straight through the compensation habitat. Mercifully, the Welsh Government reacted magnificently and rejected the plans. We do not want serial decimation of net gain habitat. Can the Minister assure the Committee that habitat created in the interests of net gain will not be allowed to disappear after 30 years? Will he accept the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch?
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have four amendments in this group. Amendment 201AA is about setting standards for the quality and content of information about biodiversity gain. This is an area where there are currently considerable problems. You are supposed to be able to get an expert to judge, for instance, the quality of a grassland. If you ask four different experts, you will probably get four different answers. There are no standards. There are no benchmarks.
Since we are moving to a situation of knowing what quality we are starting with and what quality we wish to end up with, we have to do this in a way that is measurable and verifiable. Therefore, I am keen that the Government should set objective and usable standards and have them in public so that people can refer to them and argue with them at the time when planning permission is being discussed and so that, 20 years down the road, we can judge whether what has been agreed is being maintained and do so consistently without having to wish for the luck of having chosen the right expert. In this context, I am keen that the state of a particular environment should be judged in the right season. It is obviously impossible in January to know what the quality of a particular bit of chalk grassland is; it has to be judged at a time of year when the plants and insects are in evidence.
Amendment 201AB is about how biodiversity gain should be audited. If we are to require something to be kept going for 30 years, somebody has to keep an eye on it. If we want that to happen, we have to provide the funds up front so that it can. I am not at all clear how the Government envisage an obligation to maintain a site being checked up on in practice.
Amendment 201AC comes back to a subject discussed previously by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle: how we secure that these obligations are enforceable in practice. To my mind, the obligations have to stick to the land. It has to be something that is enforceable against whoever owns the land at that particular time, whether that be a freeholder or a leaseholder, so that there is always somebody with sufficient interest that they will notice that they have to do something, be aware of the consequences of a notice to improve and take action. I cannot see anything in the current arrangement that will make sure that biodiversity gain sites, particularly those that are part of the land being developed—that is, small local sites, which are not part of major biodiversity gain trading sites but little local things tucked away that will be hard to notice—are kept going. We need something that will do that. I hope that somewhere in the Bill is a requirement that biodiversity gain on those sorts of local sites should be congruent with the local nature recovery strategy. I have missed that; I have not tabled an amendment about it, but I would love to have the Minister confirm to me that that will be the case.
I very much support what has been said about making biodiversity gain exist in perpetuity. I do not think of it as unchangeable but, if something happens that damages that gain, the system should swing into action again and the person doing the damage should be required to provide additional gain elsewhere or on the same site in much the same way as if they were doing an original development. I cannot see the point in things ending in 30 years. It is pointless. It is not what we are talking about; we are talking about changing things for ever, so let us say that.
I know that my noble friend the Minister has been sent a copy of a paper by my honourable friend Bim Afolami; I hope that he will find the opportunity, now or in correspondence, to comment on it. Mr Afolami is concerned that the Government’s plans for introducing biodiversity gain are much too slow and that opportunity should be given to those authorities that want to move faster to get going straightaway. Not everyone will be in a position to do that, but some of us will be ready. I do not see the point in holding back for two years just because not everything is ready. If the Government let those of us who are ready move early, a lot will be learned from our experience that can then be built into the procedure that opens up for everybody after the initial two years.
In particular, to pick up on an amendment which we will not see, because it went down too late, from my noble friend Lord Ridley and myself, I think there is a lot to be said for enabling—authorising—the automated creation of biodiversity gain statements and suggestions for small developers. If we do not do something to really help small developers, they will be hit by very large costs relative to the size of the development in getting a biodiversity gain statement together. We need to make it easier for them, but if we are making it easy for them, we need quality, and I think the suggestions in my right honourable friend’s letter address that. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that small sites will not end up being low quality or we will not end up deterring small builders by imposing on them obligations which are not proportionate to the size of their development.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, is not here, so I call the next speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is a regret that we have to group so many important amendments together due to the shortness of time and the Government’s self-imposed deadline of November for the passage of this Bill. This group of amendments raises a lot of very interesting issues, particularly the Government’s well-received extension of biodiversity net gain to nationally significant infrastructure projects, of which I too am greatly supportive.
I am equally sympathetic to the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to extend biodiversity net gain requirements to other major infrastructure projects. I note, however, that the detail of how the Government’s extension of biodiversity net gain is to be delivered remains to be worked out. It does not appear that we will know details of that for some time, so we are legislating once again in something of a vacuum.
I raised this issue of uncertainty at Second Reading and was not afforded a clear response. It would be helpful if the Minister were able to explain in his response the impact he expects his amendment to have on land use within England. How much land will be required to offset biodiversity loss by nationally significant infrastructure projects, for example, in the 10 years from 2025? It will also be interesting to know how much land the Secretary of State will require to deliver the biodiversity credits to be made available under Clause 94, particularly subsection (6)(b).
The reason why this is relevant is that we have an ever-increasing demand on land use from rewilding and wildlife corridors to trees, species abundance, nature recovery and conservation strategies—the three tiers of environmental land management—as well as surging demand for housing and renewable energy, including biomass, all of which sit alongside the basic and ever-increasing needs to feed the nation on healthy and nutritious food without further degrading our environment. I am concerned that we are layering worthy environmental ambition upon ambition with the view to parading some world-leading ecological credentials to COP 26, but without giving enough thought to how we practically will deliver these targets with the very limited amount of land within our beloved island.
As to specifics, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in welcoming the application of biodiversity net gain to the marine environment. This is of particular interest to the south-west of England, which offers such prospects for large-scale offshore ecosystem services, including wind, tide and wave energy, together with considerable natural capital assets within our inshore waters, foreshores and estuaries.
I would resist the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to introduce a perpetuity requirement to biodiversity gains. Perpetuity is a very long time and, given the pressure on land use, of which I have already spoken, we will do ourselves no favours to be tying up particular areas of land with well-intentioned obligations born at the beginning of the 21st century, when we transparently still know so little about what we need to achieve and the means by which we will get there. The only thing we can be confident about now is how little we know of the wondrous workings of nature. We should not commit ourselves to perpetual land use policies now. Rather, we will, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, noted, need the flexibility of properly drafted conservation covenants, one hopes executed by deed, to which we will return in the coming days.
Finally, as always, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, proposes a series of helpful and clarificatory amendments to Clause 93. I hope that the Minister will consider adopting them on Report. Measurable standards are going to be key to the success of biodiversity net gain.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon, although I am not entirely in sympathy with what he said about Amendment 196 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Parminter, among others. I wish to say something in support of that amendment and say a word or two about Amendment 197 of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, about high-speed rail lines, which raises an interesting issue.
First, on Amendment 196, the condition referred to in paragraph 9(3) of Schedule 14, which requires the habitat to be
“maintained for at least 30 years,”
seems rather half-hearted, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said in her very able introduction to this amendment. We are dealing here with works that the planning authority considers will result in an increase in the pre-development biodiversity value of the habitat, which is significant. Works of the kind that are being contemplated here require to be designed and planned for, as well as maintained. The period for which they are likely to be maintained is bound to affect the design and quality of the works and the effort that has been put into them.
What we should aim for is really long-term improvements to replace the huge loss of habitats. In many cases, the features we most value—such as ancient woodlands, which the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has been talking about so much with my support—have been built up to their present state over centuries. When I refer to ancient woodlands, I have in mind what is to be seen at ground level, as well as the trees. I am thinking about the quantities of mosses and flowers, such as the wood anemone and wild hyacinth, which grace our woodlands and, where lost, will take many decades to recreate. Thirty years is far too short to achieve that. Maybe perpetuity is too long, but the present formulation in the Bill seems not only half-hearted but misguided.
Amendment 197 of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would require the submission of a biodiversity gain plan as a condition of planning permission for the HS2 lines from London to West Midlands and from West Midlands to Crewe, and for the proposed extension from Crewe to Manchester. I very much welcome the opportunity that this amendment has provided for us to discuss how net gain can be applied to projects such as these, including the proposed extension from Crewe to Manchester, which offers an opportunity for this matter to be taken forward.
I am in sympathy with the application of the net gain principle, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I am delighted with the amendment the Government are bringing forward to introduce a scheme for dealing with significant infrastructure projects. But to apply the condition that he is looking for to the two lines that already exist would almost certainly be unworkable at this stage, as these lines both already have the benefit of deemed planning permission under the relevant hybrid Bills. Furthermore, the extent of the land to be taken has been settled—taken compulsorily, I should stress, from the landowners.
The possibility of applying that to the proposed extension is a different matter. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of his very lengthy amendments is that they would not extend to the proposed HS2 line for the rather technical reason that permission for it will not be given under the Planning Acts, which are what the amendment is directed at, but under the hybrid Bill legislation, under which the two existing lines received their planning permission. That is a technical reason but unless the schedule is extended, as proposed in Amendment 194C, to other projects beyond those mentioned and dealt with under the Planning Acts, I do not see how the proposed line can be covered.
I should like to say a little more about that because I was the chairman of the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (West Midland-Crewe) Bill. As part of my background reading, I had to study the report of the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill, chaired by Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe. The issue of net gain came up in both cases and one can trace through the development of those various lines a development in the approach to the issue being taken by HS2 as to whether net gain should be and could be achieved. In both cases, the promoter set itself at the outset the aim of achieving no net loss of diversity. In both cases, this attracted criticism from, among others, the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts and the Woodland Trust.
The objection before Lord Walker’s committee was that the system of measurement that the promoter planned to adopt to achieve no net loss was different from the biodiversity-offsetting metric adopted by Defra for use by local planning authorities. At the committee’s request, Natural England looked into the issue and provided a report. The committee heard evidence from the trusts and others; it regarded the Defra metric as sensible for relatively small developments but said that it was not appropriate for use in the case of large linear projects such as the HS2 lines. The reference to linear projects is worth bearing in mind because in the case of those lines, one is dealing with projects that pass through areas of several local planning authorities and it is not so easy for planning conditions to be applied under and discussed with various authorities. Anyway, in that case, the issue of net gain was not pursued.
When the issue came before my committee three years later, the argument had developed beyond comparing the two approaches to offsetting. The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts asked for a clause to be added to our Bill to require HS2 to ensure a net gain in biodiversity in perpetuity—note the words “in perpetuity”—with appropriate funding, in place of the promoter’s commitment to no net loss. The aim was to achieve biodiversity gains in the detailed design and implementation of the scheme.
However, the promoter pointed out that net gain could not be guaranteed without further purchase of land beyond the Bill limits, and that is one reason why I do not think that the Minister’s amendment relating to the two existing lines can be made to work. We considered that it would not be appropriate to require landowners, particularly farmers who were giving up so much of their land for the line, to be required to give up more land that was already proposed in order to provide for net gain. However, we secured an assurance from HS2 that it would do everything practicable to achieve net gain in the detailed design of the project within the Bill limits. Furthermore, HS2 was funding a scheme—a £2 million biodiversity fund—that would enable biodiversity to be provided outside the Bill limits by other landowners who were willing voluntarily to provide the kind of land needed for biodiversity gain to be achieved.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester [V]
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my interests as set out in the register, specifically with the Church Commissioners—a significant owner of agricultural and development land. On matters of climate change, we are a leading edge and an awarding-winning investor, yet the Bill reminds us that climate is only part of the story.
I support Amendments 196, 198 and 199. I am grateful for the speech of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, the noble and learned Lord, Hope, and others, who convincingly made the points that net gain must not be subject to time limits and must be adequately funded.
Back in my days as a parish priest, one church in my care had a notice in its vestry which read: “Please leave this room a little cleaner and tidier than you found it.” That was, in its small way, an attempt at net gain. The Bill offers a golden opportunity to apply that philosophy on a far wider scale. My little village church was an early adopter of a national church programme to increase biodiversity. Churchyards form a refuge from the built environment in urban areas and intensive agriculture in more rural surroundings. Setting aside an area of sanctuary in God’s acre enables wildflowers to re-emerge and small creatures to find a home. Yet churchyards are able to play this role precisely because they benefit from stable stewardship over a term far longer than a mere 30 years. Net gain cannot have a cut-off date. I am grateful to the Minister for his amendment today to extend that net gain requirement to some major national infrastructure projects. In supporting that, I echo the calls of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and others in seeking assurances that net gain here will also be robust and long lasting.
With a suitable offsetting regime in place, where gain cannot practically be achieved on site, local churches will stand at the forefront of those ready to step in. In doing so, we will be enhancing the work to which we have been long committed, both theologically and practically.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Bill is systematically revising so many aspects of the environment where former approaches have been lacking. A large slice of the area where noble Lords have been discussing improvement is in basically rural issues. I have declared my interests as a livestock farmer.
The Government have laid out their framework for dealing with overall environmental issues in Clauses 1 to 19—their targets, reviews and renewal plans and what they term their environmental principles. Do we reckon to approach people with a carrot or a stick? In my last intervention I quoted a phrase from Gulliver’s Travels about increasing the blades of grass from one to two, which gave a positive spin to an environmental principle and a vision for people to work towards.
In trying to invent something similar in its phraseology, I will borrow a phrase from Bob Geldof and say we are now asking as many people as possible to enlist to feed the world holistically, in terms of its air, water, biodiversity and people. By this, we could earn the thanks of future generations. There might be a catchier way of expressing it, but many feel that this is the sort of thing they should make an effort to achieve, even if we differ in our views of how to achieve it. The mountain in front of us is to learn to change the motives of countryside managers. That is the best guarantee of the permanence we are looking for.
This group of amendments focuses on biodiversity gain as a condition of planning permission. I listened with much interest to the Minister giving some clarification of what it intends to achieve for national strategic infrastructure projects. His Amendment 201A, at a quick glance, appears to be asking for the ultimate Henry VIII measure; it is almost saying that we do not know the detail of what we want to achieve, but want all the powers that might be necessary to achieve it. This echoes what those with responsibility in rural areas are feeling; we do not yet know what new support systems will achieve. But there is a critical difference in their case, as it comes without any power to change the terms other than as the Bill allows.
It is still possible that all agriculture will achieve some biodiversity once reliance is placed on crop rotations and restoring natural fertility. Can the Minister clarify, first, whether there will be some guidance on what level must be reached before land is considered suitable for biodiversity off-setting? In the same context, will assisting the achievement of biodiversity gain on a remote site be regarded as equal to a gain within the boundary of a significant site?
We are embarking on an unquantifiable change in the countryside. As farmers, we know that Mother Nature will respond, but with what? We cannot tell what the final outcome will be to it all. There will always be some looking to achieve a viable enterprise from the land, and we may have to adapt. That is where I cannot support Amendments 196 and 201AZB put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. She feels that 30 years is not long enough, and perhaps we all feel uneasy leaving some of this entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State. Would it make any difference to their position if the stipulation was 50 years? I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, talk about 100 years.
I was looking forward to supporting Amendment 200 in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, but I gather that this is unnecessary because the Government have decided to accept it and all its implications. The only thing in my mind is whether it would be better to introduce the marine element to the main section of the Bill, as is proposed in a later group by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Would it still be necessary to mention “marine environment” in this section? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 196 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Parminter and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I also support other amendments in this group, which I will mention when I come to them.
I join other noble Lords in welcoming government Amendment 194B and the new Schedule 14A, which will include nationally significant infrastructure projects in biodiversity net gain. In this context, I also support Amendment 194C, which aims to close a potential loophole by including other major infrastructure projects, such as those concentred under a hybrid Bill procedure, in the net-gain requirement.
Amendment 196, as we have heard, seeks to remove the 30-year time limit for off-site compensatory habitat under biodiversity net gain. Many Peers have spoken eloquently in support of this change, although some have said that “in perpetuity” may be too long. So there may be a debate to be had: if not 30 years, how long should it be? Still, it should certainly be for much longer than 30 years.
The Government’s argument for the 30-year limit appears to be that landowners may be reluctant to maintain habitats and lock up land in perpetuity. However, if the aim is to protect nature for future generations, it is crucial for net-gain projects to have a longevity of greater than one generation. Furthermore, the development projects that net gain seeks to off-set will often certainly last much longer than 30 years, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Hayman of Ullock, mentioned. If a habitat created to compensate for damage by a development can simply be ploughed up after 30 years while the damaging development is left standing, we will not be passing on a guarantee of nature in better condition to the next generation. This is not damage avoided but damage deferred—an asymmetry that punishes nature.
As it stands, the Bill creates a carousel of land-use changes where landowners are paid to off-set environmental harm for a while before turning the land over to some other use. Instead we need lasting habitat that will genuinely help to create a nature recovery network, even if the result is fewer parcels of habitat for sale; that is the price of restoring nature. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, rightly pointed out, we have to make hard choices about land use.
Furthermore, as others have pointed out, the creation of new habitats and the arrival of new species can often be a long, slow process. We have already heard several examples, to which I add my local RSPB reserve on Otmoor, near Oxford. It was established in 1997 by converting farmland into wetland, and it is still attracting additional new species of birds each year. A limit on the time horizon of net-gain projects will add to concerns already raised by ecologists at the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology at the University of Kent, who found in a recent report that net gain is leading to large losses of green open space, off-set by the promise of better-quality habitats at an uncertain time in the future. They also found that 95% of the off-setting projects produced small disjointed areas of habitat rather than following the principles of
“more, bigger, better, more joined-up”
proposed by Sir John Lawton.
Given the shortcomings already identified in the operation of net gain, surely the opportunity in this Bill is to strengthen the protection of nature where we can, including by lifting the 30-year restriction. In other jurisdictions, such as the United States and Australia, off-sets are required to last either as long as the development itself or for perpetuity. If the Government are serious about creating real gains for nature from development then those gains need to be lasting.
Amendment 198A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, seems a no-brainer. Just as we have a waste hierarchy, we should surely have a biodiversity hierarchy: do not do harm, minimise harm and, lastly, compensate for harm.
In conclusion, the onus is on the Minister to explain to us why the perfectly sensible Amendments 194C, 196 and 198A should not be accepted. I very much look forward to his response.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I first offer my apologies for the technical problems. I hoped to speak after the Minister, but technical problems unfortunately rendered me as silent as a mute swan instead of the blustering great bustard I had aimed to be. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, will probably say it serves me right for not being in the Chamber, and he may well be correct.
This is the sixth day of our Committee. I am afraid to say that for the last few days I have probably been biting the ankles of my noble friend the Minister rather a lot. I feel rather guilty about it, because in many ways he is probably more environmentally sound than I am. I know full well that if this were a “Superman” film, he would shed his ministerial suit, revealing himself to be some sort of green environmental superhero, which he undoubtedly is when he does not have his suit on.
I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I am delighted with the things my noble friend the Minister has brought forward, and that he has listened. More than listening, he has managed to persuade people in other departments, including the Treasury, which normally acts as one’s parents when one wants something that is new or costs a bit and it says, “You can’t afford it”. He has managed to persuade it, so that is fantastic.
I also congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the various meetings he has held. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, was being a teensy bit unfair. I was with her today when we spoke to my noble friend’s boss, so we are getting meetings and seeing some results, as we have had today. I also commend the Bill team, which I know is working very hard on this. We sometimes do not realise how hard those people behind the scenes are working when we go on so late.
I would of course love this to extend to those other projects, particularly HS2. If I had been in the Chamber I probably would have been guffawing and generally exploding with noises, because HS2 has been the bane of my life for a good few years, ever since it was just a line on a map. I speak not just as a local resident to where it came and then the constituency MP but now as the president of the Colne Valley Regional Park, which has had serious problems with what is happening. I agree that the idea of giving money to local authorities there would be quite problematic because it goes through so many different areas. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that I have found assurances from HS2 to be as reliable as that proverbial chocolate teapot. I will not dwell on HS2; it will not do my blood pressure any good. I ask my noble friend whether other mooted projects, such as Sizewell B and Heathrow—I believe neither of those has been given planning permission, but I may be wrong—would be covered by this.
It is fair to say that of course I want more—we always do—but this is a moment to congratulate the Government, and in particular my noble friend on what he has managed to achieve. If he could just persuade them on the state of nature target, his ankles would be safe for a considerable time.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and to echo his comment that it is great to be able to congratulate the Government. We on these Benches are always happy to chide and call for more, but it is very welcome that the Government listened, following the support around the Chamber at Second Reading for nationally significant infrastructure projects to be included within biodiversity net gain. We commend them for that.
Equally, as one of the co-signatories to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which would, in due course, extend it to the marine environment, I am absolutely delighted that we did not even have to make the case: the Government had accepted it beforehand. It is a great pleasure to speak briefly to support the Government.
As usual, I would, like others, point out that there are a couple of areas where we would make the case for going further. We very much support the case for Amendment 196 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which was put so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock—I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead on that. Having a time limit to the nature of the biodiversity net gain is a significant flaw. It is not correct that somehow you can plough up the land after 30 years. Some habitat restoration projects already have a timeline going into the next century. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, a number of climate projects have a timeline of more than 100 years.
I live in a house which was built in the 1920s. Most developments are around for more than 100 years; how come biodiversity is not afforded the same level of perpetuity? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, put it well when he said that the timeline is far too short. The Government should listen to the majority of voices in this Committee—I understand that there were two exceptions—that made the case that the 30-year time limit is too short.
The other area these Benches strongly support is covered by another amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Amendment 194C, which raises the remaining few areas where there are some question marks about schemes that are just outwith the scope. As, again, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said, the hybrid Bill procedure may be involved in some issues.
My noble friend Lord Teverson added his name on behalf of these Benches to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on securing sufficient funding, which is an important point to make. Like the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, we support the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, in her strong case for the biodiversity hierarchy to be adopted as we take biodiversity net gain forward.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra asked some very sensible, technical questions which need resolving, and it would be great if we could hear some answers tonight from the Minister. I end my comments on this group with heartfelt thanks to the Government.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am thankful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, first for her amendments but also for her support for biodiversity net gain generally. I shall begin with her Amendments 196 and 201AZB as they pertain to agreements in perpetuity. This issue has been raised by a number of noble Lords, and I understand and hear her concern for the longevity of habitats delivered in pursuit of biodiversity net gains.
I shall make a few points about this if I may. First, it is not true to say that the biodiversity net gain that is generated could be simply torn up after 30 years, or that those rich habitats would be lost. Do not forget that there is already a wide range of protections and management incentives for habitats, which would apply to biodiversity net gain sites after the 30-year requirement. Those protections are being enhanced as we speak. It is also important to note that 30 years is a minimum. The Government have always been clear that we want to encourage longer agreements where the landowner is happy to do so, but I am acutely aware that we need to deliver habitats in the right places to help wildlife recovery.
That takes me to a third point, which is a legitimate concern that immediately demanding the commitment of land in perpetuity, as the amendment would, would without doubt deter at least some landowners from offering their land for conservation in key strategic areas in the first place. That would make it much harder to secure the buy-in that we will need if we are to have any chance of reversing the biodiversity loss that we are seeing in this country.
I feel that in the ideal world you would have land improved and then protected for ever in law. However, I worry that there is a danger in letting the perfect being the enemy of the good in this case. There is a rationale behind what we are proposing and I think, on balance, that it is right. However, I have heard the arguments that have been put forward and will continue to have those discussions.
The Government have listened to both sides in this debate and recognise that the right answer to this question might be different for major infrastructure. I am pleased to inform the noble Baroness that we have left the issue of agreement duration as it pertains to major infrastructure open to further consultation. In simple terms, we have not prescribed in the Bill that net-gain agreements for major infrastructure must be 30 years. I can confirm that, subject to consultation, it is not the Government’s intention to require a shorter duration for major infrastructure development than would be asked for development permitted under the Town and Country Planning Act.
I move on to Amendments 197 and 201 in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and Amendment 194C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his comments. We have a happy customer and, to quote Basil Fawlty,
“we should have him stuffed.”
I share the view of my noble friend and the noble Baroness that the biodiversity net gain requirement should be applied widely.
On Amendment 194C, the Government’s support for widely applied biodiversity net gain is shown through net gain provisions which include, by default, the types of major infrastructure projects to which the noble Baroness’s amendment relates. Following commencement of the measures included in the biodiversity net gain provisions, when a major infrastructure project is brought forward, for example, through a future hybrid Bill, and granted deemed planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, it would be subject to the biodiversity net gain condition unless explicitly exempted.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, paragraph 10 in the new schedule inserted by Amendment 201A makes provision for the biodiversity objective to apply to development types that are not currently covered by a national policy statement. This would include any development brought into the scope of the regime at a future date, so major housing developments will be included. I hope she is reassured by that. In fact, the exemption clause is for potentially narrow, limited, individual, targeted examples if they arise. It is not about exempting classes of developments, such as large housing projects. I hope that also reassures her.
Moving on to Amendments 197 and 201, the Government have been clear that any exemptions will be narrow and practical in order to keep net-gain requirements proportionate, as I said earlier. The vast majority of permitted development rights are for small-scale development or changes of use, such as minor alterations to buildings where there is little or no impact on biodiversity, for example, conservatories or sheds. Applying the requirement to the delivery of urgent Crown development—applications for which are very rare as there has been only one such application in the past decade, for example—could risk causing unacceptable delays in addressing urgent national priorities due to the shorter development timescales typically involved.
I am pleased to confirm to my noble friend Lord Blencathra that the next phase of the HS2 scheme, Phase 2b from Crewe to Manchester, will deliver a net gain for biodiversity. However, applying the mandatory requirement as set out in the Bill to this phase of HS2 would result in legislative delays and further costs to the scheme for little or no gain in outcomes. The HS2 phases that are already under way are delivering no net loss of biodiversity, for example by rewilding 127 hectares of chalk grassland in the Colne valley. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the saplings that were allowed to die off. She is right, and I understand that HS2 has committed to replanting all of them.
I want to address a broader point that a number of noble Lords have made, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. We all acknowledge that ancient woodland is irreplaceable so it cannot meaningfully or realistically be compensated for by net gain. You cannot replace ancient woodland for all the reasons that the noble and learned Lord pointed out. Therefore, ancient woodland simply needs protection. It is wrong to describe that recognition, that fact—I think it is a fact—as mendacious, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, did. It is just a simple observation and one that holds true.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, I have received five requests to speak, from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I will start by calling the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am sorry I missed the list for this amendment. Noble Lords will know the importance I attach to cost benefit, whatever the nature of legislation and however much support it has. Improving biodiversity is clearly very desirable, given past losses. However, the proposals before us on nature, notably on net gain, will have a large and certain impact on development while they might or might not significantly improve biodiversity. They will add grit to the system, placing a further burden on local government and decreasing productivity, especially in infrastructure and housing.
This could cumulatively cost a lot, and it could hit smaller operators disproportionately, as the Minister was kind enough to acknowledge. The costs, of course, fall mainly on business and other developers and not on the Treasury, which is no doubt one of the reasons why it has been supportive. One of the main beneficiaries will be consultants, as with the environmental impact assessments that I remember coming in in the 1980s. They added costs—a lot of costs—and gave a lot of work to consultants, but may not have been entirely effective.
I am not sure that the published impact assessment—for which, many thanks—gives the full picture on costs. These will depend on the details and the complexity, on the time taken to assess biodiversity loss, on registration, on maintenance, on inspection, on enforcement and on covenants and the credits scheme the Minister has mentioned. My noble friend Lord Lucas was very good on some of these points, I thought, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, made an interesting observation about the pressure on land use that needs to be assessed. Moreover, and this is the reason I have stood up, the Bill has been added to quite substantially. That has been well received today, and there is pressure to add more. How much will the costs to businesses and public authorities rise as a result of adding so many new areas to biodiversity gain in Schedule 14A?
I acknowledge that today’s audience is an entirely environmental one, including our “environmental superhero”, my noble friend the Minister, and that this is the year of COP 26. However, the productivity of the economy also matters to the interests of our children and grandchildren, and to the disadvantaged. There is lots of work still to do on getting the detail right and understanding the costs.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising an important point. It is one that I also addressed in my remarks. We are not there yet and do not have all the answers. We are determined that this should be a streamlined process. We need to deliver for nature, but we have to do it in a way that requires developers, particularly smaller developers, to bear as little cost as possible. What we do not want to do is inhibit the productivity that the noble Baroness has just described. We have work to do, this is an evolution, but the proposals have been warmly welcomed pretty much across the board—from the small to the medium to the larger developers. There are questions and concerns, but the principle has been embraced across the sector.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I do not need the Minister to respond to the points I am about to make. First, I thank him for his detailed response to all points raised in this debate. I raised a few technical queries, but I do not need to press him today or need a detailed response from him, because I assure him of this: officials at Natural England, at all levels, are working hand in glove with his officials to address all aspects of net gain—to make sure we have the registers up and running, to figure out how to extend it to marine and to figure out the credit system. I am confident that, if funding allows, we will produce detailed proposals as soon as possible.
The main reason I got up to speak—I do so with considerable trepidation—is to challenge some of the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. He seemed to imply, and indeed said to me during our last HS2 debate, that, if we extend net gain to the first two legs of HS2, it will require the compulsory purchase of more land. No, it will not. That is where, in the distinguished job the noble and learned Lord did in chairing the committee, the promoters of the Bill misinformed him, no doubt inadvertently. You can get net gain from HS2 or any other project, without changing a single item in the HS2 Bill. One does not need to change the planning application and, more importantly, one does not need to buy a single extra square inch of land. Net gain is not about that.
Theoretically, one could buy more land on either side of HS2 and have wider embankments, but net gain can be delivered by HS2 funding projects off site, near the railway line. Neighbouring farmers may voluntarily wish to add some net gain. It requires only that HS2 funds it and I suggest that there are adequate funds. I believe the cost of HS2 went up another £1.5 billion last week. The cost of increasing from no net loss to some net gain would be quite insignificant, in comparison to the overall costs.
My final point for the noble and learned Lord is this: net gain is already moving away from no net loss, from what I hear. I know my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge is slightly more cynical about this but, if HS2 can now move slightly beyond no net loss to some net gain, and can do it without changing the hybrid Bill or applying for more planning permission, we should keep up the pressure on it for 10% net gain on the existing two legs. We can do that without changing a single bit of law.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I will take up my noble friend on his offer for me not to respond, other than to say that I note his comments and, I think, agree with everything he is saying.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, in his argument against Amendment 196, which calls for biodiversity gain sites to be protected in perpetuity, the Minister suggested that they might receive protection under provisions that already exist. Could he specify what provisions might apply 30 years after establishment? For example, Medmerry, the project I referred to earlier, might become a Ramsar site even in that short timeframe. It is clearly designed to exist in perpetuity anyway, depending on the rise of sea levels. But would most sites really be likely to be eligible to become a SSSI, after 30 years?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
It is impossible to answer the question, because it depends on the site and the type of ecosystem created, which determines the kind of protection that applies. My point is that there are protections for natural sites already, although I am not suggesting that there are enough. It is not easy to get permission to destroy important ecological sites. As I have said in this and in many other debates, we intend to build on those protections. The idea that, in 30 years, it will not be significantly harder to grub up valuable ecosystems—even 30 year-old ecosystems, which are important—is highly unlikely or virtually impossible to imagine.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend, as others have done, on getting this amendment into the Bill. It is a major step forward.
I have two questions for him. He was again critical of the UK’s performance worldwide on nature and biodiversity. We know that it is not good. I remember being heavily criticised when I was a Minister, but I then discovered that most countries criticising us were not using the same basis of measurement. I recall that, not so long ago, we were portrayed as being very bad on Covid, only to find that the countries doing better us were assessing Covid on a totally different basis. Can my noble friend say that his comments will apply universally across all other countries?
My second question follows on from what my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said about securing good use of public funds. I thoroughly approve of biodiversity net gain, but what happens if nature destroys one of the projects subject to support for biodiversity net gain? Perhaps my noble friend wants to restore a bit of peatland and get some sphagnum moss back. Everything works well for 10 or 15 years but, due to climate change, the land changes and can no longer support sphagnum moss. Therefore, the whole point of that bit of net gain falls down. Does my noble friend envisage having some sort of remedy to achieve a different type of net gain? How does he foresee that sort of situation being remedied?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
On the first point, my noble friend is absolutely right. My comments relate to the fact—it is a fact, there is no doubt—that our biodiversity has decreased very sharply in recent decades and continues to go down. That is why our goal is to bend that curve so that, instead of going down, we start to increase biodiversity.
At the same time, the UK is, I believe, doing more work internationally—not just by wagging its finger but through example—than any other country in the world. If you compare what we are doing on nature with, for example, what is proposed by the new Administration in the United States or any other country in Europe, I would say that we are miles ahead in our ambitions and in what we are doing with our international climate finance and ODA. We were the first country to deal with things such as our fossil fuel subsidies and our land use subsidies. Our campaigns internationally, not least the 30by30 initiative, are changing the debate around nature. I am very proud of where we are in the debate but, like everywhere in the world, we have an enormous amount of work to do to translate that into action on the ground.
My noble friend’s second point is very interesting, and one that I shall have to come back to him on for any details. My only observation would be that a proper net gain project is not going to be about one species, it will be about the habitat that supports that species. Even if climate change were to render the conditions too difficult for that particular species, you will not have no gain—you will still have gain on that side as a consequence of the habitat improvement. He raises a very interesting point; it is one that merits thought and I will think about it.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his comprehensive replies, but there are a number of areas I would like him to expand on—if he chooses, by correspondence. In the case of the first, it may be best to have an online meeting, should that be possible.
I would really like to walk through with him what happens if we have a medium-sized housing development with on-site diversity gain and, 10 years later, someone questions whether that gain has been maintained, or even achieved. What information will be available to that person? How will they, in practice, be able to challenge it? Exactly what will that information look like? Professional good practice guidelines do not seem a very strong basis for challenging whether something comes up to standard; they are pretty woolly at the moment. Will something be set that can actually be judged against?
If there is a question over whether the gain has been maintained, who will be responsible for taking action? How can an ordinary citizen kick them into taking action? Where, in practice, will the money from a housing estate of maybe a couple of hundred houses be extracted from to make good the lack of performance? How is this actually going to work? As I said, this may be best dealt with as a meeting, but if the Minister chooses to burst into print on it, I shall be delighted.
Secondly, can my noble friend share with us his concerns about perpetuity rather than 30 years? There are lots of aspects of land where perpetuity is normal. No one expects to get out from under an SSSI or building listing, and I do not expect to get out from under the covenants that apply locally to the Duke of Devonshire. Those go with the land and one expects them to be there forever. If one has made improvement to the biodiversity of a piece of land, maintaining that forever or compensating for a failure to do that by providing additional biodiversity elsewhere or onsite seems to fit well with perpetuity, and I cannot comprehend where this opposition is coming from in practice. We are all [Inaudible].
Thirdly, can the Minister answer on whether the biodiversity gain in a particular development will be linked to the local nature recovery strategy or be independent from it, and if it is linked, how does it work?
Lastly, I should be grateful to understand the Minister’s response to the letter that the department has received from my right honourable friend Bim Afolami.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Minister, I think that it is your turn now.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The short answer to the first question is that, were such a thing to happen, it would be a breach of planning permission, and the local authority could enforce that. I am happy to have the meeting that the noble Lord has asked for—but it would a breach of contract and the rules.
On the issue of 30 years, I feel that if I were to answer that question, I would be repeating what I had said earlier. Again, I am happy to discuss that when we meet, but the argument is that the 30 years is not a maximum. We will have an increasing number of protections for the land over time. That is part of the government programme and is a commitment that we have made. However, most importantly, we need to get land into the system. We have had many discussions in relation to the tree strategy and the incentives that we are creating there to encourage people to give over some of their land for tree planting. It is difficult. It does not matter what the incentives are—it is difficult—and if one were to ask people to make their commitments in perpetuity, that would limit the market for us and make our job much more difficult. That is the bottom line and the main reason.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
I am sorry for delaying noble Lords a little further. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her dollop of reality. In response to her comments, the Minister suggested that, in his understanding, the industry and developers and so on are overwhelmingly supportive of biodiversity net gain.
I work for a solicitors’ firm in the south-west called Michelmores, which regularly hosts a planning and developers’ round table. Just last month, we hosted a gathering of planners and developers that was addressed by the Environment Bank to introduce the idea of biodiversity net gain. The overwhelming response was that they had not heard of it at all; they were hugely uncertain about it, and there was considerable trepidation. Their principal concern was where on earth they were going to find the qualified professional consultants necessary to conduct and undertake all this business, because they just do not exist. Can the Minister provide any insights into how that industry will achieve the professional qualifications and the huge number of people necessary within a two-year period to deliver all this biodiversity net gain understanding?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I understand that some may not have heard of this, but developers should have, because it is already current policy in the National Planning Policy Framework. Not everyone goes to bed reading such a document, but if you are in the development sector you ought to be familiar with what is in it, so I am surprised by that. I certainly did not say that they were overwhelmingly supportive: I think the term I used was “broadly supportive”. I do not want to exaggerate, but the feedback we have had has been broadly supportive from people at all stages of the spectrum, from the large to the medium and the small—but, as I said, this is our job. We need to do this; it is a really important part of the nature recovery journey we are on, which I believe is backed by most people in this country. Most people recognise that this is something that has to happen, and our job is to make it work.
As for consultants, this is an entirely new thing, a world first, so there will not be loads of consultants waiting to start advertising their skills as of tomorrow. But when you create a market for something, the market responds. People will recognise that there are careers and opportunities in helping companies at all levels to deliver biodiversity net gain. So I imagine that, as with most things market-related, we will see ever more people entering this field with ecological expertise, knowledge and skills to offer those businesses.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an extremely informed debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I listened with great interest to all contributions. I also commend the Minister for bringing forward his amendment and join the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in thanking him for doing so and for listening to the serious concerns that were raised at Second Reading. I also thank the noble Baroness for her support for our amendments.
How wonderful it was to see the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, so happy, although I am not sure how he feels about being stuffed. He made some extremely important points and asked some very important questions, so I thank him for that.
We support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. As she said, there does seem to be a bit of a get-out clause in the Bill regarding biodiversity net gain for some development. She supported our position that 30 years is simply not long enough for maintenance following development, and she also talked of the importance of standards and of independent verification.
We also support the amendments of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, who asked when we will actually see the proposals around planning. It is an important question when looking at this. She talked about how all projects should be obligated to provide biodiversity net gain, but she also raised the very important point that HS2 is destroying irreplaceable ancient woodland. That brings us to the point that biodiversity net gain and biodiversity credits are not the answer to everything when we have large development projects actually destroying important habitats.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked about standards and the quality of information regarding biodiversity net gain. We support what he is saying in this: it is important that a close eye is kept on sites so that they keep going at a high quality.
I was disappointed that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, does not support our proposal for maintenance “in perpetuity”. A number of noble Lords discussed this. I agree with him that it is important that we know more about the detail as to how biodiversity net gain will be delivered, as that is not mapped out, and I thought his question to the Minister was very pertinent.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, also felt that 30 years was a very short time for maintenance of new nature. He also talked about the fact that this short period would affect the design and the effort in looking at the kinds of projects we will be producing for biodiversity net gain. The key thing is to make sure that all restoration projects are of high quality. He also made many important points regarding the planning Act.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was concerned about net gain being subject to time limits and said that it absolutely has to be adequately funded. He considered that, with this Bill, we have a golden opportunity to get that right. I absolutely support those comments.
Sadly, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, also did not support our amendment on “in perpetuity” but, again, he felt that 30 years was not sufficient for maintenance. I listened with great interest to the concerns that he expressed about rural landowners and the need for clear guidance from government, which echoed much of what the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, supported our amendment, and I thank him for that. He clearly laid out the reasons again as to why 30 years’ maintenance is not sufficient for genuine nature restoration. He gave us some examples of shortcomings on existing and recent projects.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, put quite an interesting image in my head of the Minister in a sort of green superhero outfit. He also expressed concerns about accepting assurances from HS2 at face value—he has clearly had some personal experience there. Therefore, it is important that all projects are covered by the Bill.
I thank the Minister for his very thorough response. He talked about the issue around our amendment looking at in perpetuity for maintenance and management as opposed to 30 years. What has come across from the debate is that people are not necessarily convinced by “in perpetuity” right across the House, but I did not hear anybody say that they thought that 30 years was sufficient, so I ask the Minister to take that away and perhaps consider it. He said that it would cover all projects, but what guarantees do we have? We need some further discussion on this. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas—and his dog—made some quite salient points about the need to consider this further.
Looking at the Minister’s response on our concerns about not all major infrastructure being covered, I listened very carefully to what he said around exemptions. I am concerned that there may still be gaps and loopholes, but I need to have a better look at it following his comments. Perhaps we could meet and he could go through this in more detail with us so we can get a better understanding of where he is coming from. Again, I thank the noble Lord for a very detailed reply, which we very much appreciate, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“SCHEDULE 14A BIODIVERSITY GAIN IN NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTSPART 1PRINCIPAL AMENDMENTS TO PLANNING ACT 20081_ The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.2_ In section 103 (Secretary of State is to decide applications), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Schedule 2A makes provision about biodiversity gain in relation to decisions of the Secretary of State under sections 104 and 105; and for related matters.”3_(1) Section 104 (decisions in cases where national policy statement has effect) is amended as follows.(2) For subsection (3) substitute—“(3) The Secretary of State must decide the application in accordance with any relevant national policy statement.(3A) In particular, if a relevant national policy statement contains a biodiversity gain statement under Schedule 2A in relation to development of the description to which the application relates, the Secretary of State may not grant the application unless satisfied that the biodiversity gain objective contained in the statement is met in relation to the development to which the application relates. (3B) Subsections (3) and (3A) do not apply to the extent that one or more of subsections (4) to (8) applies.”(3) In each of subsections (4), (5) and (6), for “any relevant national policy statement” substitute “subsection (3) or (3A)”.(4) In subsection (8), for “a national policy statement” substitute “subsection (3) or (3A)”.4_(1) Section 105 (decisions in cases where no national policy statement has effect), after subsection (2) insert—“(3) Where there is a biodiversity gain statement under Schedule 2A in relation to development of the description to which the application relates, the Secretary of State may not grant the application unless satisfied that the biodiversity gain objective contained in the statement is met in relation to the development to which the application relates.(4) Subsection (3) does not apply to the extent that the Secretary of State is satisfied that deciding the application in accordance with that subsection would have an effect referred to in section 104(4), (5), (6) or (7).”5_ After Schedule 2 insert—“SCHEDULE 2A Section 103BIODIVERSITY GAINIntroductory1_(1) This Schedule applies to development which—(a) is of a description of development to which a development consent order application may relate, and(b) is not excluded development,to the extent that the development is carried out in England.(2) In this Schedule—“development consent order application” means an application made under section 37 which falls to be determined under section 104 or 105;“excluded development” means development of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.Biodiversity gain statement2_(1) A biodiversity gain statement is a statement of government policy in relation to the biodiversity gain to be achieved in connection with any description of development to which this Schedule applies.(2) In particular the statement must—(a) set out a biodiversity gain objective for any description of development to which this Schedule applies, and(b) set out that, where development consent order applications are made for any development of that description during a period specified in the statement, the development must meet that objective.(3) The statement may specify how development of any description may or must meet the biodiversity gain objective.(4) In this Schedule, references to the period for which a biodiversity gain statement has effect are to the period referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(b).3_(1) A biodiversity gain objective is an objective that the biodiversity value attributable to development to which a biodiversity gain statement relates exceeds the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat by a percentage specified in the statement.(2) The percentage specified under sub-paragraph (1) must be at least 10%.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend sub-paragraph (2) so as to change the percentage for the time being specified in it. 4_(1) A biodiversity gain statement may specify for the purposes of a biodiversity gain objective how the biodiversity value or relative biodiversity value of any habitat or habitat enhancement is to be calculated.(2) That may include calculation by, or by reference to—(a) a biodiversity metric set out in a document produced by the Secretary of State for the purposes of the statement,(b) the biodiversity metric referred to in paragraph 4 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or(c) such other biodiversity metric as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(3) The Secretary of State must—(a) lay any document within sub-paragraph (2)(a) before Parliament, and(b) publish it in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.5_(1) A biodiversity gain statement may specify for the purposes of a biodiversity gain objective—(a) what the pre-development biodiversity value of onsite habitat consists of, and(b) the date by reference to which it is calculated.(2) A biodiversity gain statement may in particular under sub-paragraph (1)(b) specify a different date in relation to development on land where activities on the land before the making of a development consent order application have, or have had, the result that the biodiversity value of the onsite habitat is lower than it would otherwise have been.(3) A biodiversity gain statement must include provision to secure that, where a development consent order application relates to land which is registered in the biodiversity gain site register, the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat includes the biodiversity value of the habitat enhancement which is, on the date specified under sub-paragraph (1)(b), recorded in the register as habitat enhancement to be achieved on the land.6_(1) A biodiversity gain statement may specify for the purposes of a biodiversity gain objective what the biodiversity value attributable to any development consists of.(2) In particular, a biodiversity gain statement may specify any of the following as included in the biodiversity value attributable to any development—(a) the post-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat,(b) the biodiversity value of any offsite biodiversity gain allocated to the development (which may be registered offsite biodiversity gain), and(c) the biodiversity value of any biodiversity credits purchased for the development.(3) If pursuant to sub-paragraph (2)(a) a biodiversity gain statement specifies the post-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat, the statement must specify what that value consists of.(4) If pursuant to sub-paragraph (2)(b) a biodiversity gain statement specifies the biodiversity value of any offsite biodiversity gain allocated to the development, other than registered offsite biodiversity gain, the statement must specify—(a) what offsite biodiversity gain consists of, and(b) how the allocation of offsite biodiversity gain is to be recorded.(5) Provision under sub-paragraph (3) or (4) must include provision to secure that, where works are carried out for the purposes of any development that increase the biodiversity value of onsite or offsite habitat by an amount that is significant in relation to its previous biodiversity value, the increase is to be taken into account only if—(a) any habitat enhancement resulting from the works is maintained for a period specified in the statement, and(b) the maintenance of that habitat enhancement is secured in a way specified in the statement (for example, through conservation covenants or requirements imposed by a development consent order).7_(1) A biodiversity gain statement must set out whether, and if so how, the biodiversity gain objective applies in relation to development where the onsite habitat is irreplaceable habitat.(2) A biodiversity gain statement may specify requirements, in relation to any such development, relating to the making of arrangements for the purpose of minimising the adverse effect of the development on the onsite habitat.8_ A biodiversity gain statement must specify the evidence that persons making a development consent order application in relation to which the statement has effect must produce in order to demonstrate how the biodiversity gain objective is met.Development covered by an existing national policy statement9_(1) This paragraph applies where, at the time this Schedule comes into force, an existing national policy statement sets out policy in respect of a description of development to which this Schedule applies.(2) On the first review of the existing national policy statement under section 6 after the coming into force of this Schedule, the Secretary of State must amend the statement under section 6(5)(a) so as to include a biodiversity gain statement for development of that description.(3) The Secretary of State may issue a separate biodiversity gain statement (a “separate biodiversity gain statement”) having effect for any period before that for which the statement included in the existing national policy statement under sub-paragraph (2) has effect.(4) Before issuing a separate biodiversity gain statement the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) The Secretary of State must keep a separate biodiversity gain statement under review and may amend it at any time.(6) The Secretary of State must—(a) lay a separate biodiversity gain statement before Parliament, and(b) publish it in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(7) A separate biodiversity gain statement is for the purposes of section 104(2) to (9) to be regarded as contained in the existing national policy statement.(8) If it appears to the Secretary of State that the existing national policy statement is inconsistent with a separate biodiversity gain statement, the Secretary of State may amend the existing national policy statement in such manner as seems appropriate to the Secretary of State to remove the inconsistency.(9) Where the existing national policy statement is amended pursuant to sub-paragraph (2) to include a biodiversity gain statement in relation to any description of development, a separate biodiversity gain statement relating to development of that description must be revoked as from the beginning of the period for which the new statement has effect. (10) If the existing national policy statement’s designation as a national policy statement is withdrawn in relation to any description of development, any separate biodiversity gain statement relating to development of that description has effect as if it were a biodiversity gain statement issued under paragraph 10(2).(11) References in sub-paragraphs (4) to (10) to separate biodiversity gain statements include amended versions of such statements.(12) For the purposes of this Schedule, “existing national policy statement” means a national policy statement which is designated under section 5 before the coming into force of this Schedule.(13) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), an existing national policy statement is only reviewed under section 6 after the coming into force of this Schedule if the review begins after that time.Development not covered by a national policy statement10_(1) This paragraph applies where, at the time this Schedule comes into force or any subsequent time, no national policy statement sets out policy in respect of a description of development to which this Schedule applies.(2) The Secretary of State may issue a biodiversity gain statement in relation to that description of development.(3) Before issuing a biodiversity gain statement under sub-paragraph (2) the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) The Secretary of State must keep a statement issued under sub-paragraph (2) under review and may amend or revoke it at any time.(5) The Secretary of State must—(a) lay a statement issued under sub-paragraph (2) before Parliament, and(b) publish it in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(6) References in sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) to statements issued under sub-paragraph (2) include amended versions of such statements.(7) If after a statement is issued under sub-paragraph (2) a national policy statement relating to the description of development is designated under section 5, the Secretary of State must—(a) include a biodiversity gain statement in relation to that description of development in the national policy statement, and(b) revoke the statement issued under sub-paragraph (2).Development at sea11_(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for this Schedule to apply, with or without modifications, to any development to which this paragraph applies.(2) This paragraph applies to development which—(a) is of a description to which a development consent order application may relate, and(b) is not excluded development,to the extent that the development is carried out in the English marine region.(3) In sub-paragraph (2), the “English marine region” means—(a) the English offshore region, and(b) the English inshore region, excluding waters in England.(4) Regulations under this paragraph may make provision modifying the application of this Schedule in relation to development which is carried out at an inter-tidal location. (5) In sub-paragraph (4), “inter-tidal location” means a location that—(a) is in England, and(b) is also at any time in the English inshore region.Interpretation12_ For the purposes of this Schedule—“biodiversity credits” means credits under section 94 of the Environment Act 2021;“biodiversity gain site register” means the register under section 93 of the Environment Act 2021;a “biodiversity metric” is a means of measuring the biodiversity value or relative biodiversity value of habitat or habitat enhancement;“development consent order application” has the meaning given by paragraph 1(2);“English inshore region” and “English offshore region” have the meanings given by section 322 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;“excluded development” has the meaning given by paragraph 1(2);“existing national policy statement” has the meaning given by paragraph 9(12);“irreplaceable habitat” has the meaning given in regulations under paragraph 18 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;“onsite habitat”, in relation to any development, means habitat on the land to which the development consent order application relates, and “offsite habitat” means habitat on other land;“registered offsite biodiversity gain” has the meaning given by paragraph 10 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”PART 2SUPPLEMENTARY AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING ACT 20086_ The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.7_ In section 37 (applications for orders for development consent), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) The documents and information prescribed under subsection (3)(d) may include documents and information demonstrating how any biodiversity gain objective in a biodiversity gain statement under Schedule 2A having effect in relation to the development is to be met.”8_ In section 120 (what may be included in development consent order), in subsection (2), at the end insert—“(c) requirements designed to secure that—(i) the biodiversity gain objective under Schedule 2A relevant to the development is met;(ii) any proposals included in the application for the order for the purposes of meeting the biodiversity gain objective are implemented.”9_(1) Section 232 (orders and regulations) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (5), at the end insert—“(f) regulations under paragraph 3(3) or 11 of Schedule 2A.”(3) In subsection (7), after “or 105(2)(b)” insert “or paragraph 3(3) or 11 of Schedule 2A”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for biodiversity gain to be taken into account in decisions under sections 104 and 105 of the Planning Act 2008 relating to development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Goldsmith’s proposed new Schedule relating to biodiversity gain.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Goldsmith’s proposed new Schedule relating to biodiversity gain.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 205A. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 205A
Lord Lucas
“(1ZA) Such consideration must include consideration of empowering relevant civil society organisations to further the general biodiversity objective, in particular by breeding and releasing native animals.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to enable discussion of how the regeneration of the populations of those insects and other animals that have become locally or nationally extinct can be sped up.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, in addition to moving Amendment 205A, I shall speak to the other amendments in the group.
If one is setting out to restore nature in a bit of the countryside, it is dead easy to restore the plants. Almost every native British plant—certainly all the common and half-common ones—are available from a number of seed sources. All you have to do is plant the seeds or, if you are that bit keener, to grow the seeds on in the garden and then plant out plugs. There is no difficulty in doing it and no laws against it. It is a process widely used to bring nature back into farms, and we are all used to it.
When it comes to animals, it is much harder. Of course, some big animals introduce themselves. I do not know any way of keeping a fox out of a bit of territory, and mice and similar mammals seem to move pretty well. But when it comes to glow-worms, crickets, soil animals generally and even lizards and frogs, that is not the case. These animals just do not have the ability to move across gaps in countryside. They have not evolved a widely mobile strategy. If I want glow-worms back somewhere, I have to put them there; they will not come to me.
The BBC celebrates, as do I, a glow-worm reintroduction process under way at the moment to add 500 glow-worms in two sites over two years. That is ridiculous. It is a pathetic level of ambition. We ought to be distributing millions of glow-worms to tens of thousands of sites to get a decent effect on nature and to get things back to where they should be if we had looked after nature.
This sort of process absolutely needs to be properly controlled, which is what I am trying to achieve through the amendments I propose. We need not small, underfunded, academic efforts to introduce one or two little bits of nature back but something much larger, more widespread and popular. We do it for plants; we ought to be able to do it for animals. That is what I aim to do in Amendments 205A and 257D.
Amendment 253 looks at land that has been seriously rewilded and asks whether we can take that rewilding just one bit further. If a rabbit or deer dies in a rewilded estate, the carcass lies where it is and is consumed by whatever carrion eaters are around, be they beetles, fungi or birds, but that is not true of the stock used to maintain the landscape within a rewilding scenario. If a sheep or cow dies, the carcass has to be removed. If we want the rewilding to be truly natural, we ought to explore the possibility of leaving that carcass to be consumed in a natural way.
This is already being done in Holland. A month ago, I sent my noble friend some detailed information on what happens there. I would very much like the opportunity to explore with him whether this might be a relaxation we can bring into the UK. Again, things need to be done in a controlled way. You do not want an animal with a serious disease left out as a carcass, but all that is required in Holland is a veterinary inspection. That seems to work well. I hope we can do the same here. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to reopen this debate in the confident conviction that the entire nation of England is glued to our deliberations this evening. As a reminder, we are covering the group comprising Amendments 205A, 253 and 257D, all in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who did a very clear job of introducing them before the break.
However, I am not quite as convinced as the noble Lord about the ease of plant reintroduction. I think about tree planting on the edge of the moors outside Sheffield, hacking through thigh-high bracken and its accompanying roots. I have not yet been back to see how those new trees are, but we are talking about animals here and these amendments, particularly Amendments 205A and 257D, address the exciting development of what is being called “recovery through reintroduction”. This excites individuals and communities. The focus is often on larger, charismatic species, such as large herbivores and some carnivores, but excellent work has also been done on red squirrels and pine martens in an interrelated way. Perhaps, however, these two amendments are most relevant to the smaller and the more local, such as insects and maybe small mammals—recovery and reintroduction efforts that might be taken up by a small local group. In Sheffield, when we were deep in the controversy over felling street trees and a great deal of time and effort went into preserving the Chelsea Road elm—on its own terms and for one of the UK’s most threatened butterflies, the white-letter hairstreak—many people came up to me seeking schemes to see how they might be able to preserve it.
There have been so many success stories of reintroduction over the past 30 years: the red kite, the bittern, the pool frog, the natterjack toad, the sand lizard, the smooth snake, the chequered skipper butterfly, the enigmatic ladybird spider and, of course, the beaver, about which I spoke previously. However, to truly restore our ecosystems, our biodiversity, our nature—as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, prefers—we need much more. We live in one of the most nature-depleted states on this planet. From the Tudor age onwards, when a war on so-called vermin was launched, there has been a war on wildlife in these islands, which was then explosively accelerated through the destruction of the 20th century. Turning it around requires enlisting the support of what is also a nation of animal lovers.
I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to the sentiment behind these amendments, which certainly deserves to be supported and encouraged. Again, this is not something that can be centrally controlled by Westminster. It needs local initiatives and local and regional action. A sentence in Amendment 253 optimistically looks forward to a partially rewilded island, where nature can be allowed to operate its natural cycles of energy and resources. This also raises an important issue.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 253, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I used to hate the EU forms’ DoC requirements and regarded them as one of the more pernickety impacts of EU membership, which is quite a thing for someone who is very anti-Brexit. However, they were vital to deal with issues such as the mule pits that used to be a horror on the edge of most Spanish villages, where you could go and fling your donkey when it died. They were probably a bit overengineered for the UK, but across Europe these regulations had a big impact on big scavenging birds such as kites and vultures.
We can tell from Shakespeare that it is not new for hygiene and biodiversity to come into conflict. In Shakespeare’s time, kites lurked on street corners in London picking up carrion and rubbish. I would quite like to see kites back on every street corner in London, but I do not think I will ever see that in my time.
I support the modest amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which would mean that dead farm animals could be left uncollected in rewilding areas to allow necrophagous—don’t you just love that word?—bird populations to take their proper place in these naturally rewilding ecosystems.
It has been a long day today on the Environment Bill so I would like to introduce a more frivolous moment into the Committee. If I had my way, I would like to see this provision of letting stock lie where they die extended to all upland areas, not just rewilding areas. I have always fancied a sky burial, where I could be useful food to some of these necrophagous birds, including even corvids, though I would prefer a more magnificent kite to clean my bones. Who knows? In spite of there being no fossil record of vultures in the UK, climate change might well mean that the UK could become suitable, in climatic terms, for vultures. They are already moving north in France. However, that would need a sufficient supply of carrion to be left lying around. I am sure the Minister would agree that being picked clean by a vulture would be really something, but that is probably a bird too far so I will restrain myself and simply support the noble Lord’s Amendment 253.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am not sure I can follow that.
I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has laid out the case extremely well for all three of his amendments in this small group. Amendment 205A would give power to relevant civil society organisations attempting to regenerate populations of extinct insects and other animals, especially those that may have had a regional presence. This is a very worthy aim and one that I support. However, I urge caution over the reintroduction of some insects that, when they were alive, had an adverse impact on the countryside, wildlife or humans. I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to reintroduce an insect that was a persistent pest and had no useful purpose.
Amendment 253 relates to allowing fallen stock to remain on land for the consumption of flesh-eating birds and insects—noble Lords will note that I have gone for the easy pronunciation here. I support this with the proviso that the fallen stock has not died from a disease that might spread to other stock or to humans; we need to be careful about that. To ensure the survival of many insects and birds, it is really important that they have something to feed on. Fallen stock and, indeed, fallen trees should be left not only to feed birds and insects but to provide essential nutrients to the soil. I have read Isabella Tree’s book on rewilding and she makes a very powerful case for letting things be. In the past, if an oak tree was in danger of falling or was rotten at its core, the answer was to fell it and take away the remains. It is now recognised as far better for it and for other dead trees to be left for beetles, insects and fungi to feed on. That increases our much-depleted biodiversity.
Amendment 257D relates to the captive breeding of wild animals and their subsequent release back into their natural environment. We have seen beavers returned to the wild in Cornwall and Devon and Scottish wildcats bred in captivity now living in a safe reserve in the Highlands. I support these programmes but accept that they are not always universally welcomed. There has been discussion and nervousness about the possible release of wolves into Scotland. I accept that care will need to be taken over just what is released and where, but captive breeding programmes have helped many animals and birds. Ospreys and sea eagles—magnificent birds—are making a significant return, the latter right across the country from Scotland down to the Isle of Wight. If you are lucky enough to see one soaring overhead or diving down to catch prey out of the water, it is a sight that you will never forget.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has spoken about conserving pine martens, red squirrels and butterflies, and reminded us that our biodiversity is in a very poor state—one of the worst in Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has spoken about donkey cemeteries and the time when kites scavenged on the streets of London, and reminded us of the role of vultures. I think it was the bird sort that she was referring to.
This is a niche group of amendments but one that deserves to be taken seriously. I hope the Minister will agree.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for enabling us to have this interesting debate. He is rightly challenging us to think through what steps are necessary in practical terms to reverse the declining biodiversity, to which we all aspire. One way would be to let nature take its course, with all the stops and starts that would entail. Another way is to give nature a bit of a helping hand, which is really what he is proposing. He is rightly challenging us to be more ambitious about this, so I am interested in his suggestion about accelerated breeding programmes.
Of course, this is already happening in a controlled way in some circumstances, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned in the previous debate. We all welcome the programmes of beavers being released into the wild, which brings with it the added benefit that they are happily engaged in building dams, which slow the river flows. She has again mentioned a number of precious species today, including red squirrels and pine martens, with actions being taken to reintroduce them, all of which is very welcome.
Some other animals might not be so welcome, particularly to adjoining farming communities where livestock might be at risk, so I caution that this needs to be done with care and expertise. Rewilding takes time, otherwise there is a danger that introducing one new species could have an adverse effect on other species that are already established.
Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raises a very interesting point about animal carcasses in rewilding projects being allowed to remain on the land—again, effectively letting nature take its course. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, pointed out in an earlier debate, vultures have played an important role in clearing carcasses in parts of Africa and Asia. We have also heard again today from my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone about mule pits in Spain and indeed the kites scavenging in old London. It is a very vivid image.
Of course, death is not pretty and this would not be, but we would only be applying the same principles that already occur for smaller mammals. Dying animals may well prefer to be left with their herd to die, rather than being culled or taken elsewhere to die or indeed to be slaughtered. On the other hand, this would need to be managed carefully. It cannot be a substitute for taking care of the stock, and we certainly would not want it to be used as a money-saving exercise. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord points out, this is what a true rewilding exercise would really entail. I therefore welcome his contribution and look forward to the Minister’s take on the issues raised.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I declare a personal interest in rewilding, which goes back a very long way. I am a strong advocate of supporting species recovery and have been excited to see this issue catch on. I welcome my noble friend Lord Lucas’s interest. Well-managed releases of native species, including reintroductions of formerly native species, are a really important aspect of this. However, they can be complex and can carry risks, including for the animals themselves. The taking of animals from wild populations, or poor-quality breeding programmes and releases, can undermine conservation efforts. We should continue to work in a targeted way, under existing regulations which already make provision for the taking of protected wild animals under licence.
The Government are already taking positive steps to reintroduce and release native species, such as the pine marten in the Forest of Dean, which has been credited with reducing grey squirrel populations elsewhere, and the pool frog in Norfolk. I will take this opportunity to celebrate the wonderful work to reintroduce white-tailed eagles on the Isle of Wight in a project led by the Roy Dennis Wildlife Foundation supported by Forestry England. They released the first birds two years ago, and there were further releases last year, to local acclaim and excitement.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am always happy to receive a letter from my noble friend. I will address the subjects that I raise in these amendments in reverse order. I understand what he is saying about fallen stock, but I very much hope that the authorities in this country will take a careful look at what the Dutch authorities have done. They have proceeded in a very cautious and sensible way, and they have not encountered a great deal of problems. As I say, there is veterinary inspection of the carcass before it is left. It is not something done at random.
In any rewilding situation, quite a lot of large animals die naturally and are left naturally, because they are not part of the harsh, farmed population, as it were. This is not that big a step if it is done carefully. Perhaps it is something that can be done in small steps, so that we see how it goes, but we ought not to be afraid of creating a truly wild environment. As with the introduction of wolves or lynx, it is a decision to take carefully—I am not sure that the residents of Eastbourne would fancy having an eagle owl circling over their prams, but, none the less, it is something that we should think through and explore. In other parts of the world, we are encouraging people to keep tigers going; that is a different measure of risk that we are asking people to take. We ought to be conscious of what we are asking of ourselves compared with what we are asking of other people.
So far as dealing with common native species is concerned, yes, a thousand grasshoppers is wonderful, but why a thousand? Why not 10 million? That is particularly true when you are talking about things such as glow-worms and crickets, which really do not move far as adults, and where the larval species do not spread a great distance and are probably incapable of crossing a road, and so large areas of the country are—within our lifetimes and probably for several centuries—effectively inaccessible to natural rewilding and natural reintroduction, however many natural corridors we introduce. Where species are known not to be a danger to ecosystems and are a natural part of ecosystems where they exist, and the problem is that we have wiped out most of them, we really ought to do something about that. The key is allowing breeding on a large scale. This will not happen if we restrict it, as I say, to academic exercises that think we should celebrate 500 glow-worms or a thousand grasshoppers. That is not the level of challenge that we have.
I agree that we ought to move carefully: we ought to move with advice. None of this should be done without, say, the local wildlife trust saying: “Yep. Okay, we’re happy with that”. Any organisation involved in breeding ought to be carefully supervised. We need to get the public involved in these things and allow them to say: “I want lizards in my garden”, “I want a slow worm in my garden”, or “I want to see glow-worms in the park when I go for a walk at night. Can I have that?” The way to get nature back on the scale that we need is to say okay, let us do that. I very much hope that the species reintroductions task force will bend its mind to that at some stage. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 205B. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 205B
“(1ZA) A public authority which has any functions exercisable in relation to England must exercise those functions consistently with the aim of furthering the general biodiversity objective and to conserve and enhance the species and habitats listed under section 41.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that public authorities exercise all of their functions in a way that is consistent with furthering the biodiversity objective, extending the current duty which is limited to certain policies and objectives considered to be appropriate, and placing particular emphasis on species and habitats of principal importance.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 205B, I will speak also to Amendment 210 in my name and add my support to the other amendments in this group. This group returns to the application of biodiversity but in a different context from the previous debates that we have already had. Amendment 205B would require public authorities to act to further the general biodiversity objective and to conserve and enhance the species and habitats that are important to our biodiversity. This would underline biodiversity as a critical factor in all authority decisions, including planning and spending decisions.
The amendment builds on the concession made during the Commons consideration of the Bill, in which it was made clear that public authorities have a responsibility to enhance, as well as conserve, biodiversity. Our amendment takes this one step further by seeking to ensure that biodiversity is integrated into all decision-making.
Our Amendment 210 adds a specific obligation on public authorities to support biodiversity growth through planning decisions. This is a crucial issue that has been touched on several times during the consideration of this Bill. As noble Lords will know, there is a huge concern about the impact of the planning White Paper on biodiversity net gain at a local level, and we would like to understand more about how these two policy initiatives will interact.
The planning proposals are of course aimed to fast-track housebuilding in development areas without the normal local involvement, so it is still not clear how individual schemes will be assessed from an environmental and sustainability point of view. With sustainability appraisals scrapped and environmental impact assessments not carried out at outline stage, how will a developer’s green footprint be judged?
These are real concerns that have been echoed by the recent report of the Environmental Audit Committee, Biodiversity in the UK. It makes clear that it feels that there is a “series of deficiencies” in the policy, and recommends that
“The Government should explain how and when it will move to embedding environmental net gain in the planning system, with clear actions and milestones”.
It also recommends that
“The Government should strengthen local authority capacity and enforcement mechanisms to deliver biodiversity net gain”
on the ground. Our Amendment 210 is a first step to achieving this. This is very much in line with Amendment 209, from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, which we heartily endorse. These are critical issues for making the reversal of biodiversity loss a reality. I beg to move.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
In introducing Amendment 209, I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Boycott, and my colleague and noble friend Lord Teverson, who have added their names to it.
I very much welcome the Government’s introduction of the local nature recovery strategies—I see them as a really critical tool in capturing the value of the natural environment and ensuring that local communities can have their priorities reflected. But as they stand, the problem is that local authorities only have to “have regard to” the local nature recovery strategies; they do not have to act in accordance with them. My amendment seeks to reverse that, so that all the good work done by local authorities in producing them can be utilised, ensuring that they can be effectively integrated with other local plans and programmes.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just highlighted, the biodiversity net gain and the other biodiversity requirements put on local councils, including the local nature recovery strategies, will be incredibly resource intensive. These new local nature recovery strategies will be data-driven, map-based and about identifying protected sites and other areas that make a real contribution towards delivering environmental and biodiversity aims. They will require a lot of conversations and consultations with relevant stakeholders—landowners, farmers, local people and businesses—and we want to make sure that all that consultation, of working locally on the ground to identify sites that are important to people and that people feel need protecting, is valued and respected.
Once these strategies have been developed, they will then be able to link up all the various other things such as biodiversity net gain, the environmental land management schemes and the nature for climate fund. They will be a really important tool for bringing all of these together. But if the local authorities and other bodies do not have to act in accordance with them, all that good work of consultation, and all the resources put into them, will go to waste.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I listened with care to what the two noble Baronesses have said, and I support their arguments. They made some very valid points.
I am speaking to my two amendments in this grouping. Amendment 210A simply requires that Natural England has particular regard to nature-friendly farming. It has to
“have regard to … local nature recovery strategy, and … any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.”
One thing that has been missing in a lot of our debate over six days is the role of the human being in all this. We have talked a lot about biodiversity and what we can do to increase it, but what matters just as much is the role of the farmer and the landowner, because they are going to implement the policy. I was thrilled when my noble friend Lord Goldsmith, said on the amendment we have just discussed on biodiversity net gain, words to the effect of: “We are able to farm in a nature-friendly way.” I thought: “Good. My noble friend and I are on the right track together.” It is hugely important.
At the moment there is a Nature Friendly Farming Network that thousands of farmers have joined; it is doing tremendously good work for the environment at very little extra cost to the taxpayer—and sometimes at a cost to their own pockets. These are exactly the sort of people we need to encourage. The farmers are not particularly pleased with this Government at the moment. There is far too much uncertainty and change and, as we all know, the age of the average farmer is so high that they are finding it hard to adapt to all the pressures. I was really pleased by what my noble friend said, and I hope he will consider the amendment about biodiversity. The Bill cannot just be seen in isolation. We have to involve the human being—the farmer and the landowner. They are the people who will alter things on the ground.
Besides the Nature Friendly Farming Network, there is of course the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust. We often talk about the UK being a world leader. We have on our own shores a world leader in this organisation. It has demonstration farms in Scotland and England, and has farmed for biodiversity for many years. It advises individual farmers and clusters of farmers, and does an awful lot of work for Defra. I urge my noble friend to visit its Allerton project. He and I have spoken about this before. The work and scientific research it does are so important. We cannot now take for granted everything I learned when I was a boy and a young man, working on the farms and the land. To convince the rest of the country, we have to have it scientifically proven. This is what the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust has been doing so well. I hope that my noble friend, besides talking to us, will spare time between now and the next stage to visit it in Leicestershire. It would be an easy half day for him, and I think it would be very beneficial.
I turn now to Amendment 293, to which I am a signatory. It is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and is on a subject that both she and I have been going on about for quite a long time: the land use strategy for England. Perhaps we need no better excuse for introducing this amendment than what the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said about Horsham District Council and the problems it faces. I have said it before, and I will just briefly repeat myself: the Climate Change Committee reckons that we will have to transfer about 21% of our agricultural land out of farming. To feed ourselves, we will have to increase productivity by 10%. We all know that productivity has been flatlining in agriculture for many years, so this is going to be a hugely serious problem to try to tackle.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, will wax much more lyrical than I will on this, so I will not say very much except that it is again about the human input into this. There are so many pressures now on the countryside: the building of new railways, new developments and housing schemes and, I repeat yet again, the threatened planning Bill, which is coming our way next year. That frightens me because it will undo quite a lot of the good in this Bill and in our climate change agenda. We will have to support these farmers and accept that they have got to increase their productivity.
We have talked about land being lost for biodiversity net gain. That is another pressure on the countryside. Surely, it is high time that England followed the lead of the other countries in the UK—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—in producing a plan of how it will use the land. It is the only way that we will make progress in a sensible way without having constant fights at all levels. We need a strategy from the Government: should we actually be farming our grade 1 Lincolnshire fen farms, which we are told have very few harvests left? Every time they are farmed, they are perhaps one of the greatest emitters of carbon in the agricultural sector. It is a terrible thought that our grade 1 land might not be farmable or should not be farmed, but we need to address that now before it is too late. I therefore give my full support to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, to get a land use strategy for England.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to be part of this group and to be supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, in her Amendment 209. If we are to have nature recovery strategies, they have to be followed. I touched on this in a previous group in relation to biodiversity gain and planning consents. If that great source of nature improvement is done willy-nilly, with no reference at all to the nature recovery strategy, what is the point of the nature recovery strategy? This is one of the main ways in which things are going to improve. Why is it disconnected? Amendment 209 from the noble Baroness would reconnect it and other things in a most useful way.
My own amendments in this group are aimed at seeking remedies to things which seem to me, from my experience locally, not to be working as well as they might be and which could be made to work better, under the structures proposed in this Bill, with a bit of additional power. First, I observe that, within the land owned by the local council, there are substantial SSSIs which are supposed to be chalk downland and which are actually largely bramble. How has that come about? I think it has come about because the negotiations on what should be done are conducted between a council that is extremely willing but short of money and Natural England, which understands that and does not see the purpose of pushing a long-term relationship harder than it reasonably can. The net result is that things go gently backwards.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what I am hearing around the House is that everybody is feeling rather anxious about a lack of join-up between a whole load of mechanisms that are being invented or pre-exist, so that they run the risk of nullifying each other, or at least making life very difficult for each other. So I feel justified in speaking to my Amendment 293, and I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for his support. Some noble Lords will recognise that this is a revamp of an amendment to require the Government to draw up a land-use framework which I raised during debates on the Agriculture Bill. The Government indicated that the Environment Bill would be a much more appropriate place to deal with it, so here it is. The Government may possibly now say that the planning Bill would be a more appropriate place, in which case I shall raise it there too, because the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is right that I have been banging on about this for a long time, and I intend to continue banging on about it until I get it.
There are huge pressures on land, and they are growing. There is pressure for increased food security, carbon storage, biodiversity, flood management, trees, increased timber for self-sufficiency, recreation, health, built development, housing and infrastructure—there are multiple pressures on land. The University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership conducted demand and supply analysis and found that, to meet a growing UK population’s food space and energy needs while increasing the area needed to protect and enhance the nation’s natural capital, the UK would need to free up an additional 7 million hectares. The land for that is simply not there. The UK as a whole is only 24.25 million hectares, so about one-third more land would be needed to meet imminent pressures, and we simply have not got it.
As we tackle these multiple pressures for land, we are hampered by the lack of a common framework within which to reconcile these competing needs. I have been going around trying to prompt a debate on the need for a land-use framework for England, because Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already have such frameworks and are using them, with greater or lesser effect, to guide policy on these competing areas of need. Many countries across the globe have land-use strategies—even China, as we heard at our Select Committee last week—so, it is long overdue that England should develop and use such a framework. This issue was identified by the Select Committee on the Rural Economy two years ago: it recommended that there should be an England land-use framework. The Commission on the Future of Food, Farming and the Countryside—I declare an interest as a member—has identified this as a major issue and is conducting a pilot land-use framework for Devon, which may encourage the Government to see whether they could adopt it on a national basis.
Since we debated this issue during the passage of the Agriculture Bill, several other spatial planning issues have arisen. The Government have made a commitment, in the England Trees Action Plan, to major expansion of woodland. Where are the best places for trees to go that do not undermine the other valuable land uses, such as agriculture? What is the answer to that? We need a land-use framework to tell us. The new farming support regime, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, outlined, will result in substantial land-use change. Local nature recovery strategies already have a quasi-land-use planning role but could well raise major challenges to local development plans, as has already been outlined. The changes to the planning system heralded in the Government’s White Paper will impact on the use of land, but traditionally, the planning system does not cover, in any real way, rural agricultural land. Net biodiversity gain will require land to achieve that gain. Can the Minister clarify how all these mechanisms are to be integrated and not bang into each other?
Land is a finite resource—we are not making any more—and we desperately need a strategic land-use framework to maximise the value to wildlife, development, the economy and people. If the Minister disagrees, will he outline how the Government intend to reconcile the increasing competition for land? The risk is that these separate systems will encourage particular land uses in particular places, with decisions taken in silos without a more strategic view on how to get the right use in the right place and maximise the benefit of the precious resource that land represents.
I also support Amendments 209 and 210. I have put my name to Amendment 209 in the name the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. It makes the vital link between local nature recovery strategies and other land use decisions by public authorities. It was put vividly by the noble Baroness. The Knepp example is being replicated over the country. Our local version in Bedfordshire is that the local native recovery strategy is beginning to identify, from rigorous scrutiny of the data, that the North Bedfordshire Wolds is probably the most important area of open countryside left in Bedfordshire, but the local plan has been developing new town proposals to put new settlements of 6,000 to 10,000 inhabitants right in the middle of the North Bedfordshire Wolds—so not much join-up there then. I therefore support the need for local nature recovery strategies to have legal status, so that planners and developers have to take account of them. Amendment 210, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, aims to make a statutory link between local planning decisions and biodiversity in all the decisions that public authorities make.
My last point is a practical one. Local authorities have, almost universally, reduced the number of ecologists they employ; two out of three local authorities do not have an ecologist on their staff. We need proper integration of all these new and existing mechanisms for land use, and ecologists will be vital to that task, so we need to ensure that local authorities are properly funded to be able to do this job.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I completely agree with her about leaving out one’s body for the birds to pick over the bones. Personally, I would not mind corvids; they are very bright, so I would not have a problem with that at all.
For all those who would like to know about the footy, it is 1-1 at the moment. Denmark scored first.
While we are talking about corpses, I will throw in my own story. In Norway, in 2016, a herd of wild reindeer were electrocuted. There were 232 animals—calves, parents, everything—who all died simultaneously. Rangers in the area decided to leave the corpses and watched for several years to see what would happen. The biodiversity explosion was huge; it was not just predators, birds, insects and everything that fed off them, but the plants and fungi that were a by-product of all this activity. Biodiversity is aided by corpses. This is probably not an option for most local authorities, but it is something that individual gardeners could use when they find dead animals, if they can stand the smell.
The amendments in this group are part of the wider task being undertaken by your Lordships’ House to insert the strong legal mechanisms that will give effect to the ambitions of this Bill. The Bill should be a watershed moment for the conduct of government and public administration, but we are missing loads of opportunities to have any sort of impact. Amendment 205B, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, would be a turning point for public authorities. We need public servants to recognise their roles as stewards of the environment and the natural world, and this amendment would do that. Every function and decision should be made with the environment and ecosystems at the forefront of the decision-maker’s mind. In the 21st century, that should be a fundamental principle of good governance.
Amendment 232 of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, then ensures these new powers and duties on public authorities are properly resourced, so they can be delivered. We all know about the massive cuts to local authorities that have been happening over the past 11 years and, honestly, I am staggered that local authorities can carry on with all the services they manage to, but we cannot allow a situation where ever more duties are placed on local authorities, while they still struggle with the effects of austerity. The Government have to invest in good-quality local services and invest massively in a transformative programme to repair our natural world. The two cannot be put into conflict; the Government must make resources available to local authorities to deliver both with excellence. I hope we will revisit these two points on Report, because they are important to delivering the ambition of the Bill.
I have been watching today’s business from my office, trying to get on with other work, and the stamina shown by noble Lords still in the Chamber is absolutely staggering. I admire your fortitude and energy. Let us all hope that we do not have to do this again too often, because the Government will accept loads of our amendments.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and to address these amendments, which are focused on the highly valuable local nature recovery strategies.
I am very supportive of the addition suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, of “nature-friendly farming” to new subsection (2A) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act. As I explained in an earlier debate, I am concerned that this House should temper somewhat the risk of environmental tyranny inherent in the Bill and ensure that we remind ourselves and local authorities that the core purpose of land management across these islands over many hundreds of years has been the production of healthy and nutritious food. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who will follow me, might agree with that.
I am also strongly supportive of the efforts of the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Lucas, to ensure that local nature partnerships and our diversity of local community members should have real input into local nature recovery strategies. These amendments go to a point that has been debated previously in Committee over the role of local communities and local land managers within the setting of local environmental targets. I was pleased when the Minister accepted the crucial importance of that. If local nature recovery strategies are to be a success, they must be developed in consultation with those who manage the land—those whose living derives from the land—as well as those who enjoy the land for their health and well-being. Local nature recovery strategies should not be determined by central edict from Westminster or by well-funded special interest lobby groups with no local mandate.
I too offer my strong support to Amendment 293 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and I applaud her tireless efforts to introduce a land-use strategy for our agricultural land. She indeed raised this during the passage of the then Agriculture Bill, at which time it seemed very sensible but maybe not essential. However, now that we are layering on top of ELMS so many other competing and potentially confusing land-use imperatives, it has become clear that we need to consider afresh what we really want of our land and to prioritise those imperatives accordingly.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the Cambridge University statistics, which counter the Minister’s earlier and surprisingly off-the-cuff assertion that we have sufficient marginal land to do all that is needed. I am not sure that is strictly true. We are a very small and heavily populated island with an incredibly long-established culture of intensive and successful land use. As I alluded to earlier in reference to biodiversity net gain, what we are asking of this green and pleasant land is arguably far more than it can deliver. Between housing, renewables, biodiversity, leisure and food production we are in very real danger of exhausting our much-beloved countryside. We need to find a means of developing a joined-up and dependable land-use strategy, informed by local communities and land managers, that delivers on our national priorities.
Finally, the Knepp estate has come up often in these debates and I should comment on it. I have always been hugely impressed by its achievements. However, I have always understood that the reason the Knepp estate chose to rewild was that it was relatively low-grade agricultural land that was not agriculturally productive and that it wished to do something remarkable with it: to recover nature and to provide public access and education. By putting a housing development approximate to Knepp, is Horsham Council not delivering directly on that ambition, converting low-grade adjoining farmland to housing and providing comparatively ready access to remarkable biodiversity for the benefit of the community’s health and well-being? As an additional bonus, Knepp can be paid to provide ecosystem services to that community, so it would seem potentially like a win-win situation.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I have just been camping at Knepp for three nights—Friday, Saturday and Sunday—so I walked the land extensively, went on guided tours and saw the work being done. He is not correct when he says that a housing estate next door will in fact be of some kind of educational benefit. The whole point of Knepp is that a wildlife corridor was going to be created where this new housing development is that would take the birds, as well as some other animals, to the sea.
I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, because we need a rethink of how we look at land and what we do. We need to start using things imaginatively such as the middles of towns for people to live in. I live outside Taunton, the town centre of which has completely fallen apart in the last couple of decades. There are empty shops and closed-up buildings; there is no life in that town. Instead, you have miles and miles of small boxes outside the town that are extremely environmentally non-sustainable. They are miles from the schools and the town centre and the place has become a doughnut—it has that sort of hollowed-out feeling.
Unless we start to reimagine how we want to live, of course we will go on having the problems that we have all talked about, and 3,500 houses will continue to be put on the Knepp site. Storks have just been brought back and there are now about 120 storks flying around. We had lunch on Sunday under three trees where there were storks’ nests. It is completely magical. Those creatures will go if they suddenly find that they are under houses. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, is right: the Burrells decided to rewild Knepp because their land was not productive. They were losing £150,000 a year in 2000 and felt that they could not go on drowning the site in chemicals and trying to make weak soil support high-yield crops, so it was logical to rewild that site. However, they have no ambition to rewild the whole of England. They know that Knepp is a site of special interest and should be seen in that way—as an educational tool. It is buzzing with researchers from all over the world who are studying everything, including how a pig’s trotter makes a little pool that enables a particular flower to feed, which in turn has brought back the turtle dove. They have found all those connections that had been completely lost.
Of course we need good food, good farming and grade 1 land, so I hugely support the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, when he says that agro-ecology and agro-friendly farming have to be the way forward. I have recently been to the Groundswell conference, which is about min-till or no-till, whereby one makes just slices through the earth and does not disrupt the magic of our soil. Just as many crops are being grown without the inputs. We can do it.
I come back to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, to which I have put my name. What really matters in this is that if we do not give local authorities the ability to stand on their own two feet and enforce rules on people, we take away their agency. If one looks at causes such as the transition towns or Incredible Edible Todmorden, these are absolutely miraculous and wonderful community initiatives that have brought life, health, friendship and masses of plants in all sorts of forms back into the middle of towns. It destroys one’s belief in the system if one constantly fails, if the housing development goes up against all local opposition and if, over and again, one’s voice is turned down. We are going to need all those local people with vested interests in their local community if we are really going to make a difference. It is therefore blindingly obvious that local authorities need the teeth of this amendment to fight off any imposed housing quotas. We have to put nature first in the planning system. It is not tangential and we do not have an option.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, once again, I declare my interest as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership, which is rather relevant to a couple of my amendments.
I want to go back to the basic argument of what the Bill is about. There is a real issue—an emergency, as I and many others would describe it, in biodiversity and the quantum of nature in England. Because of that we have this Bill. It is about doing something—and we have to do something. However, while we all welcome nature recovery networks as a great initiative in the Bill for which I congratulate the Government, when we have that emergency and we have seen how the Aichi targets over the past 10 years mean that we have gone backwards in this area, we need those nature recovery networks actually to work. Exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, if we do not do that, what is the point?
This group is about the rubber hitting the road, if you like. This is “make your mind up” time. Are Nature Recovery Networks and biodiversity targets going to be something we can all feel good about because they are in legislation, or will they make sure there is change over the next decade? That is the choice that the Government have in these amendments. I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response.
There is a great deal going on, as we have heard from noble Lords. If the biodiversity targets that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, described so well, are not implemented and joined up with the fundamental area of planning, we are throwing away this opportunity. We must tie it up with land use and farming, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Earl Caithness, have mentioned. Roughly 75% of England is agricultural, and if we get that right we can move forward in terms of biodiversity.
Farming is crucial to making nature recovery networks and biodiversity work. We have to tie that up with the organisations that have these responsibilities already, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said: drainage boards and the Environment Agency. That is true as well. I believe that it is essential, and I think the Committee does, that there should not just be “regard” for these nature recovery networks. They have to be embedded, planted, and statutorily mandated to comply with them. Otherwise, they will not have strength.
Down in Cornwall, as the Minister is probably well aware, we have a lot of beaver introductions—we were talking about those earlier on—and have gone through one of five nature recovery pilots. I have been very much involved, as chair of the local nature partnership. It is a great exercise to go through. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, talked about consultation with local communities. We have to get that buy-in, and I am pleased to say that some 700 people were involved in consultation with our pilot in Cornwall. We have a really good scheme there, but, coming back to one of my amendments, how the heck are these going to be resourced?
There are two necessities here: one is tying and mandating their use with other machinery, whether it is the Planning Act or agriculture—we will come onto ELMS in the next group—but there also have to be the resources. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said local authorities do not have ecologists at the moment. We have to have them so they can work on nature recovery networks as well as net gain. If we do not have the resources to develop nature recovery networks and get them to work, how will it happen?
The Government might say that we have the environmental land management scheme, with £2.5 billion worth of state aid to buy public goods, but I do not see that necessarily fulfilling the needs of nature recovery networks entirely. We have net gain; I hope most of that net gain will be done onsite, and there are potentially ways of having resources there, but those two together are not enough to make nature recovery networks work. How are we going to resource the implementation of these strategies? Those are the fundamental points.
In terms of my other two amendments, local nature partnerships were, I was sad to see, not even mentioned in the Bill. They came about through The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature, the natural environment White Paper of June 2011. They were never put on a statutory basis, but they exist throughout England, full of people from all walks of life. In Cornwall and Scilly, we have local authorities, the Environment Agency, Natural England, farmers, ecologists and ordinary independent directors to make nature work in our region.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for tabling Amendment 209. I would like to assure her that I share her enthusiasm for local nature recovery strategies. These strategies are a key provision in the Bill, which will empower local people across the country to identify where action for nature and the environment would have most impact, and where investment in new habitat recreation or restoration will achieve best outcomes for biodiversity.
Local nature recovery strategies and the measures in the Bill lay the foundation for the establishment of the nature recovery network, but they are not binding plans that must be followed. They are intended to guide rather than compel action, with delivery supported by incentives as well as duties. Requiring public authorities to “have regard” is therefore appropriate in that light.
The Government have already committed publicly to local nature recovery strategies informing development plans and future schemes that reward environmental benefits, as well as targeting biodiversity net gain, and I am happy to reaffirm and restate that commitment today.
While I cannot comment on the ongoing development of councils’ local plans, I can say that, when preparing their local plans, local authorities will have to have regard to their local nature recovery strategies, which will tell them where housing can be developed with lower impacts on nature. I have said this before, but I strongly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about Knepp. It is magical, and I have to say that it is hard to see how it can be enhanced by a giant new housing development next door to it. But it is also true, as the noble Baroness said, that no one is expecting every farm in the country to become a mini-Knepp; that is not the idea. But, at the same time, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, outlined very powerfully today and in many speeches, we do want lots more Knepps, because they would be like a bank of biodiversity that could spread its treasures across the land—so we do want a network of Knepps, absolutely.
Moving on to Amendment 210, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that it is the Government’s view that the policy outcomes of this amendment are delivered already through the Bill as drafted. The wide range of existing legal and planning policy protections for sites, species and habitats will be complemented by the mandatory biodiversity net gain measures in the Bill that we discussed earlier. These measures require that habitats for wildlife must be left in a measurably better state than they were pre development.
The Government are committed to the measures introduced in the Environment Bill, on which the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government has worked closely with Defra to develop. As set out in the Planning for the Future consultation, we want the reformed planning system to play a proactive role in promoting environmental recovery and long-term sustainability. The proposed planning reforms will reinforce the implementation of these measures, including the biodiversity duty, as opposed to contradicting them. Through our planning reforms, we intend to maintain protections for areas of high environmental value and place a stronger emphasis on opportunities for environmental improvement. As I said earlier, I am meeting with the Housing Secretary shortly to discuss this and many other issues further.
Moving to Amendment 210A, from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I agree very much with the intention of his amendment, which seeks to ensure that future farming practices support nature recovery. He is right to make the argument that he has, in particular, to re-emphasise the point that other noble Lords have made, that there is no inherent contradiction between farming and nature. There are good farms and bad farms, but good, sustainable farming is inherently nature friendly. That is the kind of agriculture and land use that we need to encourage and must see much more of. The existing Clause 95 places a broad duty on all public authorities to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Where an authority has influence over farming, or has farms on its land, it will already need to consider what it can do to ensure that biodiversity is supported.
On Amendment 205B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, in strengthening the biodiversity duty we are ensuring that public authorities take more effective action to support nature’s recovery. But it is important that authorities have the flexibility to balance the competing priorities. Public authorities have a huge range of functions that are vital to society and which must continue to be delivered, so requiring them to prioritise biodiversity over all other considerations could cause unintended consequences for the provision of public services. For example, if authorities were obliged to prioritise biodiversity over adult social care, it is unlikely that this would be accepted by the community. So we are increasing the strength of the biodiversity duty, but in a way that allows them to balance other priorities.
I agree very much with the intent behind Amendments 228 and 232, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Of course we want these things to work. We are not just going through the motions; we expect these new systems to deliver for nature. The local nature partnerships that he mentioned must, and will, play a key role in preparing and delivering local nature recovery networks. This has already been demonstrated through the five recently completed pilots. The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly partnership, which I have mentioned before, and which was chaired by the noble Lord himself, was a fantastic example of this, helping to co-create a prototype local nature recovery strategy with Cornwall Council. There are also many other local groups that have key roles to play in preparing these strategies. We intend to use regulations made under Clause 98 to ensure that all important local partners will be fully involved, so I am pleased to confirm that the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment can already be delivered by the Bill as drafted.
Regarding Amendment 232, I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to fully funding the preparation of these strategies. New duties and incentives from the Government will play a key role in boosting activity, but the public, private and voluntary sectors must all play their part in delivering these jointly owned local strategies for nature recovery.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling Amendment 229A. Regulations made under Clause 98 will have an important role to play in the successful implementation of local nature recovery strategies. The scope for the regulations is broad, specifying the procedure that the responsible authority must follow in preparing, publishing, reviewing and republishing their strategy. To inform the approach that the Government will take to these regulations, we are committed to launching a consultation over the summer.
Regarding Amendment 262, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I again share his motivation to build on the hugely important work of local nature partnerships, but I do not think that a formal consultation is necessarily the best approach. Local nature partnerships were set up in 2011 to be locally led, non-statutory organisations, focusing on the environmental priorities in their areas.
On Amendment 230, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the Government’s intention is that delivery of local nature recovery strategies will be driven by a combination of duties and incentives that balance the need for urgent action with the rights of landowners and land managers. Local drainage boards and the Environment Agency will both have important roles to play in delivering local nature recovery strategies, given how crucial water is for so many aspects of nature. As public authorities, they and a great many other organisations will be required by Clause 95 to have regard to relevant local nature recovery strategies when exercising their functions.
Finally, the Government welcome Amendment 293 from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and agree with the intent to achieve a more strategic approach to land use. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness said:
“Land needs to be multifunctional and to deliver a whole range of public and private benefits”.—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. 1215.]
That is exactly what the Government are aiming to achieve as we confront climate and biodiversity challenges, while maintaining food production and sustainable development.
The Government do not underestimate the scale of the challenge. Existing clauses on local nature recovery strategies will provide England-wide coverage of locally produced spatial strategies for nature and nature-based solutions. Regulations and guidance will ensure that they work together coherently. The noble Baroness has set the challenge, which the Government must meet through the implementation of the Bill and our wider reforms, to deliver a genuinely strategic approach to land-use change across the UK.
I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this debate, and, for now, I ask them not to press their amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has requested to speak after the Minister.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the reply my noble friend the Minister gave, but I am slightly perturbed by his answer to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, to which I put my name. He said we need a lot more Knepps. Yes, but where will they go?
He went on to say that the Government have a strategic approach. I do not think they have. My noble friend is battling with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on many issues at the moment, and he will be battling with the Treasury and the Department for Transport. This goes across government. The Government might think they have a strategy but, without a strategy that we can all look at, it will be dependent on the budget and annual spending plans of each department. It will be a horrible annual battle.
I hope my noble friend will reconsider this between now and another stage, because the more I have listened to on the Bill and the more I have talked to farmers, the more I am absolutely convinced that the only sensible way forward is for us to have a strategy to which we can have our input and support the Government. That will make life clearer and better for everybody in future. Not only will it protect our environment much better but it will help produce the food that we want. The way we are going, we will have to import a whole lot more food than we do at the moment; that will be the downside of the Bill.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I think we are agreed. In the past, I have heard the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, agree—as most people in this Committee would agree—that we need to do all we can to reverse biodiversity loss. We cannot do that without the measures that I have described today and that we have been debating over the last seven days in Committee. We can bank that as something we all agree on and put it to one side.
We also know that we need to produce food, and that we probably have to produce more food. The only answer to that is to maximise the use of land that is not highly productive, to increase productivity on land that is productive and to ensure that the farming we do does not undercut or undermine the work we are doing on areas that are not farmed. That means reconciling farming with nature. No one is pretending it is easy, but that is what we have to do. If we do not do that, we fail with nature, food security and pretty much all the ambitions we set ourselves. It is difficult, but that is what we are trying to do. Things such as ELM and the other mechanisms that exist will, I hope, create the incentives we need to take us down that route.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to what has been a very wide-ranging and excellent debate. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, made an excellent argument about the need for local authorities to act in accordance with their local nature recovery strategy so that it becomes centre stage. As she says, it is not sufficient for them to simply “have regard to” that strategy. I listened to what the Minister said in response. He will forgive our ongoing scepticism about “have regard to” but, quite frankly, in the past it has been an excuse for inaction. That is our concern about the way that it is worded at the moment. We still feel that there needs to be something more specific that ties down that relationship for the future.
The noble Baroness quite rightly points out that iconic nature reserves such as Knepp would be protected under the terms of her amendment, and I agree with that. That theme was echoed by a number of noble Lords. Again, we have to look at the practical applications of some of these phrases to see what can be achieved by them. I think the noble Lord said that Knepp is just one example, and we seem to have been talking an awful lot about it, but the truth is—and I think the Minister said this—we want a lot of Knepps, particularly on land which is not suitable for high-productive farming. Let us not just concentrate on the one. We want a strategy that will deliver for all the potential Knepps in the future and they all need to have the protection of their local nature recovery strategy to help with that.
I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that local government is under enormous pressure at the moment and needs the resources to carry out its responsibility properly. Again, the Minister said that these initiatives would be properly resourced. I have to say that that has not been our experience up until now. It has been all too tempting in the past for more and more policies to be put on the shoulders of local government without it having the necessary resources to carry out new responsibilities, which it would like to do properly but just does not have the resources. I think there is still a dichotomy there.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made the excellent point about the diversity of representation on the boards and the need for agencies to collaborate in delivering the strategy. I thought that point was well made. He also mentioned the Cuckmere estuary. As he probably knows, the Seven Sisters site is about—I think this week—to be signed over to the South Downs National Park, which will include the Cuckmere estate. I hope very much that, if there have been failures in the past, under the new regime it will become an exemplar of nature recovery and biodiversity as a new and exciting country park.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, with his customary authority, set out why it is crucial that local nature recovery strategies should be drawn up with the local nature recovery networks. He quite rightly probed the Minister on whether we can justify the partnerships and the networks. Are we clear what they are there for and the contribution that they will really make and, again, are we sure that they will have proper resourcing? I think those questions were well put.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, quite rightly points us to the work of the Nature Friendly Farming Network —again, I have had some dealings with it and have been impressed with the work it is doing—and the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust. He is right that Natural England should work with these initiatives.
I very much welcome Amendment 293 in the name of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. This is a hugely important amendment. As she says, we need a framework to manage the multiple pressures on land. She listed all the Government’s initiatives which pile up on top of what is a very scarce and precious resource. As she says, it could end up with random and incoherent priorities sitting side by side. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, said that all these pressures on our green and pleasant land are more than we can really deliver and, at some point, someone is going to have to make some strategic choices about all of this.
I listened to the Minister’s response to this, and he seemed to welcome what my noble friend was saying in her amendment. However, it needs more than warm words: it needs a commitment for that strategy to be laid down, the timescales to be met and Parliament to have a say in it—so it is quite a big ask if we are going to do it properly. I do not know my noble friend’s plan for the amendment, but there was a lot of support for it around the Chamber, so I hope that she will consider pursuing that in some way.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said in answer to my question about planning and the battle between biodiversity and planners. I am not sure that he answered my question on how a developer’s green footprint will be assessed under the new regime. I understand that he is discussing this further with the Housing Minister, and, obviously, that is a welcome step, but we need to clarify this important point in the Bill now—so I hope that his discussions can come to fruition very quickly.
I will quote again from the Environmental Audit Committee because I am not sure that the Minister responded to it. It recommended that:
“The Government should explain how and when it will move to embedding environmental net gain in the planning system, with clear actions and milestones”.
It also recommended that:
“The Government should strengthen local authority capacity and enforcement mechanisms to deliver biodiversity net gain”.
Those structural things—clear actions, clear milestones and how these things will be measured—are missing from what the Minister is saying at the moment.
We are left with a concern that has not been answered —he will know that it has been raised not just here but elsewhere—and we need an answer to this, somehow. We need to bring this to fruition in some shape or form. Obviously, we will not do that this evening. I welcome further discussions on this with the Minister, as I am sure other noble Lords will, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 212. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 212
Lord Oates
“Power to conserve biodiversity
After section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 insert—“40ZA Power to conserve biodiversity(1) This section applies to—(a) a local authority in England other than a parish council, and(b) a local planning authority in England.(2) For the purposes of complying with the general biodiversity objective under section 40(1) and (1A), a public authority to which this section applies may designate a site within the area of the authority as a site at risk of biodiversity loss.(3) Proposals under this section must be submitted for consideration to a public meeting in the area to which they relate prior to a site being designated.(4) An authority exercising powers under this section must have regard to any views concerning the proposals expressed by—(a) those attending the meeting;(b) those who own or otherwise possess land in the proposed site at risk of biodiversity loss;(c) any other party with a relevant interest in the site.(5) An authority exercising its power under this section may publish a plan to protect the biodiversity of a designated site, which may include—(a) an assessment of the impact that any plan, project or other activity may have on the biodiversity of the protected site,(b) its assessment of activities that should not take place on the site where it reasonably believes those activities would be significantly detrimental to biodiversity on the site, and(c) any plan, project or other activity that the authority considers is necessary for the purposes of protecting biodiversity on the site.(6) An authority exercising its power to designate land under this section may enter into a “conservation covenant agreement” with a landowner as provided for in Part 7 of the Environment Act 2021.s(7) An authority to which this section applies has a right of entry to land designated as a site of importance for local biodiversity, where it has reasonable cause to believe that local biodiversity is at significant risk.””Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to provide local authorities with powers to assist them in discharging their duties under Clause 95 “General duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity”.
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 212 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I am grateful to both of them for their support. I will also speak to Amendments 270 to 273 and Amendment 275, also in my name, which relate to conservation covenant agreements in Part 7 of the Bill and flow from the principal Amendment 212.
There is much in the Bill about the power of the Secretary of State to impose duties on local councils and other public authorities, but there is next to nothing about the power of these authorities to discharge their duties. This is as apparent in Part 6, “Nature and Biodiversity”, as it is elsewhere, where councils have many duties in respect of maintaining local biodiversity but precious few powers to do so.
My amendments seek to address this. Amendment 212 aims to tackle an issue that arises where landowners are destroying biodiversity on their sites, sometimes because they are frustrated at failing to get planning consent and think it may be easier to achieve if the site is a barren wasteland, devoid of nature. At present, local authorities have very little power to stop them and, while I understand that there are powers under the Wildlife and Countryside Act that allow the police to act in certain circumstances, they themselves face resource constraints and, for understandable reasons, often have more pressing priorities. Amendment 212 would allow a local authority to designate land as a
“site at risk of biodiversity loss”,
with consequent powers to enter land to inspect what is taking place and to enter into a conservation covenant agreement with the landowner.
The subsequent Amendments 270 to 273, and Amendment 275, which relate to the conservation covenant agreements, seek to automatically list local authorities as the default responsible bodies able to enter into such agreements. At present, only the Secretary of State is listed as a responsible body, although he or she has the power to designate a local authority, or indeed any other body, as a responsible body.
There are two reasons for my amendments requiring local authorities by default to be deemed responsible bodies. The first is that the conservation covenant agreement is in many ways analogous to the listed building heritage partnership agreements under Section 60 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. These are within the remit of the local authority. It seems to me that, in the case of the conservation covenant agreements, the default responsible body should be the local authority and another body should be designated only if it can manifestly be demonstrated to be the more appropriate body. Local authorities are on the front line in the fight against biodiversity loss. They have knowledge of the actual situations on the ground in the locality that the Secretary of State can never hope to have, however omniscient they may convince themselves they are.
Secondly, Amendment 212 provides that the local authority may enter into a conservation covenant agreement in relation to a site that it has designated as at risk of biodiversity loss, in order to agree with a landowner a schedule of works that is permissible to maintain a site without damaging its biodiversity. Unless Part 7 is amended, the local authority might find that it does not have that power because, by act of omission or commission, the Secretary of State has not designated it a responsible body.
I was prompted to bring all these amendments to the Committee as a result of a particular situation which has arisen in my home borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, relating to the Seething Wells filter beds site, which may be familiar to the Minister. It is a former Thames Water facility next to the river in Surbiton, which has significance not only for nature and biodiversity but for history, having played a key role in helping Dr John Snow prove cholera was water-borne. The site is designated as metropolitan open land and has been disused since its decommission in 1992. It subsequently developed into a haven for plant and animal life, including birds, bats and grass snakes. It is an important site for biodiversity in the borough. Following a number of failed planning applications over many years on the site, the current owners embarked on the widescale destruction of vegetation, destroying these precious habitats and leaving the site barren. The council has largely had its hands tied. It had no power to stop the owners doing what they were doing, or even to enter the site to find out exactly what was taking place. As a consequence, the biodiversity of this important local site has been lost. But nature could return to the site if the council was given the powers to intervene that would be provided by my amendments.
In the context of this site, I pay tribute to the appropriately named councillor Liz Green, whose passion to protect this site inspired this amendment, and to the Seething Wells Action Group, for all its committed campaigning. The situation at Seething Wells is a tragedy in itself, but it is evident from local authorities across the country that many face similar challenges and similarly lack the powers to tackle them.
These amendments would ensure that a local authority could designate land as a site of biodiversity loss, and would provide a local authority with the power to enter such land
“where it has reasonable cause to believe that local biodiversity is at significant risk.”
They would allow councils to publish a plan to protect the biodiversity of a designated site and to enter into a conservation covenant agreement with the owner of the land. As such, these amendments would provide important tools in the armoury of local authorities as they seek to protect land that is a precious biodiversity resource for their local communities.
I hope that, in his response, the Minister will recognise the important role that local authorities can play in protecting local biodiversity if they are empowered to do so. I also hope that he can give me some assurance that he is prepared to consider how the Government can incorporate the intent of these amendments into the Bill. To that end, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter with him in the coming weeks, so that we can ensure that, in future, local councils across the country have the powers to prevent the sort of heartbreaking biodiversity destruction that has occurred on the Seething Wells filter beds site and ensure that such things never happen again. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I shall be pretty brief on this, because both my amendments should really have been in the previous group, although one of them is particularly important.
First, I take just one minute to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. She was concerned that she should not be consumed by vultures, but on the of Isles of Scilly, we have an Egyptian vulture visiting this year. There may not be an opportunity next year, so there are big decisions. That vulture joins Wally the Walrus, who, unfortunately, has come some 2,000 miles too far south on an ice floe and is trying to land his big weight—up to a tonne—on local vessels. I say to the Minister that we have some introductions that were not necessarily there before the last ice age, but there we are.
I shall be very brief. My first amendment says that local authorities must have a duty to implement nature recovery networks. That comes back to the theme of the previous group, and I shall not go through that again. My second amendment, which is also slightly out of place here, is key. It comes back to environmental land management schemes, which will be the big game-changers in practice in the countryside over the next decade. Why? Because they have real resources behind them—£2.5 billion per annum, potentially—to put into nature recovery. Their whole ethos and guiding hand is public goods being paid for by public money, and their concentration is to be on biodiversity—not all of it is for nature recovery but a large proportion of it is.
We have the three tiers, as they were called: the sustainable farm initiative, the nature recovery area and the whole landscape side. I am stating the totally blindingly obvious, but you cannot have that going off in one direction and nature recovery networks going off in another. One is primarily produced by local government, AONBs or national parks; the other is produced and decided by Defra centrally. The good news is that they are both within the “Defra family”, but I have little hope that, without real concentration, one part of Defra will be talking to the Natural England side, on the other, on nature recovery network implementation. My challenge is this: how are we going to get those two key elements to work together, rather than working in conflict?
The only other thing I would say is that I was delighted to put my name to my noble friend Lord Oates’s amendment; he has expounded those virtues tremendously. I will not follow on from that, except to entirely endorse his arguments.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will be brief as well because I would like to get home to see extra time.
As in the previous group, these amendments would strengthen the Bill by giving it powers and mechanisms to make it work well. Amendment 212 would give new powers to local authorities to protect and enhance nature in the planning process. I know that the Green Party’s 450 or so councillors sitting on over 140 local authorities, along with thousands of other environmentally aware councillors from other political parties, would be able to achieve a huge amount with these new powers—in particular, the ability to prohibit inappropriate activities that would be detrimental to biodiversity. At the moment, there is little more that can be done other than protesting and campaigning against this sort of environmental destruction, which of course we all do extremely well but too often it is, sadly, completely useless. So this would be an important tool with which to defend communities and nature.
Amendment 231A would do the important work of tying the Bill in with the recently passed Agriculture Act. Both Bills have similar objectives—to protect and enhance the environment—but somehow there are no explicit links. This amendment would provide them. The two Acts could well end up pursuing parallel objectives rather than delivering joint action. Something that I think was missing from the Agriculture Act was that large-scale landscape-level planning that goes beyond individual farms and parcels of land. Amendment 231A would definitely help to ameliorate that by tying individual landholdings into the larger scheme of the nature recovery strategy. I hope the Minister will address that point specifically.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 231A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I am slightly concerned that the noble Lord appeared to suggest that I go to the Isles of Scilly, fling myself in front of a moving vehicle and then lie on a hillside to allow a vulture to eat me. That would be delightful but to be honest it would be a bit premature, so I am not sure I am going to take up his offer. There will be other vultures—other vultures are available, as I think the phrase goes.
The noble Lord’s amendment would require any environmental land management scheme project to comply with the local nature recovery strategy. This is absolutely the joining-up of agricultural and nature purposes of land use, which is vital, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, laid out. The fact that the noble Lord has felt the need for agriculture and biodiversity uses to be joined up reinforces the need for an overarching land-use framework, as I outlined in my previous amendment, combining not only agricultural and nature purposes but development and a variety of others, such as climate change mitigation and floods—multiple purposes that a limited land supply has to achieve. However, if I cannot have a land-use framework from the Minister, I would be very grateful if he would give way to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson and let us at least have agriculture and nature joined up.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I support Amendment 212 and all amendments that join ELMS and nature recovery plans. Farming, as we know, is responsible for practically all biodiversity loss, and all the intensive farming that is going on has to cease.
My worry about ELMS was reflected at the Groundswell conference, where this year there were nearly 5,000 farmers. There were many talks going on and many people were extremely concerned about when ELMS would come in, how it was going to work and how they were going to be paid. As far as I know, only one of the pilot schemes has actually started to deliver any sums of money. A sum of £47 per hectare for better soil was being proposed through the Landworkers’ Alliance, at which most farmers turned round and said: “That’s simply not enough. How can I refigure my entire future to make my land biodiverse and nature-friendly when I don’t know what kind of support I’m going to have?” It seems crucial for us to have the sort of joined-up thinking that is in the amendment. I urge the Government to say when there will be clarity for farmers about what kind of support they can have so that they can shift their farming mechanisms to protect biodiversity.
On the question of local authorities, what is happening a lot in our area is that people are creating driveways and putting up barns in the middle of the countryside. These then become stalking horses—a cattle barn then needs a house for someone to live beside it. We have one of these very close to where we live. We have all been objecting because there is a problem with the stream: there is runoff. They are proposing to have 300 cows in there but they do not need it as there are brownfield sites and disused farms around that could be used instead. Everyone seems to be powerless and not have a leg to stand on. This is an important amendment and I hope the Government will be able to incorporate it when the Bill comes back to us again.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this debate very much follows on from the previous one, so I will be brief. Amendment 212 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, looks to give local authorities and planning authorities new powers, so they can meaningfully fulfil their duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity, by allowing them to designate sites at risk of biodiversity loss. Local authorities need to consider and integrate biodiversity conservation throughout their policies and strategies—for example, waste, transport and education. Cross-departmental consultation, ecological expertise and the support of a wide range of partners will be crucial in achieving this.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, spoke in his introduction to his Amendment 227A of the importance of co-operation between public authorities. We support the aims of this amendment, but we have some concerns the proposed powers could risk duplicating those provided by local nature recovery strategies, which have the potential to allow authorities to build and maintain ecologically coherent networks of nature recovery sites. It may be that these aims are better fulfilled by Amendment 209 to Clause 95, which we have discussed and was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
We support Amendment 231A, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on ELMS and local nature recovery strategies. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has just clearly expressed her concerns, which reflect those of many others, about the introduction of ELMS and the lack of clarity at the moment. Amendment 231A would tie projects funded by ELMS to the local nature recovery strategy. This is important, because this alignment would ensure that gains for nature from ELMS would complement, and further gains from other policies, such as biodiversity net gain, would be co-ordinated by, the appropriate local nature recovery strategy. That would help local nature recovery strategies to fulfil their critical directional role to build and maintain ecologically coherent networks of nature recovery sites.
The Secretary of State has previously expressed his belief that ELMS projects should align with the local nature recovery strategies. Earlier, my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, mentioned the work of the Environmental Audit Select Committee. In January, the Secretary of State said he wants ELMS
“to be conscious of and dovetail with local nature recovery strategies”,
so there is that support in Government. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone have said, we need to consider the ambitions of the Agriculture Act and this Bill, and make sure they are joined-up, saying the same thing and working together. We therefore hope the Government will consider taking this amendment forward. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, it is clear that we cannot finish the whole group this evening, so I beg to move that the debate on these amendments is adjourned.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am happy to go on. I only have a short speech, beginning with Amendment 212 from the noble Lord, Lord Oates. I start by reiterating that local authorities are vital in protecting biodiversity and improving nature at a local level, so I sympathise with the noble Lord’s intention. However, powers already exist that could be used to conserve and enhance biodiversity on specific sites.
National planning policy already directs local plans to identify and map areas of substantive nature conservation value. They should include policies that secure the protection of these areas from harm or loss and help to enhance them and their connection to wider ecological networks. Local authorities can create local nature reserves under Section 21 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, designating these sites based on local importance for wildlife. In addition, the Bill already allows for a local authority to enter into a conservation covenant. I therefore assure the noble Lord that powers suggested by this amendment are already covered elsewhere.
I turn to Amendments 270, 273 and 275, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Oates. A principle underpinning the Government’s proposal for conservation covenants, which we will be debating in more detail later, is their voluntary nature. There is no compulsion on anyone or any organisation to enter into them. It is important that this principle extends to organisations that may become responsible bodies. That is because the role of responsible bodies, which will be integral to the delivery of covenants, requires a good level of resourcing and expertise to be performed properly. Organisations must decide for themselves if they have the capacity to perform the function of a responsible body. It is also possible that some local authorities may not wish to become designated as responsible bodies. If local authorities choose to apply, like other organisations they will be assessed against our published suitable criteria and designated where they are considered suitable to fulfil the role.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support from my noble friend Lord Teverson, and from the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Boycott. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, will not be surprised to know that I discussed my amendments with my noble friend Lady Parminter. The amendments do different things: the one does not replace the other. But I would be happy to talk with the Labour Front Bench more about this in future.
I was pleased when the Minister indicated that he wanted to finish this group tonight, because it would have seemed wrong to take it on to another day—but I would have been less pleased if I had known how peremptory his response would be, and how little it answered the questions that are given rise to in this amendment. He said that local authorities had the power to act already. I would be grateful if he would write to me and tell me under what powers Kingston Council could have entered the site to investigate what was going on and to stop the destruction of vegetation. If those powers exist, I would be grateful if he would share them with me. He said that local authorities already have the power under the Bill to enter into conservation covenant agreements—but that is only if they are so designated by the Secretary of State.
So I cannot hide my disappointment in his response. This is a very important issue: it affects local authorities up and down the country. It is not is not about the creation of strategies, it is about the ability to act to enforce and prevent the destruction of biodiversity. So I very much hope that the Minister will agree to meet and discuss this further. If the Government are not willing to move on this, I will want to come back to this, as it is such a critical issue. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Environment Bill
Monday 12th July 2021
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-VIII(Rev) Revised eighth marshalled list for Committee - (12 Jul 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Clause 97: Local nature recovery strategies for England
Amendment 226
Lord Teverson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that an area’s adjacent territorial waters are included in a Nature Recovery strategy
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, as some of my amendments are associated with nature recovery network strategies, I once again declare my interest as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership.
I know the Minister has assured us that the marine environment is included in the Bill. It hardly has a high profile, yet our national waters, including the EEZ, have an area of 885,000 square kilometres, whereas the terrestrial landmass of the United Kingdom is a mere 242,000 square kilometres, so that marine environment is three and a half times larger. My contention is that it is just as important and should receive at least the same amount of interest. Last year we had the Fisheries Act, and the Government made it very clear that that was not a piece of environmental legislation. It dealt with fisheries management plans, but those were not environmental management plans. Indeed, we gave credit that the Fisheries Act had a number of objectives relating to the environment and climate change, but that was not the mission of that piece of legislation—yet nature recovery in our marine area is just as important as in our terrestrial environment.
I was interested to see that one of the Government’s targets is to have good environmental status for our marine environment. In 2019—two years ago—they published an appraisal of progress made on having good environmental status for our marine environment, looking out beyond our territorial waters to our economic zone as well. I am afraid to say that of the 15 areas the government report focuses on, in six we managed not to meet targets at all; in five we made partial progress on those targets; and in four we actually achieved them.
I will take the Committee through some of the areas where good environmental status targets were not achieved: commercial fish, non-commercial fish, benthic habitats, invasive species, marine litter and breeding birds. None of those was achieved. There was some improvement in pelagic habitats, the food web, underwater noise, cetaceans—primarily dolphins, as we know them—and seals. As far as I can see, things such as seagrass, which is hugely important not just for the marine habitat but for carbon capture, were not covered at all in that report.
We have a real crisis and challenge out there in the oceans that surround our island and islands, so that is why I have tabled these amendments. The first one is to ensure that local nature recovery networks include not just the land area but the adjacent territorial waters—that is, out to 12 nautical miles—of those areas. They have to be included in those plans. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said on another marine amendment some days ago, it is not just the fact that they are two different environments; they are connected—literally—so it is important for that reason too that nature recovery networks include marine, littoral and territorial areas.
But it would clearly be unreasonable to ask, say, Sussex or maybe even more so Cornwall to look at its whole EEZ stretching way out into the Atlantic, yet EEZs also require important help in terms of nature recovery out to the 200 nautical mile limit. So, to be practical, I have tabled separate amendments to propose that the Secretary of State should be responsible for creating, producing and revising nature recovery networks for those offshore EEZ areas. Indeed, it would make a lot of sense if they tied up with marine management organisations and marine planning areas, but, again, those plans are not primarily environmental ones. They are mapping and usage ones. They are not primarily environmental plans, but they should come together to do that.
In the other amendment I put down—Amendment 246—I tackle highly protected marine areas. I have to give good credit to the Minister and the Government in this area, because, since I laid down that amendment, at the early stages after Second Reading, the Government have opened a programme and asked for bids for pilots for highly protected marine areas. So there is progress on this already, and, to some degree, this amendment is now redundant—but I would be very keen to hear from the Minister the progress on that and how he sees the timescale in terms of rolling out beyond pilots.
At the moment, we have some 372 marine protected areas around our shores. They cover some 38% of our total waters. That sounds impressive, but the regimes for those marine protected areas are extremely weak in many cases and certainly do not protect the seabed and all the habitats. These highly protected marine areas absolutely have to be done in consultation with the fishing industry and other commercial interests, but it is so important they are rolled out quickly, effectively and as soon as possible. That is why these amendments are important.
In Cornwall, as I have said before, we were lucky enough to have one of the pilots for the nature recovery networks. When we started work on that, Defra may not have been “against” it—that is perhaps too strong a word—but it did not see marine as being included in that pilot strategy. We went ahead and included it anyway, because you cannot talk about the environment of the far south-west peninsula without including marine; it is just impossible. The Minister could hopefully make my amendments redundant—not the EEZ ones, but these amendments—by confirming that it is now government policy that nature recovery networks, when it is appropriate and there is an adjacent ocean or territorial waters, should be included within those nature recovery network strategies. That is my clear message and question. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, with all his expertise. The Government bring legislation to this House so that we can help them improve it—so the expertise in your Lordships’ House can be of benefit to the Government and of course the nation. So I really think that, if the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, were not a Lord already, he would deserve some future honour for all his hard work in contributing to our work here and to the Government. He has highlighted another example of how this Bill has passed a suite of legislative measures without reference to water—to territorial waters, to the sea.
We looked at agriculture and fisheries: they do not tie together in any coherent way, and I do not understand how we can keep on passing legislation that does not tie up. Without these amendments, we are at risk of seeing our seas and fisheries as being separate from the rest of our environment and all our ecological activities. This sort of silo thinking would undermine the realities of the inseparable ecosystems and natural systems. I would be particularly concerned and upset if an upland authority had a nature recovery strategy that failed to take into account what was happening to its downstream neighbours and, ultimately, to the seas where the watercourses will end up. An Environment Bill that allows for that eventuality is fundamentally inadequate and incoherent, with no basic understanding of the environment.
I am sure the Minister will take time over the Summer Recess to ensure that this Bill fits with the Agriculture Act and the Fisheries Act. I am sure that is going to be a priority, so these two important ecosystems can be integrated into the mechanics of this Environment Bill. The alternative is that, inevitably, in a few years’ time, the Government of the day will have to bring in new legislation to try to patch up these incoherencies, with perhaps a decade of lost opportunity to heal the environment in that time. It is much better that we work together now to get it right.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I just want to make a couple of quick points in support of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I completely agree with her.
According to Greenpeace, supertrawlers spent 5,590 hours fishing in UK protected waters. I had a meeting, by chance, with Minister Prentis from the other place about four weeks ago. She was on her way to Brixham, and she said that about 80% of our fishing fleet’s catches were as a result of bottom trawling. Bottom trawling is effectively like bulldozing your house every time you have lost your car keys. It is an absolute travesty for the seabed, and I do not see any reference at the moment to curbing and taming this industry. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, these are simultaneous ecosystems that come together, and what happens with fish farming, especially in the north of England, is putting incredible quantities of pollutants into our waters for the sake of cheap fish. It is sold to the consumer on the grounds of being healthy, but the salmon that are reared in this way are unhealthy, unhappy and covered in sea lice.
Finally, in terms of policies not adding up, will the Government agree to stop giving out new oil and gas leases with the North Sea in mind? How is that going to fit with our marine protection commitments at COP? I hope the Minister will answer those three questions.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for, as ever, giving us an excellent explanation of why he has tabled these amendments and for raising these very important issues. I also thank the Minister for confirming in the earlier debate that net gain will be extended to major projects in the marine environment in the future, once a suitable approach has been developed. This is certainly a step forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rightly made the point that our coastal territorial waters are in urgent need of protection and recovery, and, if we do not use this Bill to make that happen, what other opportunities will we have? The latest Committee on Climate Change adaptation report has highlighted concerns about the quality of our terrestrial waters. It says:
“There is clear evidence that warming seas, reduced oxygen, ocean acidification and sea-level rise are already affecting UK coasts and seas … with effects seen in seabed-dwelling species, as well as plankton, fish, birds and mammals.”
It also reports that there has been a decline in the overall condition of protected coastal sites.
So, on the one hand, we need to tackle the hazardous pollution, including plastic waste, that has led to the failure to meet the environmental targets to which the noble Lord referred. On the other hand, there is an opportunity to harness the power of nature in our coastal waters to sequestrate carbon through the growth of seagrasses and seaweed, such as at the innovative kelp farm being developed in Shoreham. But a strategy is needed to provide a framework for the change, which is why preparing and publishing a nature recovery strategy for the UK exclusive economic zone seems such a good idea. It is also why linking our coastal waters into local nature recovery strategies will ensure that those initiatives do not end at the shoreline.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rightly referred back to our consideration of the then Fisheries Bill and our frustration that sustainable fishing was not allowed to be at the heart of the Bill, despite all our efforts. As a result, it seems that fishing quotas are very much business as usual, and overfishing—above the recommended scientific limits—remains rife. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, that this continues to be unacceptable and needs to be addressed by the Government. A nature recovery strategy would allow the opportunity to revisit that strategy, taking different criteria into account.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that we need a joined-up strategy between the Agriculture and Fisheries Acts and the Environment Bill. We have said that all along; every time a Bill comes along, we ask, “How come these pieces of legislation do not speak to each other?” She is right to raise again today our need for a joined-up approach.
Finally, I am pleased that the noble Lord has given us the opportunity to implement the recommendations of the Benyon Review into Highly Protected Marine Areas. The limits of the current standard marine protected areas are all too obvious, as damaging human activities are still allowed to destroy the marine habitat. Therefore, we very much welcome the definition of highly protected marine areas as those that allow the recovery of marine ecosystems while prohibiting “extractive, destructive and depositional” human activities. We welcome the amendment that sets out that the proposals for the initial locations should be published within six months of the Bill passing. The noble Lord said that he felt that the Government had caught up with his amendment; he might be on to something, but I feel that there are great advantages to having this spelled out in the Bill just to make sure that that progress is followed through. These are indeed key amendments, which could help to transform the quality of our marine environment. I hope that the Minister agrees and will feel able to turn these into government amendments, which I am sure would receive widespread support.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his powerful advocacy for the marine environment throughout these proceedings and, indeed, last year throughout the proceedings on the Fisheries Act, in which he knows I had some involvement.
I will focus first on Amendments 226, 227 and 229. I sympathise with the intention behind this group of amendments, but the Government do not agree that this is the right approach. Local nature recovery strategies build on the important role that local authorities play as local leaders and decision-makers within their areas, as the noble Lord will know from his time spent on the Cornwall pilot. Clearly, actions taken on land can affect the marine environment and vice versa, and we should not create false barriers to nature’s recovery.
As such, our intention is that local nature recovery strategies should integrate with existing spatial plans of marine areas. This is in order to understand the area’s current uses and its potential in adjacent marine areas. It is something that we have explored through recent pilots, which, as I said, the noble Lord has kindly supported. However, local authorities are not best placed to produce marine strategies, as these areas are largely beyond their remit and authority. I believe that requiring this would lead to significant complications and potentially unhelpful duplication with existing processes. It would include duplication with the Marine Management Organisation, which is England’s main marine regulator and manages the licensing of marine activities, recreation and fisheries beyond six nautical miles. The inshore fisheries and conservation authorities also manage fishing out to six nautical miles and any marine nature restoration strategies should include their input.
Amendment 233 would require the Defra Secretary of State to create a nature recovery strategy for the United Kingdom exclusive economic zone for England. The Government already have a strong framework in place to ensure ocean recovery through the UK marine strategy. Its goal is to ensure that all UK seas are of good environmental status, exactly as the noble Lord’s amendment would require.
In March this year, we published the updated UK Marine Strategy Part Two, setting out the monitoring programmes that we will use to assess progress towards our updated good environmental status targets. This will be followed by the update to our programme of measures, which will set out a comprehensive list of measures to help to achieve good environmental status. As the UK already has a strategy for ocean recovery, this well-intentioned amendment is not needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, generously welcomed the Benyon Review into Highly Protected Marine Areas. The Government published their response to the review on World Oceans Day 2021 and accept the majority of its recommendations. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about when we will designate HPMAs, that will be done in 2022. We do not agree that HPMAs should be only within existing marine protected areas, which was recommendation 13 of the report, and we will consider designating HPMAs outside the current MPA network to ensure that we can maximise nature recovery. Existing governance structures of ALBs were beyond the scope of the Government’s response to this review.
I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also asked about joined-up thinking, which I know has concerned a number of noble Lords throughout the passage of this Bill, the Agriculture Act and the Fisheries Act. A number of measures in all three Acts will have benefits for the marine environment. The Fisheries Act will benefit the environment, as will the Agriculture Act. They have all been put together at a policy level and have been thought about comprehensively.
Amendments 246, 247 and 251 aim to create highly protected marine areas. The Government have committed to designate HPMAs by the end of 2022, using the definition of the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, as set out in his review, which was carried out before he joined the Government Front Bench. The Government will work with their arm’s-length bodies and stakeholders to identify a list of potential pilot sites for highly protected marine areas. On 5 July, we published the ecological criteria that we will use to identify highly protected marine areas and we will create a list of potential sites this year. We plan to designate pilot sites in 2022 as marine conservation zones, with higher levels of protection than existing zones, using powers under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, had a number of concerns about controlling harmful marine activities. Introduced under the Marine and Coastal Access Act, marine licensing is a process by which those seeking to undertake certain activities are required to apply for a licence. The requirement for a licence extends across much of our territorial seas, including the foreshore, and covers a diverse range of activities, from depositing a marker on the seabed through to large-scale developments. Authorisation or enforcement decisions must be taken in accordance with the appropriate marine plans.
In answer to the noble Baroness’s other question about drilling for oil and gas and refusal of future licences, I refer her to the Ten Point Plan and to the energy White Paper, which address her questions on oil and gas exploration. The Government have had to tread a careful dividing line and balance between keeping energy costs as low as we can while fulfilling our commitments to the net-zero target.
I assure the noble Lord that the requirements of the amendments are already covered, as the Government have committed to identifying potential sites this year and pilot sites designated as marine conservation zones in England will be covered by the protected site strategy clause. I thank the noble Lord for raising this important issue, which I know is close to his heart, and I hope that he is reassured by the Government’s commitments in this area. I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would like to ask a question of the Minister before he decides how to dispose of his amendment.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will sum up in just a moment but I have a question for the Minister. I am very disappointed by her reply. It seems to fly in the face of what nature recovery networks are all about. However, I will come on to that later.
The Minister said that local authorities are not competent to deal with these issues—for example, the six-mile limit. However, she mentioned in particular IFCAs, which are the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities. They are nominated partly by the Marine Management Organisation—I agree with that—but appointments to them are also hugely influenced by local authorities. Local authorities are already hugely engaged in the first six-mile limits; they already have duties in that area. When it comes to the Marine Management Organisation and its licensing, which is within that same area as well, it has to talk to a number of statutory organisations before it can make decisions—for example, Natural England and the Environment Agency—and it has a concordat with local authorities to discuss those developments with them as well. Local authorities are already hugely involved in that area. Why not make it so that there is some structure to that within at least the six-mile limit, so that those decisions become coherent and make more sense—they are also probably more quickly made by the Marine Management Organisation and IFCAs—and so that the whole system becomes better and more efficient, and works for the environment as well? That is my question to the Minister.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s point, but the three coastal pilot areas that we considered—Cornwall, Cumbria and Northumberland—all took very different approaches to voluntarily including adjacent marine areas in their pilots. There will be a sense of duplication in what the noble Lord is suggesting, because the spatial assessments of a marine area, capturing current uses and signalling future potential, are led by marine management organisations. To go further than that, I would like to take this back, consider it and perhaps write to the noble Lord if I can add any more flesh on those bones.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I beg the noble Lord’s pardon; forgive me, I had not spotted the notice—I also have a request from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to ask a question of the Minister.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I wanted to return to the question of sustainable fishing, which was mentioned by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. On 22 February, I asked a Question for Written Answer on what the Government’s strategy is for reducing quotas is fish stocks fall below their maximum sustainable yield. The Answer, which was rather long-winded, ended up saying:
“Where appropriate, they will set out actions to improve data collection and ways to establish sustainable harvest rates.”
My question for the Minister today is: is now the appropriate time and, if so, what action will the Government be taking to ensure that fish stocks are harvested at or below MSY?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am sorry, my briefing does not include that sort of detail. May I write to the noble Lord with an update on the maximum sustainable yields and how we are faring?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and apologise again to him.
Lord Teverson (LD)
No, I apologise for speaking at the wrong time. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for their support on this amendment. I am seriously disappointed because, if nature recovery networks are right for the land, they are also right for our oceans. For land areas, all sorts of different authorities, whether it is Natural England, the Environment Agency, local authorities, national parks, or even the police, deal with all these areas of environmental enforcement and environmental policy. The nature recovery networks—and this is the reason I support them so strongly—bring those together within a context with a plan and structure, meaning that natural growth in biodiversity and the quantum of nature can start to happen.
Yet it is just all too complicated, apparently, for our marine environment. I do not get that, and I think it is unfortunate. I welcome the Minister’s progress on highly protected marine areas; I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that one can never be certain until something is in the Bill, but I suspect that this particular thing may not get into the Bill, so I welcome the Minister’s comments in that area.
I am hugely disappointed about the marine environment. I know all the MMO inshore and offshore marine plans, but they are not primarily focused on environment; that is not their purpose. They include elements of it, but it is not why they are about. I was on the board of the MMO when they were written and created—they still have not all been approved yet—and I highly welcome them. They are important, but they are not what this is about. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 234. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 102: Species conservation strategies
Amendment 234
Lord Chidgey
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires Natural England to prepare and publish species conservation strategies.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, I speak in particular to Amendments 234 and 241 in my name. The Government have shown a commitment to tackling the issue of the poor quality of our rivers and freshwater environment. Issues around pollution and declining freshwater biodiversity have been a constant refrain in the media for some time. Freshwater species have declined by 88% since 1970—a greater decline than seen for species in forests or oceans—and one-third of freshwater fish species faces extinction. England is the home of 85% of the world’s chalk streams; we have a global responsibility to protect these ecosystems.
Species conservation strategies can potentially play an important role in conservation, although there is a call to avoid them becoming a default setting for managing the impact of development on nature. The purpose of “must” instead of “may” in this amendment is to strengthen the clause and to underpin the requirement for a conservation strategy for improving the conservation of species. This is not intended to mean all species, but those whose conservation is probably most at risk; for example, salmon and sea trout, where it is thought that there is not as yet a clear conservation plan in place. There is a range of plans, such as the Environment Agency’s salmon five-point plan, but these have not led to any meaningful action in terms of the broad threats in our rivers and coastal waters.
Amendment 241 aims to create a new designation of protection for chalk streams. This analysis has been prepared with the assistance of experts from the Angling Trust and the Catchment Based Approach—CaBA—a restoration group under the chairmanship of Charles Rangeley-Wilson. It is preparing a report to government on the need for restoration and greater protection of chalk streams in England: the chalk stream restoration strategy. This group, made up of representatives from water companies, conservation NGOs and statutory agencies, including Natural England and the Environment Agency, will publish the chalk stream restoration strategy in September. The report will make a series of recommendations, looking at the three elements that make up action to restore our chalk streams to a near-natural state: action to reduce and mitigate the impact of overabstraction, to reduce pollution and improve water quality, and to restore the habitats and ecological functioning of chalk streams. The report is currently out for public consultation.
The first recommendation of the report is supported by all the companies and agencies involved in the report’s production and from stakeholders’ responses. This recommendation is for
“an overarching protection and priority status for chalk streams and their catchments to give them a distinct identity and to drive investment in water-resources infrastructure, water treatment and catchment-scale restoration”.
Currently, few chalk streams have protected site status. We have drivers, such as priority habitats status and the water framework directive but, thus far, these have failed to deliver enough improvements for chalk streams, principally because they lack statutory drivers for investment. Stakeholders are united in the view that there is a clear need for a status mechanism via designation, which can add impetus and drive investment across multiple policy levers. These include water company price review processes; ELMS local nature recovery and landscape recovery; local nature recovery strategies; biodiversity net gain; and protection through the planning process. A new designation should deliver an integrated approach to the protection of the chalk stream channel, its floodplain, surrounding catchment and aquifer, leading to nature and biodiversity recovery at the landscape level.
This amendment would require Natural England, along with Defra and the EA, to explore the appropriate mechanism for introducing a new category of protections, which may include the adaptation of application of an existing mechanism to protect chalk streams. In doing so it would consider including a statutory biodiversity target for chalk stream catchments in the Bill that would elevate the status of all chalk streams and provide long-term certainty about government ambition and commitment to protection and restoration. It would also consider a new form of designation or statutory protection for all chalk streams through a Green Paper on habitats regulation, and a stronger policy steer for chalk streams, for example through the ministerial guidance on river basin management plans and the strategic priorities statement to Ofwat.
Such a status for chalk streams would drive the investment and resources that have been severely lacking—not only for chalk streams, but, as the first report of 2020-21 from the Environment Audit Committee in the other place, Biodiversity in the UK: Boom or Bust, made clear, for the protection and advancement of biodiversity more broadly.
These are not exclusively chalk stream measures. Many other types of river and stream are also in great need of investment. An integrated approach to restoring all types of habitat and associated species through restoration of natural ecosystem function—particularly natural catchment function—will help to deliver multiple biodiversity benefits, alongside a wealth of natural capital associated with restored aquifer recharge, tackling pollution at source and natural flood management, to quote Natural England in 2018.
Nevertheless, the draft report argues that the global rarity of English chalk streams provides a potent justification for singling out this river type, among others. There are other justifications. One is the fact that chalk streams are under particular stress because they flow through a highly developed landscape. They have been particularly stressed by historic management and have distinct biodiversity, cultural and heritage value. For hydrological reasons, they are less capable of self-repair than higher-energy rivers.
There is also a common misconception that chalk streams exist only in the wealthier home counties of Hampshire and Berkshire. In fact, chalk streams are distributed from west Dorset to north-east Yorkshire, and many flow through less affluent parts of our landscape, and through numerous towns and cities, as well as the rural idylls most frequently depicted.
For example, the Eastleigh Angling Society has more than 850 members. Eastleigh, a constituency that I had the privilege to represent, owes its origins to railway development and manufacture, together with other heavy industry outlets. Yet the River Itchen flows through it. There are also several urban chalk streams, including the Wandle and Cray in Greater London. So I ask the Government to support these proposals for the designation of chalk streams. I beg to move.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, and his eloquent advocacy for chalk streams. I will speak primarily to Amendment 235, in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch. The aim of our amendment is to ensure that the primary purpose of species conservation strategies is to support the recovery of nature rather than to facilitate development.
At first sight, Clause 102 looks very good. It requires Natural England to publish a strategy for improving the conservation status of any species. It must do this for a “strategy area”, which could be as large as the whole of England. The strategy has to spell out which habitat features are important for the species in question and how they may be improved. Natural England must also give an opinion on any consents or approvals that could adversely affect the conservation status of a species, as well as measures that could be taken to compensate for any adverse effects. Planning authorities must co-operate with Natural England in preparing and implementing any conservation strategy, and “have regard to” the strategy.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lord, I am delighted to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, because the 10 amendments I have in this group very much follow the line of thinking that he just enunciated. Before I speak to my amendments, I will comment on Amendment 293A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. I support what he is trying to do; it is time that the shooting interests got rid of lead shot in shotguns and we moved to a different form of ammunition. I know that my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury will wax more lyrical on that than I can, but I support what the noble Lord is trying to achieve.
I can break down my 10 amendments into different groups, but their purpose is to try to make this part of the Bill work better, in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is trying to do with his amendment. It is right that the Government are adopting strategies to protect nature. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned district-level licensing of the great crested newt.
My Amendments 237 to 240 are designed to make certain that the measures are integrated into local nature reserve strategies and are fit for purpose. By that, I mean that we need to look to wider considerations than just surveying, zoning and compensating or mitigating measures against impacts from activities such as development. My amendments suggest that species conservation strategies need to encompass all factors, as identified by scientific evidence, not just habitat, and that management measures need to reflect that. I have gone on before about management being the forgotten part of the way to improve nature and biodiversity, but it will be hugely important in areas such as this.
There ought also to be a defined basis for favourable conservation status, so that progress can be judged against it and a timescale for the strategies’ application established. That seems logical. Without that, species cannot continue to receive special protection, despite success in improving their conservation status. As we all know, managing nature is difficult to get absolutely right. In some cases, a species may be a factor in the decline of another at-risk species, so if the conservation status target has been achieved, that could make its management in support of the conservation of a more threatened species more acceptable. There is undoubtedly a role for us humans in all this.
I turn to Amendment 242. The Explanatory Notes to Clause 102(4)(e) suggest how Natural England applies the mitigation hierarchy in relation to activities such as development. I am concerned by the clause’s wording of
“adverse impact … that may arise from a plan, project or other activity”,
because I think it could limit the use of management tools that, based on scientific evidence, are needed. My amendment would include more than just the development impacts and merely requiring Natural England’s opinion on a matter.
Amendment 244 is similar to my Amendment 236, which is an amendment to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. As I said, I support his amendment, but I believe the Secretary of State should publish
“and make available for consultation”
his guidance. It is all very well the Secretary of State publishing guidance, but unless it is properly consulted on, it might not be as effective as it should. Both my amendments require consultation on the guidance. I do not mind whether it is reflected in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, he supports me, or we support each other, as long as we get this clause changed.
Amendments 248 and 249 are to Clause 103. The point of Amendment 248 is that the conservation and management of protected sites need to be based on science rather than opinion. I hope that the Minister will agree with me on that. His fellow Minister, my noble friend Lord Benyon, certainly agrees on that, because, when he answered a Question on pesticides—I do not have the quote with me—he said that scientific evidence was essential to get it right. If scientific evidence is right for pesticides, it is also right in this instance. Amendment 249 seeks to include “landowners”. It is right that everybody with any legal interest is properly covered in this clause, and the omission of landlords does not help.
Amendment 252 to Clause 104 refers to new subsection (3B), which applies to all species licences issued under Section 16(3) of the previous Act. I feel that the existing wording of “no other satisfactory solution” is weak and without meaning. I suggest a different form of words, taken from the general licence, so I hope it will be acceptable to my noble friend. I also feel that
“detrimental to the survival of any population”
needs legal definition, so I propose the use of “status” instead of “survival”. “Population” can mean anything from an individual site colony to the total number of that species in the UK. Therefore, scale should come into any definition of “detrimental to the survival”, as reducing a population at local level may not have a bearing on the overall population due, for example, to infill from the current year’s young of that species.
I have not put down an amendment on my next point, but I raise a question for my noble friend, for clarity. Could he tell me—as it is not clear in the Explanatory Memorandum or when I read this part of the Bill—what are the Secretary of State’s powers? Does the Secretary of State retain the power that he needs? This has not happened in Wales, and there has been a major problem, because the Secretary of State has not been able to retake control, as has been seen here in England in 2019, for general licensing relating to Sections 16(1)(c) and 16(3)(c). I support the Secretary of State being able to take control and I hope that my noble friend will be able to confirm that this is in fact the case.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 293A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, for whose support I am extremely grateful. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and I thank him and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for their support for the interloper amendment in this group, which I hope does not divert too much attention from their respective meritorious amendments.
Lead ammunition use creates multiple problems for which a straightforward solution exists, and that is to ban its use, and by so doing further catalyse the manufacture and sale of available non-toxic alternatives. In accepting that there are other ways to achieve the same objective, what is proposed by Amendment 293A is—by an amendment to Section 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—to ban the use of toxic lead shot
“for the purposes of killing or taking any wild animal”
and requiring this regulation to come into force on 1 January 2023. In the circumstances, this is sufficient time for such a change.
There are no safe levels of lead, which is why regulation has ensured removal of lead from petrol, paint and drinking water. The last largely unregulated release of lead into the environment is from lead ammunition. Some 6,000 tonnes of lead shot and lead bullets are released annually into the UK environment, putting at risk the health of people, wildlife, and livestock, and causing persistent and cumulative environmental contamination. The body of evidence of risks from the toxic effects of lead ammunition is overwhelming and growing, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. Perhaps 10,000 children from the UK hunting community alone are estimated to be at risk of impacts on their IQ and other deficits due to frequent household consumption of lead-shot game meat. Lead poisoning from ammunition ingestion kills an estimated 75,000 water birds per year, plus hundreds of thousands of gamebirds and numerous birds of prey. Domestic livestock is put at risk when feeding on ground which has been shot over through direct ingestion of shot or when feeding on harvested silage from such ground.
Regulation of this sort would benefit the health of people, the intellectual development of children, the health of wild and domestic animals and food safety in restaurants and retail outlets. UK policy is lagging significantly behind the practices and organisational policies of many ammunition users. The vast majority of the shooting community is now behind this change too. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, who has a lifetime of expertise in this regard, will pick up on this point. The National Game Dealers Association has committed to sourcing all game, including gamebirds, duck, venison, and wild boar, from lead-free supply chains from 1 July 2022. Supermarkets and game dealers are suspending sales of lead-shot game meat and our own food outlets here in the Palace of Westminster will not sell you food containing this poison. To continue to allow the circumstances which potentially may occasion the sale of poisoned game from other outlets is no longer justifiable. Yet up and down the country, the health of children is being put at risk wherever lead-shot game meat is consumed by them. In recognition of this and the hundreds of thousands of wildlife lead poisoning deaths each year, health professionals, conservation and shooting organisations and wild game retailers are calling for change.
Non-toxic ammunition is widely available. It is effective and comparably priced. In the 1990s, both Denmark and the Netherlands banned the use of all lead shot, with no impact on the number of hunters, proving that a change to using sustainable non-lead ammunition is possible without impact on the sport. The UK Government have been dealing with the issue and legislation around the problem of lead poisoning from lead shot since 1991. The detail of the multiple costly stakeholder groups, compliance studies, risk assessments and reviews set up by Defra and the Food Standards Agency are well known to the Minister. In 1999, partial regulation focused on protecting wetland birds. However, studies have found the current law to be ineffective at reducing lead poisoning in water birds due to a high level of noncompliance.
Now is the time for policy change. It is now 30 years since the first UK working group on lead shot in wetlands, and one year after the nine main UK shooting organisations—recognising the risks from lead ammunition, the imminent impacts of regulation on lead ammunition in the EU, and the likely impacts on UK markets for game meat—called for change on lead shot.
An identical amendment was debated in Committee in the other place on 26 November 2020. Rebecca Pow, in responding to my honourable friend Fleur Anderson, who moved the amendment, supported the intent of the amendment, and appeared to agree with all the arguments for the ban. Indeed, I expect that the Minister knows and agrees with all the arguments too. He is a well-known advocate of this policy, and probably has deployed all of them himself at one stage. In the debate in the other place, Rebecca Pow, while conceding all the arguments, did not accept the amendment because it did not extend to single-use plastics, of all things. She said that all aspects of the sport needed to be considered and that, as it did not “cover clay pigeon shooting”, it was therefore deficient. She alleged difficulties of detection or enforcement action and, as its extent concerned devolved matters, required legislative consent motions from devolved Administrations—all reasons not to accept the amendment.
These are all alleged impediments that can be overcome, if the Government are willing to engage with the amendment. Set against the continuing known risk to children’s health, none of them can be allowed to be fatal to this amendment, particularly since banning toxic lead gunshot is now the Government’s stated position too. On 23 March, the Government agreed to move further towards a ban, and, in Rebecca Pow’s name, Defra published a press release. In it, she is reported as having said:
“Evidence shows lead ammunition harms the environment, wildlife and people”.
But then she went on inexplicably to announce the commissioning over a two-year period of yet a further review of the evidence and a consultation. During that time, lead ammunition will continue to harm wildlife, the environment, and people.
The effectiveness of an amendment of this nature, as a similar ban has proved in Denmark and the Netherlands, is that it will, at a certain date, remove the demand for lead shot. Only regulation will provide a guaranteed market for ammunition manufacturers; ensure the provision of game, free of lead ammunition, for the retail market; enable cost-effective enforcement; and, importantly, protect wildlife and human health. Action on this issue was recommended in 1983 in the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on lead in the environment. As Fleur Anderson in the other place said, action is clearly
“long overdue. Now, at last, is the time to act.” —[Official Report, Commons, Environment Bill Committee, 26/11/20; col. 704.]
My simple question to the Minister is, if not now, when?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord as a fellow advocate. I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, in moving his Amendment 234, on the need to ensure balance in chalk streams, and their protection. We should recognise how popular the sport of angling is and what a wide ecosystem the chalk streams serve.
I particularly support Amendments 235, 236, 242 and 244 and congratulate my noble friend Lord Caithness on his work in this regard; I lend my support to him and my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury in this regard. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said about Clause 102. I will concentrate on subsection (5), which says:
“Natural England may, from time to time, amend a species conservation strategy.”
I enjoyed the noble Lord’s cautionary tale on newts and I will share with him a cautionary tale that caused a lot of grief in north Yorkshire at the time. This was a case of bats in the belfry of St Hilda’s church in Ellerburn, in the constituency of Thirsk, Malton and Filey, which I had the honour to represent for the last five years that I served in the other place.
I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said about achieving balance; part of that balance has to be the rights of humans—in this case, to worship in a place of worship in the normal way. The level of protection that was afforded for years by Natural England defied all logic. I know that this caused a lot of grief within the Church of England and I pay tribute to the work done not just by local parishioners but the Church of England nationally. I do not think that St Hilda’s church at Ellerburn was alone in this regard. The parishioners and worshippers had to evacuate the church, which was effectively closed for human use. There was a huge cost to clean up the church—noble Lords can imagine the damage that was caused by bats flying around in the numbers that there were. As far as I understand it, eventually an accommodation was reached with Natural England.
My greatest concern is that these species should be kept under review. Badger baiting, for example, was finally outlawed in 1968—I forget the actual date—when badgers became a protected species. But these things should always be kept under review. Grey squirrels are now running out of control in many parts of the country and it is almost too late to go back and protect the red squirrel in its natural habitat. So I am very taken by Amendment 236, with its simple request that the proposals be made available for consultation. I would argue that this should be informed consultation for a substantial period of time—at least 12 weeks—so that all parties can be reached.
I hope that we can reach a balance not just between nature and human use but between rural life and urban dwellers. I am not an expert like the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, but one could probably argue that bats now are fairly commonplace in many parts of the country, where they have extensive natural habitats and do not have to occupy dwellings such as churches or, in many cases, farmhouses. Giving them have a higher order of protection than humans who are trying to ply their trade or, in the case of Ellerburn church, to worship, is frankly beyond the realms of logic and common sense.
So I endorse the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and, in particular, my noble friend Lord Caithness, and I hope that, by reviewing the level of protection and the health of an individual species, common sense and logic will prevail.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. There is a huge amount of good in this group and I will be somewhat selective in what I cover. I begin with Amendment 241, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, and thank him—on behalf of many people in the UK, I am sure—for his championing of chalk streams. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to how these are held in great regard by anglers, but we should not forget the great regard in which they are held right across the country.
I note that, just last month, the River Cam became the first UK river to have its rights declared, in a special ceremony organised by the local group Friends of the Cam. At that ceremony, a version of the Universal Declaration of River Rights, drawn from indigenous principles and river victories around the world, was read out. A lawyer at that event noted that, while of course legally this had no effect, it showed the strength of feeling and the desire to protect the River Cam and its tributaries. I note also that the River Frome in Somerset recently had a by-law drawn up to offer it some protection. It is now for your Lordships’ House to encourage the Government to show a similar level of concern to that we are seeing in affected communities.
Amendment 234, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, is a classic “must” replacing “may” amendment. We are talking here of course about species conservation strategies. As other speakers have done, I will focus briefly and in particular on Amendment 235, which has cross-party and non-party support; had there been space, the Green Party would certainly also have attached our name to it. We have already heard in considerable detail how important this is, but it really is worth reflecting that the experience of species conservation strategies thus far has been that there is a real risk of focusing on facilitating development rather than protecting species and, crucially, the ecosystems that are fundamental to the continued existence and importance of those species. The great crested newt has already been referred to, but that is just one case where we have failed to see alternative, less damaging solutions considered, including on-site avoidance or mitigation of impacts. What these amendments, particularly Amendment 235, would do is ensure that the mitigation hierarchy is always followed in species conservation strategies. This is absolutely crucial. I also particularly note my support for Amendment 248, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; the stress on evidence is pretty hard to argue with.
Finally, I will take a little bit of time on Amendment 293A, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to this as an “interloper amendment”, but I think rather that it is a simple, clear, effective, deliverable amendment to the Bill, and it is hard to see why the Government should not accept it. We have already heard a little about how damaging lead ammunition is, and it is worth going back to the history. Nearly six years ago, Defra got the completed report of the Lead Ammunition Group, which recommended that lead ammunition be phased out. That group was set up at the suggestion of the RSPB and the WWT. The evidence is that, when lead shot goes out into the environment, birds—particularly those who feed on grain over fields—collect and eat it, then predator and scavenger species such as crows and raptors can eat those carcasses, accumulate the lead and die. We know how much pressure many of our raptors continue to be under from illegal persecution, and it is crucial that we protect them from this unnecessary threat.
In putting a sense of scale on this, I am indebted to Tom Cameron, a lecturer in aquatic community ecology at the University of Essex. He has calculated that, if a commercial shooting estate offered a single day of hunting pheasants with an expected bag of 200 birds, a 1:3 kill ratio might be expected. Using a standard game load of 32 grams of No. 5 lead shot, with each cartridge containing around 248 pellets, that would be 25 kilograms of lead shot from just one day of fairly typical shooting. As the academic says, you could argue for doing a full calculation across the country, but
“it’s clear that it’s a lot”
of lead being put out into the environment—and wholly unnecessarily.
I also note a new study published in the British Ecological Society journal People and Nature, which showed, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that significant numbers of shooters are comfortable with moving away from lead shot. I also compliment the noble Lord on discovering that noble Lords in this House are protected from the risk of ingesting that lead; however, many children in our society still are not.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to a study conducted last year in lockdown that showed that the voluntary phase-out, which was supposed to begin in February 2020, was not working. It is worth noting a detail from that study on pheasants bought from game dealers, butchers and supermarkets around the UK. Of 180 birds examined by the scientists, 179—all but one—had been shot with lead. A year into this voluntary five-year phase-out, it clearly is not happening. This amendment is simple, clear, extremely deliverable and—to come back to the word “evidence”— extraordinarily well-evidenced. I very much hope that we see the Government taking action.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I rise to offer a few words regarding the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, particularly Amendments 236 and 248, which seek more specificity around the objectives and methods of consultation for species conservation and protected site strategies. As I have repeatedly noted—maybe I sound a bit like a stuck record—the well-intentioned setting of environmental strategies and goals is in danger of belabouring beleaguered farmers and land managers with yet more confusing, conflicting and expensive mandates that will limit their ability to operate productively, if at all.
As the NFU has long stated, it is not possible to go green if you are in the red. However worthy the objectives of species and site protection laid out, they will never be met if we drive farmers and rural businesses out of business. I trust Defra will keep this in mind as it develops policy under these provisions, and I hope the Minister provides substantial assurance that a balance will be met between nature and rural business.
Separately, I will address Amendment 293A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and others regarding the necessary prohibition of toxic lead shot. It comes as no surprise to your Lordships that Earls of Devon have hosted and supported shoots for many centuries, including of both wildfowl and reared game birds, in which both lead shot and, more recently, non-lead alternatives were used. Contrary to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I understand that the industry is taking positive voluntary steps to move away from lead shot, as well as single-use plastics, and on a five-year timeline that allows for the development of suitable alternatives that can equal the effectiveness of lead. I do not, therefore, see that it is necessary to legislate for such a change, particularly in such a short timescale.
The principal danger of setting an unduly short timescale is that the industry is left with inadequate alternative loads, which will only increase the likelihood of injury and suffering to quarry. The essential development of alternatives will take time, and the industry, on which many thousands of rural jobs depend, particularly in deprived areas of north Devon, should be permitted to take the time necessary to make these essential changes.
Finally, I note the considerable concern about children eating lead. If we can get children and families eating game—pheasants and partridges—it will be a blessed thing. If we can remove lead from the game before they do so, it will be even better.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and to hear his expertise. I offer my support for Amendment 235, so ably addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others. I have sat with the noble Lord for a number of years, recently in our environment and energy committees, and his grasp of environmental issues and experience influenced many of our conclusions, so it is a pleasure to follow up by supporting this amendment.
The Bill would be improved if the objectives on which the conservation strategy should focus were in the second paragraph of this clause. I, like many noble Lords, would like to see the Government bring forward their own list of objectives at the next stage of the Bill, as most of us would not like to see the Secretary of State hand Natural England a completely blank sheet, as if it were the inheritors of the desired Henry VIII powers.
The Bill goes on to list the activities that Natural England will be required to fulfil in setting out its species conservation strategy. These would be clearer and more focused if the objectives were listed. Of course, any list may turn out not to be perfect and again, this spills over into what power there will be to make amendments and who will exercise it. This question is similar to that in a later group of amendments we will deal with, in which we will consider the powers a Secretary of State should have to amend regulations in the light of experience.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, is an example of the expertise he holds in this area. The House benefited from hearing from him.
My noble friend Lord Caithness has many amendments in this group, and I support him in his efforts to bring greater clarity to these clauses. His Amendment 252 relates to the clause dealing with wildlife conservation licences. When we were dealing with environmental targets, the Minister introduced an amendment that allows him to make regulations to manage species abundance. As I am sure he is well aware—other noble Lords have spoken of this—he may set the targets but, as is increasingly accepted, much of this can be achieved only by other species management. Making sure that the legislation is fully appropriate is increasingly important. In this area, management becomes a question of having feet on the ground.
Only a few days ago on the “Farming Today” programme, there was a report on an RSPB reserve—in Wiltshire, I think—which made sure that all its habitat was suitable for encouraging many endangered small birds. However, this did not happen until it began to deal with what were termed “generous predators”—I find this a rather descriptive phrase—such as foxes, all kinds of corvids and stoats. My noble friend Lord Caithness’s amendment makes sure that the issue of licences is approached in a practical way. Experience in this field will be what counts, so I will listen with interest to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will add a few words in support of Amendment 235 in the name of my noble friend Lord Krebs and others. Of the various amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I single out Amendment 242, which seeks to give an express power to Natural England to amend, update or withdraw a species conservation strategy.
The point to which my noble friend Lord Krebs’s amendment is directed is that a species conservation strategy—the “recovery of nature”, as he put it—needs careful planning if it is to achieve its objective. Natural England, which will be responsible for producing these strategies, is well equipped to do this. It already has expertise in dealing with protected species and sites for their conservation and protection, but the strategies will have to be shared with and explained to local planning authorities. Their full co-operation is essential to the success of this strategy.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to be speaking in this short debate. I added my name to Amendment 235, so well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, but I have very little to add to what has been said.
The poor old great crested newt, which keeps getting mentioned, has had a bit of a bad press. I think it is because of its name, people saying that some of our laws and regulations make it difficult for developers and that “you only have to find a great crested newt and that will stop it”, but even if it is not a flagship iconic species, it is just as valuable. I mentioned the great crested newts of Uxbridge in my maiden speech in the other place in 1997. We have them in several very small pond reserves belonging to either the London Wildlife Trust or the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust.
I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, speaking as a member of the Bat Conservation Trust, that bats have a highly protected status. They are easily interfered with. There is an active “bats in churches” study group, because bats can cause disruption within churches, causing dismay to congregations, but they are far from common and increasing. Only the other night I was delighted to use my bat detector to discover some pipistrelles, the commonest species, flying around the garden. We must be careful.
However, I support the idea that we want to be flexible in some of these areas. There are species that may start off needing complete protection but do very well, and their position then endangers other species. My noble friend Lord Caithness put it very well when he talked about managing these things. It is a mistake to think that we can just let nature take care of itself. The majority of our landscapes and habitats are manmade. We interfere and if we are not careful, what we do can cause even more problems.
I had forgotten about Amendment 293A. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, said when introducing it, it is perhaps not in context with some of the others. I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that we need more time. We have had as much time as possible. The toxicity and the need to stop it has been raised for years. I have been active on this for many years and my impression is that the game shooting organisations know that this is coming and will be prepared for it. I have spoken to cartridge makers and so on. They have alternatives. A lot of the ideas about the alternatives not being as good have been proved incorrect. To score some points back with my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the Danes have got it right. It does not interfere with the sport. It is a toxic thing that should be removed.
If my noble friend the Minister wants some help on this, perhaps he can speak to the Treasury. If it could put an incredible surcharge on lead shot, perhaps we could force it out of the market, but the best way is to start by saying that it should not be used for killing wild animals and birds. The toxicity of clay shoots is terrible because it is in the same area. In various places they have had to close while they detoxify the area. It is appalling and incredible that in the 21st century we still allow this toxic chemical to enter the food chain of not only wildlife but humans.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that I welcome the use of game in diet. It is a great thing, but we should not be doing it while there is lead in there.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 293A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, whom I congratulate on bringing this matter forward. I have added my name to the amendment. I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee at the Home Office. I am a liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Gunmakers, a former chairman and former president of the British Shooting Sports Council, a former president of the Gun Trade Association and a member of BASC and the GWCT. I hope your Lordships will deduce that I know a little about shooting and lead shot.
As we have heard, lead is acknowledged as a poison. It is banned in paints, petrol, fishing weights, water and a raft of other products. Recently, nine major quarry shooting associations—as I said, I am a member of BASC—came together in a statement, saying that their intention is for the shooting sports to cease the use of lead shot, or toxic shot, within five years. Waitrose, the supermarket chain, has told me that it will sell only game shot with non-toxic shot from next year. The National Game Dealers Association, which sells the vast majority of game-bird meat and game meat in general intends to do the same by July 2022. The vast majority of my game-shooting friends and acquaintances, and the majority of those to whom I speak in the game-shooting world, are already planning to move to non-toxic shot in the coming season, including myself.
The technology of steel shot, biodegradable wads and recyclable cartridge cases is being rapidly moved forward by cartridge manufacturers such as Eley Hawk. Indeed, I am personally actively making the switch as quickly as I can. The move away from lead shot is gaining momentum all the way through America, Europe and other countries.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said, the Lead Ammunition Group recently conducted a major inquiry into lead in shooting. I have to say that it was not done just by the bird-watching enthusiasts, as she said; it was actually done by the shooting world as well. It was led by a gentleman called John Swift, who happened to be the chairman of BASC at the time, so I think that it ought to have a little credit for that.
We have been around this lead racetrack, so to speak, ad infinitum. I repeat that lead is a poison—we all know that. It should not be permitted to enter the food chain, full stop. I agree with noble Lord, Lord Krebs, entirely: Her Majesty’s Government need to place all in the game-shooting industry in a position where they know with what timescale they must comply. This would give assurance to them and mean that they can make the changes necessary. Many of them will have to retool equipment—as I say, lead shot is on its way out—and manufacturers such as Eley Hawk are having to change their ways, and are doing so very successfully.
However, this does not happen overnight. Many guns—London Best guns, for instance—that were built a long time ago to shoot lead shot cannot shoot steel shot, so that has to be looked into as well. This is quite a complicated subject—not an easy “We’ll do it today” job. If the Government were to make up their mind and push the shooting industry into this a little harder, with a date that we know we comply with, that would be a very good thing, and I would strongly support it.
The market for game and game meat is of course substantial. The game dealers and the supermarkets are changing their ways. Waitrose tells me that, by the time it goes toxic-shot-free next year, it may well be able to sell more than a million more game birds— that is just one supermarket chain. That is good for the shooting industry. We need to be able to find decent new markets where we can sell this excellent low-calorie meat.
I am very aware that this amendment probably requires further work, so I ask my noble friend the Minister—we had a brief conversation outside the Chamber before this debate started—if he would very kindly meet with the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and me as soon as possible to discuss this further before Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, the discussion on this grouping has been quite lengthy. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, in thanking my noble friend Lord Chidgey for his excellent championing of chalk streams in this and earlier groupings. I very much hope that the Government will respond positively to the suggestion of this new designation for chalk streams. I will not speak for long because most points have already been covered.
I added my name to Amendment 235 of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on species conservation strategies, and I very much support his comments. We need to ensure that they support nature recovery and not faster development. It is right that, as the comments that have been made by noble Lords around the Committee showed, there is unanimous support for this amendment. That is indicative of the level of concern that we have about what the Government might be proposing in terms of future planning reforms coming down the track. If we can get this clear in the Environment Bill, that could give us some level of assurance. For those reasons, we on this Bench also support the 10 amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who is looking to make these species conservation strategies work better. They are a good tool, but they need to work better, so we support all those amendments.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have had a really interesting debate—it has covered quite a lot of areas. I offer our strong support for Amendment 241 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey.
I am enjoying our Committee debates, particularly last week’s. Many concerns have been raised about the condition of our chalk streams. We know that they have particularly pure, clear and constant water from the underground chalk aquifers, and they flow across gravel beds, which makes them absolutely perfect sources of clean water and ideal for lots of wild creatures to breed and thrive in. However, we also know that too many have been overused and undervalued, drained almost dry in places and polluted in others. Research shows that a third of the water that we take from our rivers is wasted. The Angling Trust has said:
“The fate of England’s chalk streams is the litmus test in terms of how this country treats its environment.”
So we thank the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, for tabling this amendment for better protections for our chalk streams, which are so badly needed. Again, I offer our strong support.
We also strongly support Amendment 235, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which would ensure that the primary purpose of species conservation strategies is to support the recovery of nature, rather than to facilitate faster development. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, the debate today has shown huge support for his amendment. A strategic approach to species conservation is essential to preserving biodiversity and enabling nature’s recovery. This should include protecting, restoring and creating habitat over a wider area to meet the needs of individual species. Strategic approaches to species conservation are clearly essential. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, talked about her experience of bats, for example. It is vital that we enable this recovery of nature. Between 2013 and 2018, 46% of conservation priority species in England declined. We know that many of these species would benefit from a strategic plan resulting in all relevant public bodies taking appropriate actions to save and restore them. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, asked for clear objectives to be set out, and this is clearly important.
The proposal for species conservation strategies must also be understood in the context of the net-gain offsetting that we already discussed in Committee last week. Our fear is that there could be unintended consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, outlined his concerns that, sadly, the overall result could be to allow the destruction of habitats and protected species in return for new habitat creation elsewhere. A developer could be licensed to proceed with activities that destroy habitats and species in return for contributing to habitats that support the wider population of that species. We share the noble Lord’s concern that this could allow a developer to proceed without protecting every specimen of a protected species and without always undertaking the appropriate site-specific survey work. We do not want to speed up development and reduce costs, which would ultimately do the opposite of what the Bill is trying to achieve.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, mentioned the importance of planning authorities having a clear understanding of what is required, and this will be needed if these proposals are to be implemented well. We need to contribute to the conservation of certain species but, if that is managed badly or applied inappropriately, we could end up with it being nothing more than a shortcut to getting around some of the protected species obligations. Can the Minister confirm that, where species conservation strategies are used in cases of development planning, species’ needs will dictate the outcome, with the overriding presumption and priority being for on-site or local, rather than off-site, mitigations? Will he also confirm that biodiversity net gains will be additional to meeting the legal and policy requirements within the species conservation strategies?
We are looking for some serious reassurance from the Minister that the species conservation strategies will not lead to perverse outcomes. We need to ensure that they are delivering gains for nature rather than gains for developers. Can he also confirm that site-specific impact assessments at the time of planning or of other consent applications will still be carried out to ensure that all impacts are identified and addressed? We need assurance that each strategy will be framed around the conservation objectives of the sites concerned, as well as any other conservation considerations.
I will now move on to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who made some very important points in his introduction. I am sure that noble Lords will support his important aim; all we want to do is to make this part of the Bill work better, and his amendments ably try to do that. We need to look to wider concerns that encompass all factors, not just habitats. The noble Earl made an important point when he talked about management being a forgotten activity that will help deliver success to our conservation strategies, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, supported him in that. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, also asked for assurances from the Minister about support for farmers and rural businesses. Again, this is an important area that must not be forgotten.
Turning to Amendment 293A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton, I thank him for his very detailed introduction. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, for sharing his extensive knowledge and experience of this matter. As the EU proceeds towards a ban on all lead ammunition, UK policy is lagging significantly behind the practices and organisational policies of many ammunition users. As my noble friend Lord Browne said so eloquently, there are no safe levels of lead—it affects all major body systems of animals, including humans. As the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, said, regulation has ensured removal of lead from petrol, paint and drinking water. The last largely unregulated release of lead into our environment is from lead ammunition. We have heard that non-toxic ammunition is widely available, and guidance on its use is provided on the website of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation—BASC.
We have also heard in this debate that the UK shooting community is preparing for change, which is coming, but voluntary efforts to move away from lead shot have always failed. We need leadership from government, with legislation, if this change is going to happen. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said, this amendment is deliverable. Finally, I ask the Minister: what progress is his department making in bringing this legislation forward and ending this practice?
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
I will start with Amendment 234, tabled by the noble Lord, Chidgey, and Amendment 235, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, but first I will offer some words on the overall objectives of species conservation strategies. The strategies will be developed by Natural England for species that are under threat and would benefit from a more strategic and focused approach to improve their conservation status. They will identify priorities for the species and bring together relevant public authorities, ENGOs and any other interested parties to identify the bespoke solutions needed to tackle the threat each species faces.
I understand the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to ensure that the strategies contribute to nature’s recovery, but Clause 102 already guarantees this. In line with the intention behind the measure, subsection (1) specifically defines the purpose of a strategy as:
“for improving the conservation status of any species of fauna or flora.”
Subsection (4) elaborates on the elements that the strategy may contain, including creating and enhancing habitats with the explicit purpose
“of improving the conservation status of the species”.
The mitigation hierarchy is also set out in subsection (4), as we are clear that each species will require a bespoke approach to avoidance or mitigation of harm or the creation of compensatory habitat. It is important that Natural England is given a power in the Bill to create strategies where they are likely to have the biggest possible impact. Changing “may” to “must”, as suggested by Amendment 234, would therefore change that power into a duty to create strategies, and this would place an unreasonable obligation on Natural England to create a very large number of strategies, including for species which would see little or no benefit. We think that it makes more sense for Natural England to focus its resources where strategies can provide the most benefit for key species in decline.
Natural England is already working with relevant conservation groups to develop the first strategies; others are in the pipeline, including—to answer the noble Lord, Lord Krebs’s question—for the dormouse and water vole. I think he said that it is also the case that the district-level licensing approach is not considered to be something that would work for bats. That is our view as well, so we will not be using that approach.
On Amendment 241, I share the determination of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, to protect our chalk streams, as many noble Lords do. Restoring our internationally recognised and important chalk streams is already a government priority. Species conservation strategies, however, are bespoke, targeted measures to help protect specific species at risk. Although they will by their nature and design help restore the habitats and ecosystems without which those species cannot flourish, they are not the best mechanism for achieving that specific aim. While activities to help a particular species may involve necessary actions to improve habitats such as chalk streams, the focus needs to remain on the species itself.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I heard what my noble friend the Minister said regarding the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. Does he not agree that even if we banned the use of lead ammunition in killing wild birds and animals, although it would not address target and clay pigeon shooting, surely that would set the whole thing off? Would it not be a great first move to make?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am very keen for us to make progress as quickly as we can. I understand frustrations with the REACH process. My understanding is that that process is best placed to deliver the change we need despite the time that it takes. If it is possible to move more quickly, given that we know that the science is pretty clear and that alternatives exist, I would certainly be open to pursuing those opportunities. If my noble friend would like to join me in my meeting with my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, he would be very welcome.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken in support of my amendment. The vigour of the debate was very encouraging for me and my fellow Hampshire men and women who are trying to do something to protect our environment and the habitats that we have lived with and cherished throughout our lives.
I also thank the Minister for his remarks. It is encouraging that the Government are taking this issue seriously and are already debating with the proprietors of the chalk stream restoration strategy report, which I understand will be submitted to government in September. That being the case, I look forward to going with colleagues and friends into discussions with government beyond then to see whether we can address these issues, which are so important to our native land. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We now come to Amendment 251A. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 251A
“Protection of National Parks
(1) In exercising their functions under—(a) this Act,(b) any subordinate legislation made under this Act, or(c) any legislation amended by this Act,a public authority must determine whether and how the carrying out of such functions would impact on National Parks.(2) If a public authority determines that their actions would have a material impact on National Parks, that authority must—(a) have regard to the purposes of National Parks specified in section 5(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and(b) so far as practicable, act in a manner that is consistent with supporting those purposes.(3) Section 11A of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (duty of certain bodies and persons to have regard to the purposes for which National Parks are designated) is amended as follows—(a) in subsection (2), after “land” insert “or the special qualities found”;(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) All relevant authorities have a duty to co-operate in the production and implementation of any relevant National Park Management Plans.”;(c) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) In subsection (2A) of this section “National Park Management Plans” means any relevant plan or plans published under section 66 of the Environment Act 1995 (National Park Management Plans).””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure that where the decisions of public authorities impact on national parks, relevant authorities must have regard to the purposes laid out in section 5(1) of the 1949 Act. In addition, the Clause amends inserted section 11A of that Act to strengthen provisions around protecting the special characteristics of national parks.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the South Downs National Parks Authority. The 10 national parks in England are crucial for delivering our strategy for nature recovery and enhanced landscapes. They cover 10% of our land, while hosting a third of the nation’s international wildlife sites. They have a mission to create more habitats where wildlife can flourish and be enjoyed, while developing strong local partnerships with communities, farmers and businesses to make the parks a living and creative space.
They are all too aware of the significant responsibility they carry to boost diversity and deliver the commitment to protect 30% of our land by 2030. Indeed, my own authority has plans to go further than that. Meeting this challenge is currently hampered by the limitation of the powers authorities currently have under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. In a phrase that will be familiar to noble Lords in other contexts, this section requires all relevant authorities to “have regard to” national park purposes while carrying out functions that might affect a national park. Sadly, “have regard to” is open to many interpretations and as a result there have been many examples of public authorities effectively ignoring this duty and putting their own interests first.
There are many examples from around the 10 parks, but let me give you a couple from the South Downs national park to illustrate the point. Highways England came up with a proposed new route for the A27 around Arundel, which went through the middle of the national park. It was hugely unpopular. It had failed to have regard to the national park’s status or to co-operate with it in drawing up the proposals. In the end, it pulled out of a judicial review just before the hearing, and the South Downs national park was awarded costs, but a lot of time and money could have been saved if it had had a stronger duty to support and co-operate with the park in the first place.
On a slightly different level, the Forestry Commission has built car parks in our national park that have no connection to the park’s attempts to manage visitor numbers and traffic flows to ensure an overall good visitor experience.
The national parks are proud of the work they are doing to develop partnerships with local public bodies, including the production of national park management plans, but this intent has to be reciprocated and this is not always currently the case.
In the meantime, the Government rightly have high expectations of the national parks and the role they will play in nature recovery and transforming farming in protected landscapes, but the parks need the powers necessary to deliver this ambition. This is why I have tabled my amendment, which would strengthen the need for public bodies not only to “have regard to” the purposes of national parks under the 1949 Act but to act in a manner consistent with these purposes. It would build in the co-operation and consultation which already happens successfully with many public authorities and make it the norm for all.
Noble Lords will know that two years ago, the committee overseeing the Glover report on the national parks published its review; I was pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was a member of that committee. Last month the Government published their response to the report, to which the Minister referred when we debated earlier amendments. One of the report’s recommendations is:
“The existing duty of regard is too weak. We believe public bodies should be required to help further their purposes and the aims and objectives of individual national landscapes Management Plans.”
Since then, much of the emphasis of the report, the debate around it and the Government’s response has been concerned with the structure and governance of national parks. For example, there was a proposal to increase the number of national parks and for them to be bought under the oversight of a national landscape service—an issue we can debate another time.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to contribute to this brief debate on Amendment 251A and I welcome the opportunity to talk about the purposes of national parks. As in an earlier debate, it is important to read across to what other users of national parks are being asked to do in relation to the Agriculture Act. In considering protections for national parks, it is entirely appropriate to look those who have wider interests than just maintaining a high level of biodiversity and promoting the enjoyment of the ecosystem, very important though that is.
Here, I would like to mention in particular the interests of farmers, landowners, land managers and tourism providers. Regarding the Agriculture Act and the read-across to the Environment Bill and public money for public goods, how do we expect national parks, farmers, land managers and those plying the trade of tourism to actually be allowed to do the work we are asking them to do? It is extremely important to better integrate farming, land management and, indeed, rural development objectives and advice in this regard. Could my noble friend elaborate on how the public goods and productivity strands of the Agriculture Act, the Bill and future policy will operate to ensure that that happens harmoniously?
I pay tribute to all those involved in national parks—tourism and farming in particular have had a very difficult time. Obviously, I am most familiar with the North York Moors National Park, but I had some experience of the Lake District National Park when I was a candidate there a number of years ago. It is important that we celebrate all that farmers, land managers and those supporting tourism in the national parks do. I hope my noble friend will confirm that “having regard to” does relate to these other interests, and that they will not be compromised in any shape or form. Perhaps she can put a little more meat on the bones of what we are going to ask them to do in terms of public money for public goods, through ELMS, in the context of the Environment Bill and the Agriculture Act.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to again follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and to speak in support of Amendment 251A in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. Indeed, I would have attached my name to it, had I not missed it.
The case has already been very clearly made that we need strengthened protections for national parks—“have regard to” is simply not strong enough in this legislation. I think it is worth going back to the purposes of national parks in the 1949 Act, which include
“conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the areas specified”.
This goes back to a debate that we had some weeks ago about how cultural and natural heritage are linked, but the main point to make on Amendment 251A is about “conserving and enhancing” wildlife.
Just last week we saw a campaign launched to raise £100 million to renature 13,000 hectares of land on the South Downs. There was much pride about the fact that this would mean that 33% of the national park is managed for nature, which reports suggested exceeds a UN-backed target of 30% by 2030. Of course, that is a target for all of the countryside; one might reasonably expect that to be much higher in our national parks. Indeed, you would like to see that figure going somewhere towards 100%. Of course, that does not mean that you cannot have agricultural production associated with that; we are back to a very long-running debate about sparing versus sharing. But we must note that what we are doing now is not strong enough. We have to do much more, and we need the Environment Bill to do it.
To take just one example, the Yorkshire Dales National Park is a notorious black hole for raptors. When the national park did a consultation with the public about its management, the illegal persecution of raptors was one of the issues most raised. Just a few months ago, we saw a hideous video released by the RSPB investigations team of two buzzards being lured to their deaths in the area.
We also really need to think about whether there are not—and I am sure there are—more areas of the country that need to be protected, whether it is as a national park or in some other way, as the Glover review highlights. The South Pennines has been identified as a prime candidate for a different approach as the only upland region in England that does not currently have not a legal designation.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, the 15 national parks in the UK are indeed a natural treasure and one of the glories of our country, some of them have a worldwide reputation. To confine myself to the three in Wales, I know they may be a devolved matter, but the facts about them still indicate the huge significance of national parks generally. The Brecon Beacons, the Pembrokeshire coast and Snowdonia cover 20% of the land surface of Wales. They have a resident population of 80,000 people and account for over £0.5 billion of Wales’ gross added value—some 1.2% of the Welsh economy. They are internationally important examples of how working landscapes can be protected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has set out one of the two purposes of national parks as set out in Section 5(1) of the 1949 national parks Act. These two purposes clearly chime in beautifully with the Environment Bill now before us, and it is therefore very important that they should have a specific clause within the Bill. Although there are legal protections for them under the 1949 Act, we live at a time when there is a desperate need, for example, for more affordable housing. The Government have made this a priority, and some of the checks and balances that used to be in place, in the form of the ability to prevent a particular scheme going forward, are being eroded. We saw one public reaction to this recently in the Chesham and Amersham by-election.
The amendment before us would ensure that any local authority seeking planning permission in a national park would have to take fully into account the legal purpose of the park. The Minister may argue that there are enough protections already in the 1949 Act but, given that the national parks are such a crucial feature of our environment and that the pressure for new housing is now so intense, it is appropriate that there is a special clause in the Bill which keeps these protections firmly in the mind of all those drawing up applications in those areas. Of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has mentioned some of the pressures—for example, from motorways—but possible housing developments may perhaps be on the edge of a national park. No doubt it would be unthinkable for a local authority to try to put up a new housing estate in the middle of a national park, but there could be building, industrial or waste developments on the edge of a national park, which would have serious implications for its protected environment.
At a time of increasing pressure, the proposed new clause before us comes under the heading of “You can’t be too careful”, and I support it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is not speaking on this group, so I call the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a property owner with tourism interests within the Exmoor National Park, going back very many years, and I have professionally had an involvement with several other UK national parks.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for giving me advance warning when she tabled this amendment and for giving us an opportunity to have this debate. At an earlier point in our Committee, I had, through my own fault, a rather awkwardly grouped pair of amendments—Amendments 290 and 291—on an enlargement of national park purposes, which were not actually moved in that group. Although they have got a bit lost in the system, I am glad that I have some opportunity to make a few of the points here. In any event, I would rather raise them in the context of Amendment 251A.
I have enormous sympathy with this amendment. For many people, the immediate reaction might be to ask why any adjacent authority would not have regard to national park purposes. But, recalling my own experiences, I can appreciate that this might not be so. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to the A27 at Arundel. Of course, as a Sussex resident, I am quite familiar with the long-running saga of how to deal with the discontinuity on parts of the A27. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned, this is a two-way affair. National park authorities do not, after all, have full jurisdiction over all areas of local government authority and other aspects. It follows that they must at the very least, for their part, be able to co-operate with those bodies that exercise jurisdiction in the areas they do not control, including highways, police, infrastructure, building control, fire and rescue, services and communications, and those sorts of things.
In the past, I have attended meetings on site within national parks to discuss, in one case, the improvement of an admittedly dangerous farm track exiting on to an unrestricted A-class road. The meeting had been triggered by an incident at that location which could easily have been fatal for a motorcycle rider. But, as it turned out, this matter seemed to be of little concern in national park policy terms. The improvement required would have involved the removal of some length of hedgerow to improve sight lines. Of course, that could have been replicated on the back of the visibility splays, as opposed to immediately adjacent to the current road, but that was not acceptable to the national park authority, despite the obvious problems for farm movements and the safety of highway users. As far as I know, the dangerous exit remains some 20 years later. But I find it very difficult to understand that conservation issues should be unable to take account of public safety or the orderly exercise of farming activities. In another instance, a national park authority apparently permitted substantial works for the installation of a bulk LPG tank for commercial purposes but did not realise that, without an adequate lay-by in addition, the necessary tanker delivering fuel would totally block a narrow unclassified road serving a lot of properties and would do so for periods of up to half an hour at a time.
The issue of breadth of policy and analysis is not helped when narrow thinking occurs, and local government in all its forms, including national park authorities, is not proof against this. I could quote many other examples of the sort of thing I have already mentioned. I think that the potential flashpoints—if I can call them that—are likely to expand, as our most recent cohort of national parks have incorporated more urban areas within their boundaries.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in support of Amendment 251A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to support the protection of our national parks.
National parks are havens for birds, animals, fish and humans seeking respite from the cares of daily life. They exist all over the world, from Chile up through North America and across Europe. We are exceptionally lucky to have a wide variety of national parks sprinkled across the whole country, from Cornwall to Wales and up to the Cairngorms in Scotland. Each has its own individuality and beauty, sometimes gentle but often rugged and wild. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned their role in tourism.
These national parks are currently protected by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, but this should not allow us to take them for granted. Amendment 251A inserts a new clause into the Bill to provide some protection for the parks when public authorities are making decisions which could affect neighbouring national parks. The duties under the 1949 Act are supported by guidance from Defra, but this guidance is out of date and was last updated in 2005—it is not available on the Natural England website and refers to the now extinct regional development agencies and government regional offices. The current duty provides a backstop when conflict arises between competing interests. However, national parks see this as a last resort.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, laid out the reasons why the duty should be strengthened and gave excellent examples of lack of forethought on the part of public bodies. National parks have management plans; these should be promoted with public bodies, which should have due regard to them. The protected characteristics of national parks should be preserved and public bodies should have regard to both the characteristics and management plans, but this is very weak in terms of compliance and protection.
I fear I will go off on a tangent for a moment. During the passage of the ill-fated Housing and Planning Bill, there was discussion about affordable housing for those working in the parks and young people. This was in reference to Exmoor National Park, which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to. There were agricultural workers, farmhands, firefighters and other essential workers who worked in the park but could not afford to live there. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, referred to the pressure for housing but suggested that it should be on the edge of the parks. While protecting national parks, I urge them all to have provision for affordable homes included in their management plans to enable those working in them—those who would like to—to be able to live nearer to their place of work. Unnecessary travel adds to climate change and pollution. Living close to your place of work on a national park means you may be able to cycle or walk to work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, supported the argument that the current protection measures are not strong enough, and I agree with her. This amendment gives reassurance and provides the mechanism for local authorities and other public bodies—such as the MoD, which operates on Dartmoor and on the borders of other national parks—to take account of how their actions may affect the park, access to it and those living or working in or visiting the park in future. It should be remembered that people live in the parks. National parks should not be wrapped in cotton wool as anachronistic relics. They should be assisted to be fit for purpose today but protected from harmful developments. I fully support this important amendment.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 251A from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the contributions of all those who spoke about the importance of our national parks, on which I think we are all agreed. From the meres and hills of the Lake District to the chalk of the South Downs—and a lot of Wales, I must add—they are some of our most valuable landscapes.
That is why the Government commissioned the independent Landscapes Review, which set out a compelling vision for more beautiful, more biodiverse and more accessible national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. The panel’s report recommended strengthening the duty on public bodies to have regard to the purposes of the national parks and to support implementation of management plans. This would have a very similar effect to the proposed amendment from the noble Baroness.
In a Written Ministerial Statement of 24 June, the Government committed to address the review’s recommendations in full and consult on draft proposals later this year. Those draft proposals will address this recommendation. This has been an unprecedented year for the country, so work since the review was published has indeed been delayed, but the Government are working very closely with partners on their response to it. We have committed to address its recommendations in full and to consult on draft proposals later this year. I am of course very happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, as part of the consultation, or we can discuss it earlier if that would be helpful.
The Government support the intention of the noble Baroness to ensure that our public bodies work together more effectively in our national parks. We all agree there has been a problem here. We are currently working closely with partners, including the national park authorities, to consider how best to achieve that aim through our response to the review. However, we cannot accept this amendment, as it is important to work with our partners and consult on any such changes before changing the law, particularly to understand potential implications for those public bodies likely to be affected. The Landscapes Review found strong evidence that public bodies are failing to have adequate regard to the statutory purposes of the national parks. It also found that the effectiveness of the management plans is limited by poor implementation by local partners, including public bodies. The Government take this finding seriously and are working with partners to consider carefully how to address it.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of infrastructure plans in the national parks. The 2010 National Parks Circular and the National Planning Policy Framework are very clear that national parks, the Broads and areas of outstanding natural beauty are not appropriate locations for major development. I will look into the specific cases that they raised and provide more detail on those if appropriate.
I also assure the Committee that, since the Glover review was published, the Government have been supporting important work in our protected landscapes through our nature for climate fund and green recovery challenge fund to restore nature, tackle climate change and connect communities with the natural environment. The Government have also recently announced their new farming in protected landscapes programme, which will provide additional investment to allow farmers and other land managers to work in partnership with our national park authorities to deliver bigger and better outcomes for the environment, communities and places.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked a number of questions, particularly on ELMS. This funding will help to drive forward delivery of the Landscapes Review on people, access, nature and job creation, responding to the public appetite from Covid-19 for better access to nature. Specifically, the fund should help to support delivery of the Landscapes Review recommendations on connecting more people to protected landscapes, delivering the new environmental land management schemes, increasing the diversity of visitors through tourism, creating landscapes which cater for health and well-being, expanding volunteers and rangers and providing better information and signs. Specifically, this funding will help farmers to shift towards delivering environmental benefits which, in the future, could be supported by environmental land management, particularly the components that support local nature and landscape recovery.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his contribution. Sadly, I have not been able to receive divine intervention quite in time to respond to his specific questions, particularly about earlier legislation, but I will write to him and put a copy in the Library. I hope that I have now provided assurance to the noble Baroness that we share her aims for national parks: we just need a bit more time to work with public bodies, including national parks themselves, to get this right. I therefore hope she will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that we are blessed with very special national parks, each one unique in its own way. As we have heard from the contributions, everybody has their favourite and the particular one that they are a cheerleader for. We sometimes take the national parks for granted, but the experience over the last 18 months has ensured that they are back in the front line and are rightly seen as the national treasures that they really are. They have played an important part in people’s sanity, and mental health, over the last period.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that the national parks have to be integrated into the work of the Agriculture Act—an issue that we addressed earlier when we talked about joined-up policies—and it is important that they play a rightful role in the rollout of ELMS. We welcome the Government’s proposals for farming in protected landscapes and the additional investment that will come from that, because the farming community in the national parks has to work in a way that is properly sympathetic to the landscape that we are hoping to develop there. There are special challenges, but also great benefits if we get this right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the South Downs ambition of 33% to protect our landscapes. I agree that we should be ambitious: every national park is unique and will have different constraints. South Downs has an awful lot of people living there and a lot of businesses already operating there. Obviously, we need to push to the limits of our capacity in order to make sure that nature recovery takes place in the widest possible area. We will obviously do that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 255. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 105: Habitats Regulations: power to amend general duties
Amendment 255
Lord Krebs
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to be amended to further new objectives in addition to existing objectives, rather than in place of existing objectives.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 255 and 256 in my name, together with those of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch; Amendment 257AA in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle; and the proposition that Clause 106 do not stand part the Bill, in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
Clauses 105 and 106 were added to the Bill by the Government two months ago without any consultation. These two clauses have important potential adverse effects that these amendments seek to rectify. First, they threaten to weaken the protection of our most valuable conservation habitats and species. Secondly, they confer considerable discretionary powers on the Secretary of State to change the rules governing environmental protection.
In order to fix ideas, I will first explain what these special sites and species are. They include more than 200 special areas of conservation protected under the habitats regulations, such as the north Northumberland coast, the North Yorkshire Moors and Ashdown Forest. They include wetland sites, such as the Humber Estuary, portions of the Essex Marshes, the Isles of Scilly and the Exe Estuary, that have been designated under the Ramsar Convention. Last but not least, they include the more than 80 English special protection areas classified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and subsequent legislation, primarily for the protection of bird species. Between them, these three categories protect our greatest natural assets. They protect many rare species, such as the lady’s slipper orchid, the marsh fritillary, the bottlenose dolphin and the lesser horseshoe bat.
Currently, the regulations require public authorities, including the Secretary of State, to comply with the birds and habitats directives, which were the legal source of the habitats regulations. But Clause 105 gives the Secretary of State powers to swap this duty to comply with the birds and habitats directives with a requirement to comply with the new objectives set out in the Environment Bill; in other words, it changes the obligation to protect our most precious conservation sites and our most endangered species.
The Minister will no doubt say there is nothing to worry about and that the Government have no intention of weakening the protection of these sites and species. He may point to the fact that Clause 105 has safeguards built in, such as the requirement in subsection (7) that the Secretary of State must be
“satisfied that the regulations do not reduce the level of environmental protection provided by the Habitats Regulations.”
He may also say that Clause 105(9) requires the Secretary of State to
“consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,
although we should note that this is a rather vague commitment; we do not know who the “persons” are.
The Minister may also argue that the habitats regulations are overly bureaucratic and that Natural England, given the swingeing cuts to its budget to which I referred in an earlier debate, will not have the capacity to deal with both the habitats regulations and the new requirements introduced by the Bill. However—and this is the central point—there is a key distinction between the requirements of the Bill and those of the habitats regulations.
The targets in the Bill are all about improving our natural environment as a whole. In contrast, the habitats regulations and related regulations are all about protecting individual sites, populations and sometimes even individual specimens; in other words, the two forms of protection are complementary and are not alternatives. Amendments 255 and 256 would speak to this complementarity by ensuring that the current protections for particular sites and species remain in place by replacing “instead of” with “in addition to”. The amendments restrict the power of the Secretary of State to sweep away existing protections while still allowing the law to continue to evolve and cater for domestic conservation priorities.
Amendment 257AA would add an additional layer of protection by requiring the Secretary of State to make changes only if they were compatible with five international conventions. It would also replace the vague commitment to consult persons who are considered appropriate by the Secretary of State with a specific commitment to consult experts, including the statutory bodies: Natural England, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the office for environmental protection. It would also ensure that there is parliamentary scrutiny of any changes.
If the Secretary of State really means to follow Clause 105(7), these proposed amendments should simply underpin the intended outcome. If, however, the Government object to the amendments, one has a right to ask why. As a start, I ask the Minister a simple question: can he confirm that the statutory bodies I have mentioned would be consulted by the Secretary of State before any regulations were changed?
Finally, Clause 106 gives the Secretary of State power to amend Part 6 of the habitats regulations in almost any way. This part of the regulations deals with development projects. It includes rules to prevent harm to protected sites except for reasons of overriding public interest.
The habitats regulations do not stop development, but they do ensure that projects are properly assessed and that effective mitigation and compensation are in place. Projects such as the Thames Basin Heaths Partnership have shown how the habitats regulations ensure that development takes place in a way that is compatible with nature, helping to protect the remains of the UK’s vanishing heathlands while still allowing the building of many new homes. Successive reviews have found the regulations to be proportionate and effective, giving certainty to developers and environmental groups alike.
Time and again in the debates on the Bill we have referred to the conflict between conserving nature and allowing development. Time and again, we have heard that the Bill, in many ways, appears to tip the balance in favour of development and against nature. Some might even be driven to argue that the Bill is designed to protect nature provided that this does not interfere with other priorities, housebuilding in particular.
The Minister may argue, as with Clause 105, that safeguards are built in. Under Clause 106, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that protections provided by the habitats regulations are not reduced and must explain the reasoning to Parliament. But this is an entirely subjective test, left to the opinion of the Minister, rather than an effective legal safeguard. Clause 106 requires the Secretary of State only to have regard to the importance of conservation and biodiversity. It does not require the Secretary of State to consult with relevant experts, only with such persons as are considered appropriate.
At this stage, we have had no indication at all about how the powers would actually be used or what problems with the habitats regulations the Government may be seeking to address. Could the Minister give us some examples of these problems?
In my view, Clause 106 could be used to allow the Government to sacrifice our natural environment on the altar of development, sidestepping protections provided by the habitats regulations. If the Minister says, “Don’t worry, we will look after nature”, the best way to convince us of this would be to delete this clause from the Bill. I beg to move.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 257A, 257B and 257C. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for adding his name to them. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, so that we can debate whether the Government can be trusted to guard environmental policy and how much. In seeking to move that Clause 106 not stand part, in spite of its emphasis on conservation and biodiversity, it appears the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, would not like the Secretary of State to have any room to manoeuvre on the proposals presently part of Part 6. I declare my interests as in the register but also particularly as a livestock farmer in a national park and a member of NFU Scotland.
The Government have already passed one amendment to the wording of the habitats regulations that we were operating while we were in the EU, but it was all done so rapidly that it is not altogether surprising that they have a clause in the Bill that would allow them to modify things once the rural environment has settled down. This group of amendments is all about how far they should be able to do so as the proposal unfolds.
Noble Lords will be well versed in the Government’s 25-year environment plan, which is intended to promote a fairer society and social justice, among other things. It was published in May 2019 and outlines their proposals but still lacks many of the mechanisms they hope to be able to use to achieve this, so it remains quite difficult to predict the outcomes.
The purpose of my Amendment 257C is to remedy the fact that in neither the 25-year plan nor this piece of legislation is there a direction to the Government to consider social and economic impacts and give them due regard.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I speak in favour of all the amendments in this group—except for 257A, which appears to me to be a weakening of a Bill that is already far too weak, away from its purpose of protecting the environment. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has already powerfully and comprehensively introduced Amendments 255, 256 and the proposition that Clause 106 should not stand part of the Bill. All of these have full cross-party and non-party support. Indeed, I would have attached my name had there been space.
I will focus in particular on Amendment 257AA, to which I have attached my name, because, when I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, had tabled this, I thought that this was a very neat, comprehensive and protective amendment. We have to be conducting this particular section of the debate in the light of the release in the past couple of hours of the latest draft negotiations of the Convention on Biological Diversity, together with news that the conference is now set to be delayed again, until next year. That provides for, in the current draft—alongside the 2030 protection of land and seas and providing a third of climate mitigations through nature by 2030—new goals for the middle of the century, including reducing the current rates of extinction tenfold, enhancing the integrity of all ecosystems, valuing nature’s contribution to humanity, and providing the financial resources to achieve the vision. This is not, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, was just suggesting, something which applies only to specific sites. This very much applies across the whole of the country.
I note that the very useful Greener UK and Wildlife and Countryside Link briefing on all of these amendments noted that, as the noble Duke said, one would assume that the Secretary of State, in light of our international commitments, would exercise this power in a manner that is compatible with our international agreements, including the updated Convention on Biological Diversity. But we have seen again and again that we currently have a Government who do not necessarily see themselves bound by international obligations. Of course, any Government can bind only themselves; they cannot speak to what Governments might do in the future. That is why we need all of these kinds of protections on the face of the Bill.
We also have to look at all of these amendments—but perhaps Amendment 257AA in particular—in the light of the promises that we heard over the past few years that we would have non-regression after Brexit, meaning that we will not go backwards. We heard from the Government again and again that we are seeking only more and stronger protections. All these amendments—but particularly Amendment 257AA—would set on the face of the Bill a promise to stick to what we are indeed committed to now.
Of course, we probably expect to hear from the Minister that this is unnecessary, but I think we all know very well that it is necessary. If it is just some extra protection or insulation, it is hard to see why the Government should have objections to that basic protection, to ensure that we live up to all those international agreements that we have signed, which we expect to be updating through international negotiations in future.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I sought to add my name to the amendments of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, but I did so a little late so it does not appear in the current Marshalled List. However, I echo wholeheartedly the sentiments he so expertly expressed and the vital importance when setting these habitat regulations—and indeed all the various worthy strategies we have been debating in the Bill—of supporting sustainable rural development.
I mentioned previously in Committee the danger of the Bill unwittingly inflicting environmental tyranny upon our landscape. If we are not very careful, we will forget that the rural environment that we all know and love and seek to preserve is a place of work for many and was created and sustained by that very same rural enterprise that we are in danger of sweeping away. The only way that our rural landscape will survive and meet the environmental challenges of this era is if it remains a viable and sustainable workplace, supporting farming and a host of diverse rural enterprises.
I know that there is a great enthusiasm among your Lordships for rewilding and large-scale—landscape-scale—interventions in the countryside. However, the Knepp estate is simply not easily replicable, in the same way that not every abandoned mine can become an Eden Project. If we do not conserve small local rural enterprise and local business and employment, our countryside will become a suburban plaything of super-rich environmentalists, supported by a second-home-owning elite able to remote access their white-collar jobs from the comfort of their converted barn while enjoying the view. Local land management will be supported by well-meaning charitable handouts, but we will create a rural life in which there are no local jobs and no affordable homes necessary for a vibrant and diverse local community.
I will also address Amendments 255, 256 and 257AA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I had not intended to, but given that he gave a shout-out to the Exe estuary Ramsar site and that that sits within the Powderham estate, I thought that I ought to offer a comment, particularly with respect to Amendment 257AA and the need for consultation. I would hate for the protections on the River Exe estuary to be in any way weakened. It is a remarkable landscape and it has been created and established that way over many centuries. It is currently managed by the Exe Estuary Management Partnership, which is a remarkable amalgam of vested interests, from the RSPB to local parish councils, and from Exeter City Council to boat clubs, rowing clubs, sailing clubs and shellfishers. It works incredibly well. Can the Minister in his reply say whether the consultation requirements that are proposed would include consultation with local enterprises such as the Exe Estuary Management Partnership, which is so important to the proper management of these very sensitive ecosystems?
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 257AA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. As the noble Baroness said, this is a very neat amendment which wraps up an awful lot of things that the Government need to pay attention to.
Further on the thought expressed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, that we could trust the Government, I draw the attention of the House and Minister to a project which seems to fly in the face of all the aims of noble Lords in this House and indeed of all these amendments. That is the £3.5 billion theme park called the London Resort, which is on the Swanscombe peninsula on the Thames estuary. The concept for this site, which is spread across 535 acres in Kent, is of a union jack-designed dome, a Disneyesque castle lit up by fireworks, and a Paramount Pictures entryway. It will be the first European development of its kind. It is inspired by Hollywood blockbusters and will have swords, sorcery, dragons and legends. There will even be a jungle where the ancient ruins of a long-extinct Mesoamerican civilisation will sprout out of the ground—which seems ironic. This is in partnership with EDF Energy—always a good one for a bit of greenwash—plus the BBC, ITV, Hollywood and all the rest of it. That is all online. It is aiming to be an attraction claiming to have net-zero emissions—which I personally do not believe. However, it will be built on a recently named SSSI.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and I thank her for getting down to brass tacks with an example. However, I am concerned about this group of amendments, which seeks yet further to strengthen adherence to the legacy of the EU habitats directive and to regulations made under it. When I was lucky enough to be a Minister much involved in negotiating on EU legislation, I used to attend Cabinet committees where, without revealing any secrets, the iniquities and inflexibilities of the habitats directive was a regular theme. The red tape and requirements, for example, to comply with protections in every relevant catchment even where a species or flora or fauna were abundant elsewhere, helped to fuel Brexit sentiment and the feeling that we should be able to do things our own way.
This Bill is an example in spades of not taking back real control and indeed doing far more than the EU has done on the environment. That troubles me, because we do not know how it will work out in practice, and of course the regulation powers in Clause 105—and indeed elsewhere in the Bill—are very wide. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on the need for proper consultation, and like him, I would appreciate some examples to enlighten us all before Report. I note that there is no impact assessment on these clauses; why is that?
I am highly doubtful about Clauses 105 and 106, since they leave us so close to the EU on habitats and, I fear, open to judicial review if we do things in a different way. Simpler, innovative ways of protecting our environmental jewels and changing things that the EU has decreed but do not work, has to be open to us. We want to get out of the straitjacket of Roman law and have a common-law, common-sense approach to protecting our exceptional habitats and indeed keeping countryside businesses vibrant, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has said.
I fear that these clauses limit our freedom too much. Moreover, nearly all the amendments in this group would make things worse and will therefore, I hope, be resisted by my noble friend the Minister. Whether you are a Brexiteer like him or not, we must all acknowledge that we have left the EU and must move forward independently.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we are all very much in the debt of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for introducing this series of amendments and he is, of course, right to be concerned about habitats, the survival of species and all those things on which he touched.
I want, however, to focus the House’s attention on one specific matter. We debated some amendments the week before last, I think, on heritage and, underlying the debates that we have had day after day, has been a recognition that our landscape is manmade or man-moulded in its entirety. The villages, towns and cities in which we live are, of course, entirely manmade. I supported the heritage amendments, introduced very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, because of my concern about buildings in general that have historic interest, and churches in particular. Nowhere else in our country is the story of our country more graphically told than in our country and town churches and, in particular, in the monuments and other artefacts that they contain.
We must get the balance right—balance has occurred time and again in these debates—because there is a real danger from one particular and specific source to the monuments in our churches. I refer to the danger of bats. Somebody may chuckle, and “bats in belfries” always raises a laugh, but this is a serious subject. I have brought it to the House’s attention before; I even introduced a Private Member’s Bill three or four years ago. But if noble Lords came with me to the wonderful church of Tattershall in Lincolnshire—one of the finest perpendicular churches in the country—they would be amazed, or would have been a few years ago, by the glory and beauty of the brasses. They have had to be covered, and in some cases hidden, because of the corrosive effect of bat droppings and urine. This is a story that can be told in many parts of the country, indeed in some thousands of our 16,000 listed grade 1 or grade 2-style churches. Nobody who cares about our country and the beauty of those buildings should dismiss this. We have to get the balance right.
I am not being so stupid or frivolous as to suggest that we try to exterminate bats as we exterminate rats. I am not doing that at all, but I am saying that there must be a real attempt to address this problem—and there is a partnership at the moment, experimental and very slow, between Natural England and English Heritage. When I raised it last time in your Lordships’ House, I had dozens of letters from all over the country. One in particular sticks in my mind, which came from somebody who worshipped regularly at the church of Abbey Dore, one of the glories of the golden valley of Herefordshire—one of the loveliest parts of our country. This particular correspondent was kneeling to receive holy communion on a Sunday morning when a bat defecated into his and the vicar’s hands. The vicar, who was a lady, was understandably distressed and so was he.
We have to wonder what we can do about this because, apart from anything else, there is a health hazard. We know—it is proven—that bats carry diseases. It is even suggested, with fairly good evidence to support it, that the pandemic under which we are still suffering at the moment originated in bats in the wet markets of China. So this is not scaremongering; this is making a serious point in, I hope, a serious way. Many of our monuments are brasses, but many are marble, which is particularly badly affected by bat defecations and bat urinations. It is not a pleasant subject, but it has to be addressed. I am very worried, because so many of our churches have been closed for so long during the pandemic—just what extra damage has been done during this period?
Again, I do not speak as a scaremonger; I am a long-standing member of the Church Monuments Society, vice-president of the Ecclesiological Society and have been warden of three churches for a total of 36 years. Like my noble friend Earl Shrewsbury when it came to shooting, I know a little bit about the subject of which I am talking. It is something that, in an Environment Bill, should be brought to your Lordships’ attention. I ask my noble friend the Minister one particular favour: perhaps the greatest expert on this subject is Professor Jean Wilson, former president of the Church Monuments Society, and I would be very grateful if my noble friend would allow me to bring her to meet him so that she can give him graphic examples and discuss this.
There are ways and means of diverting bats from churches, such as building special bat roosts or emitting certain sounds that will drive them out. There are a whole range of things that can be done. Some are being done at the moment, but this is an urgent problem. An Environment Bill passing into law which did not recognise heritage or recognise some of the glories of built heritage would be an inferior Bill. I do not question for a moment my noble friend’s interest in these things and his concerns about them, but none of us can be experts on everything, and a meeting with Professor Wilson might be extremely helpful to him. Government must have the opportunity to balance things.
I have great sympathy with many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who spoke, as he always does, with calm and quiet authority. However, from a very brief conversation that I had with him, when I told him that I would introduce this subject this afternoon, I got the impression that it was something that he had not necessarily given a great deal of thought to. I do not criticise him for that at all. He is one of the greatest experts that we have in your Lordships’ House, and we are exceptionally fortunate to have him—but this is something that I am glad to draw to his attention, and I hope that he will appreciate the fact that I am doing so. We ought to have a post-Covid survey of our churches, we ought to see how much this damage has increased, and we ought to make it a real object of Natural England and English Heritage to try to come together to address this, because much is at stake.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Cormack. I can immediately make him an offer: once full service is resumed, as I hope it will be soon, I will entertain him and Professor Wilson, and I could bring along someone from the Bat Conservation Trust to show that there is a middle way here. I do not know whether he was in his place during that last debate, when I explained my interest as a trustee of the Bat Conservation Trust. I recognise his genuine concerns, but at some stage we could probably have a good discussion over a cup of coffee and a sticky bun.
I added my name to Amendment 256 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who said everything I need to say, really—I support his sentiments entirely. I also express my concerns about Clause 106 standing part. I do not see it, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe does, being in any way a Brexit-related matter, just one of making sure that we in this country can have the best conservation and protection for our natural environment and species. Whether that was afforded in the EU, I do not know. I have not always been the greatest fan of some of its regulations, not so much because of the regulations themselves but because of the way in which they were implemented. The Bill is a fantastic chance for us to get ahead of our European neighbours on this.
I also completely endorse the views and sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on the Swanscombe proposals. I brought up this matter in your Lordships’ House a while ago and we need to take it very seriously, because it is a prime example of something that maybe does not immediately look like the most appealing of natural environments but actually has the most marvellous biodiversity. Once it is gone, it is gone—and what for? A theme park. Is that really how we want to look after our nature?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend, and I pay tribute to his work as a trustee of the Bat Conservation Trust. I press my noble friend the Minister to respond to the concerns I raised in the debate on the Amendment 234 group and ask for his confirmation that a greater balance will be achieved between the interests of bats and humans in the context of the closure of St Hilda’s Church at Ellerburn. It is extremely important that the parishioners of that and other churches know that their interests will not be subordinated to those of bats.
I associate myself with the amendments in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and his co-signees, which proposes that Clause 106 do not stand part. I associate myself with all the comments made by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose on his amendment. I need say nothing more than that I support and applaud the idea, set out in his amendments, of achieving sustainable development and a balance between different uses. In particular, I support the words of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, in support of farming and the rural economy, and I hope that this group of amendments will place on record our desire that a balance be achieved.
In addition to my question about bats in the belfry in the context of St Hilda’s Church at Ellerburn, I press my noble friend the Minister to confirm the reason for the urgency for Clause 106. I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that it was added at quite short notice and without any consultation, which is always slightly worrying. Can the Minister confirm—my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe hit the nail on the head—that this is, to a certain extent, a consequence of the EU directive on habitats being retained in UK law? Paragraph 955 on page 118 of the Explanatory Notes, which my noble friend the Minister is always keen that we read—I am one step ahead of him in this regard—says:
“The national site network of European sites provides protection for habitats designated for a particular purpose and supports delivery of international and domestic biodiversity objectives.”
I imagine that one of the main thrusts of Clause 106 is to ensure that that list is kept under review—by granting the Government the power to keep it under review—now that we have left the European Union. I urge my noble friend the Minister to continue to obtain a balance between the uses and the different interests that will be exercised in this regard.
How will the habitats regulations be applied when it comes to the planning Bill, which is coming before the House in short order?
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to which I added my name. He is right to raise the concerns that a number of us have about the intentions of the Government in removing the protections on our most valuable ecological sites and habitats. He mentioned some species that are very important to him; for me it is about the bitterns and nightingales. The Government are proposing, as the noble Lord rightly said, to change the present situation, where there has to be overriding public interest to remove protections for particular sites, to one in which, basically, local authorities have to satisfy the needs of the Bill and meet overall targets for improving nature.
They are asking them to do all that on trust, and as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, rightly said, the Government’s amendment says that the Secretary of State will decide whether there has been a reduction of those protections. There is no guarantee of consultation with independent experts. I hope the Minister will answer the direct question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on that point: will the Government guarantee to consult the independent experts? Without that, we must query their intentions.
There is a slightly broader point about consultation, one which the noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised. The current system works very well when there is proper consultation among all interested stakeholders in a given area, including the businesses, environmentalists and local action groups. It might work well in the Exe estuary; it certainly works well with us in the Thames basin, with the heath development framework. My local authority is working on that with 11 other local authorities, and we have managed to operate within the existing framework of the habitats directive. Meanwhile in Surrey—a heavily developed area—we are building the homes that are needed while protecting our most special ecological sites. The current consultation system is working, so there is no way we should give that up for a system in which there is no guarantee of consultation in future.
Secondly, on the point that the Government are asking us to take all this on trust, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that there is no impact assessment. Surprise, surprise: that is because there was no consultation and it was introduced at Report in the Commons. There is no impact assessment, but there have been multiple reviews of the legislation on the habitats directive and all of them said it should be improved, not revoked. That consultation has involved businesses as well as environmental NGOs and other stakeholders. It is a shame that the Government have not introduced the improvements asked for by those interested parties over the years, rather than going for the nuclear option of suddenly throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Thirdly, I come to what worries me most about the Government asking us to take this on trust. We have had debates about why they will not include in the Bill the state of nature targets for species abundance, and they said it was because at the moment, they cannot work out the metrics: they do not have the metrics in place and must work out what those targets are. If they must work them out, why do they think it is okay to get rid of the existing system, when we do not have those robust metrics in place? We should not be removing something that is delivering protection for our most valuable ecological sites and allowing developments in hotspots such as Surrey, if we do not have the metrics to prove that we can move from a system that is working to another which may be what the Government want, but for which we do not have the metrics.
The Government are asking us to take too much on trust at this stage. It makes me think that this is really more cover for future changes in the proposed planning Bill, through which they will sweep away protections for particular sites to allow more development in these new zoned areas. I accept that we have left Europe and we need to move ahead. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that we need to move ahead independently. I do not care whether it is independently or not; I want us to move ahead so that we better protect our environment and, at the same time, build the affordable houses we need. The existing system is working and the Government need to provide some very good answers if they are to persuade the House that it should be swept away and replaced by something unproven and not clearly argued.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we support Amendments 255, 256 and 257AA in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others, which allow the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to be amended to further new objectives in addition to, rather than in place of, existing ones. Government amendments to the Bill were, disappointingly, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said in his introduction, brought in without consultation. They introduced new Clauses 105 and 106, providing powers for the Secretary of State to amend the habitats regulations. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that taking things on trust is simply not good enough in legislation. This Government may say, “Yes, you can trust us”, but who knows what the future holds?
We have heard that Clause 105 allows Ministers, as, as the noble, Lord Krebs, said, to swap the duty on public authorities to satisfy the requirements of the nature directives with a duty to satisfy the requirements of the Bill’s targets and environmental improvement plans. However, the new objectives are simply not a substitute for those of the nature directives. They serve an entirely different purpose. as noble Lords have said. The Bill’s targets aim to ensure overall national improvement across the natural environment.
To satisfy the expected Environment Bill requirements, habitats and species in general need to be increasing. By contrast, the nature directive is all about protecting particular habitats and species and specific sites and populations. They form the first line of defence for some of our most precious habitats and species, and any powers to amend them must be designed and considered very carefully to avoid unintended consequences. Any protections must be maintained and built on, not undermined.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank all Peers for their contributions to this debate, and I share the strong feeling in this House that we need to protect our precious species and habitats, and ensure that our laws and regulations enable us to do that. This Bill creates a new ambitious domestic framework for nature. We have brought forward a suite of legally binding targets, including two for biodiversity, put environmental improvement plans on a statutory footing and created a range of powerful new policy levers, including biodiversity net gain. The Government’s intention is to capitalise on this new framework and, to enable us to do so, we must be able to update our conservation laws. So it is right that those laws should be updated to meet our new heightened ambition for nature restoration in this country, even while we must be clear—as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, emphasised— that whatever changes are brought in do not reduce existing protections for our most vulnerable sites and species.
Earlier in Committee, I brought forward a new clause to require the Government to set a further legally binding target aiming to halt the decline of nature. Ensuring that our protected sites can be restored to good condition to provide a safe haven for our most vulnerable habitats and species is a key part of this. That is why we are introducing a power to amend Part 6 of the habitats regulations. The twin climate and biodiversity crises present long-term challenges that threaten our future if left unchecked, so we need to ensure that we have the means to act, if we need to, to adapt some of our principal nature conservation rules to address these pressures.
The Government want to see a more nature-rich Britain, with a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework that drives the delivery of our ambition and reverses the decline of nature. A Green Paper in autumn this year will seek views on any proposed changes within the context of the Government’s approach to nature recovery. The paper will be informed by the habitats regulations assessment working group, led by my colleague, my noble friend Lord Benyon. Stakeholders will have the opportunity to influence how we can improve our wildlife laws to deliver on these ambitions. Noble Lords will know that the clause includes a number of safeguards that are designed to retain our existing protections. I will set them out here, as it is important to demonstrate that the Government do not treat this casually.
The power to amend Regulation 9 cannot be used before 1 February 2023, after the Government have set our biodiversity targets and reviewed the environmental improvement plan. In addition, Ministers will have to be satisfied and explain to Parliament that any change would not reduce our existing environmental protections, and Parliament will have a vote on any use of the powers. In addition, Ministers must consult before the powers are used. We have committed to consulting with the OEP, in particular, before these powers are used. Moreover, we will of course ensure that consultation on any proposals is comprehensive and appropriate to deliver our environmental ambitions.
In response to Amendment 257AA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I stress that the test that the Secretary of State must “be satisfied” that protections are not reduced is a high bar. It requires certainty on his part that there have been no reductions in protections from the existing habitats regulations. The Secretary of State will also have to demonstrate this by making a statement to this House and subjecting that statement to scrutiny. If the judgment of the Secretary of State is proven, or even thought, to be wrong, it can subsequently be challenged in court.
Looking slightly more widely, I will also address the noble Lord’s Amendments 255 and 256. I hope I have demonstrated that we want to enhance the regulatory framework to improve outcomes for nature in this country. I understand the concern that this power might substitute the protections offered by the directives with more general requirements. However, it is designed to allow requirements to specify particular protections for habitats and species. For example, we could require specific species to be strictly protected to ensure delivery of our new species abundance target. It will also provide greater clarity for public authorities on the precise requirements they are required to meet. These amendments would not allow us to reconsider existing requirements in the directives. This would deprive us of the scope potentially to clarify or improve the requirements and would therefore remove the opportunity to tailor and improve the existing legislative framework to support our domestic ambitions and international obligations.
To address some of the points raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, the UK, probably more than any other country, is playing a central role in reversing biodiversity loss—for example, in negotiating the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature, which commits world leaders to urgent action by 2030, and goes far beyond that. I encourage anyone who has not read it to do so; it is a very ambitious document, to which 86 countries have signed up so far.
At home, we are committed to protecting 30% of our land for nature and have come forward with a duty to set a legally binding target on species abundance, which we have already discussed in Committee. We are also publishing a Green Paper later this year, which will provide the first opportunity in a generation to draw together the evidence for change to update and modernise our current patchwork of wildlife legislation, which has been developed in a somewhat piecemeal manner over many decades. We can then build a coherent system of protection to ensure that our most precious habitats and species thrive across England. But time is critical. Where the evidence is clear that amending the regulations could improve the natural environment and make the processes clearer and more legally certain to help improve the condition of our sites, we will have the means of doing so.
In response to a question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, we will provide a full impact assessment of any regulations made under the powers, when bringing them forward, in line with the approach taken to delegated powers across the Bill. My understanding is that we cannot use those powers until the metrics are in place and the targets have been set.
In response to a number of noble Lords and as I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State has asked my noble friend Lord Benyon to form a small informal group to oversee consideration of how the habitats directive amendments proposed in the Bill, in relation to these regulations, might be progressed. This thinking will feed into the Green Paper planned for autumn this year. If the evidence suggests that amending the regulations can help improve the condition of our sites and contribute to our 2030 ambition, we will have the means to do so swiftly.
I add one further point to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. Her compelling speech described the habitats directive as having worked, but the reality is that it has not. We have experienced a dramatic collapse in our biodiversity over recent years and decades, despite the rules that are in place. It is wrong to hold them up as some kind of gold standard. That is not to say they are without value; they have been an extraordinarily important framework that, I suspect, has prevented even more damage being done to our nature and biodiversity, but it would be wrong if the extent of our ambition were to end with the status quo, which is not delivered. I reiterate to noble Lords my assurance that the Government will not do anything to undermine existing protections and will take a measured, inclusive and consultative approach to reform. In light of this, I beg that Clause 106 stands part of the Bill.
I recognise the importance of the proposal of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, in his Amendments 257A and 257B, to encourage sustainable development and betterment. Our farmers play an enormously important role as custodians of our natural environment—a point made well by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. They play an enormously important role and their contribution will be critical to delivering nature recovery. Nature recovery and our ambitions will not be possible without them. It is not a choice of farmers versus nature, farmers versus biodiversity or farming versus beauty. As is already happening all over the country, we have to find a way to reconcile these ambitions. We are already working on guidance to support our ambition of modernising on-farm infrastructure, a vital part of the agricultural transition to improve productivity and efficiency, and to protect the environment.
Clause 105 offers the opportunity to ensure legacy EU legislation can protect and enhance our natural environment as effectively as possible. The Green Paper, which will be published later this year, will provide an opportunity to explore these issues further. I welcome discussion with noble Lords and stakeholders as part of this.
I hope I understood the question from my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. He asked me to reconfirm that the UK will adhere to those international agreements to which we have signed up. If that is what he asked, I would be happy to do so, as any of my colleagues would.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received two requests to speak after the Minister, from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I was not intending to speak to this group of amendments, especially as I was keen to keep the Minister sweet for my tree amendments in the next group, but I have become increasingly worried and suspicious. I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and want to ask the Minister about the Government’s intentions.
Why the Government would want to put their head into this particular lions’ den mystifies me. Why were the clauses to weaken the habitat regulations introduced without consultation, late in the day in May? The habitat regulations, with protections for SACs and SPAs, are one of the jewels in the crown of EU environmental legislation. Even for Brexiteers there are such things, one of them being the habitats regulations. They give protection for the very small number of the most important priority sites and species, and there are only about 900 across the whole four nations of the UK. Quite a lot of them are in Scotland and out to sea, so it is not as if you would be falling over SPAs and SACs on every street corner and being prevented from doing anything as a result. We know that their protections are much valued by the public. They are also a bit of a coup for the UK. The UK led on negotiating these protections into EU law originally. It was the Prime Minister’s dad who played a substantial role in that, so threatening the habitats regulations is tantamount to a declaration of war. Why would the Government invite this sort of conflict? That is what is worrying me.
Clause 105 says that there will be no diminution of the habitats regulations’ requirements, but the judgment on this is left to the Minister, and, although he will consult and bring proposals to Parliament, he will to some extent mark his own homework—so noble Lords can see why I am suspicious. Speeches like that of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, stir up that suspicion even further. The government proposals could quite easily be set alongside and be complementary to the habitats regulations’ requirements. The requirement to meet the Environment Bill targets and the environmental improvement plan targets could be additional and not instead of the habitats regulations’ requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, very clearly pointed out that they are not the same requirements.
In fact, of the targets that we discussed earlier in Committee, the one that the Government are prepared to move on is on species abundance, which is about species numbers, rather than habitats or sites. So the habitats regulations’ protection for these most important habitats and sites is still required. Why do the Government want to junk one of the decent pieces of EU legislation? Is it simply because it is a European law? Is the Minister being forced into sweeping the ground for a set of planning proposals that have not been seen across government yet, let alone by your Lordships or the public?
In these circumstances, Clause 106 ought to be deleted from the Bill—it is a pig in a poke, and we do not know enough about what is going to come in its wake. Above all, I would like to hear from the Minister why the Government are stepping into this maelstrom—because it will be one—and how the changes that they plan to make could be made more transparent so that your Lordships could be enabled to decide whether or not to be suspicious. I would also like to hear why we cannot have what the Minister is proposing as an addition to the existing habitats regulations’ requirements, rather than instead of them.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am sorry that I have raised the noble Baroness’s suspicions. I have described the safeguards that are in place, and I will not repeat them because she will have heard what I said. It is wrong to imply, as I think she did, that we are scrapping the habitats directive or that it is deemed to have no value by government—that is not the case, and I hope that I made that clear in my speech. However, it is equally wrong to pretend that it is unimprovable; clearly, it is improvable and clearly we need a better or improved set of rules to deliver on the ambition that we have set ourselves. The facts make that unarguable.
However, I will go further and say that describing what the Government are doing as a “declaration of war” against nature is very hard to reconcile with an Environment Bill that has unprecedented targets. I challenge the noble Baroness to find any other country with ambitions that come even close to those that we are setting out here in relation to peat, water, waste, species, tree planting, et cetera. I challenge her to find any other country that has as ambitious an approach in relation to land-use subsidies. Indeed, I can tell her that we are the only country to have attempted, let alone achieved, the transition from the kinds of subsidies that dominate worldwide to the subsidy system that we are replacing them with, based on the condition of the delivery of public goods. Through the Bill, we are the only country to legislate to clean up our international footprint. I believe that we are introducing a world first in net gain. I could go on with many other examples. The idea that the Bill represents a declaration of war on nature is frankly absurd.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for expressing concern for the rural economy and farming, but the only question is whether, without this amendment, it is a continuing commitment. It was interesting to hear him thread together his arguments about the habitats directive and how it is safeguarded under the Bill.
I asked about the position on permitted development rights for farmers—perhaps he would like to write to me.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I apologise to the noble Duke if I did not answer all his questions. I will scan Hansard and write to him to fill in any gaps that I left.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I thank all Peers for their contributions to this very interesting and well-informed debate, and I thank the Minister for his reply. I listened very carefully to what he said, and he certainly made some encouraging noises. He reiterated that the Government wish to ensure that we do not reduce existing protections and that we want to create a more nature-rich Britain. I understood, I hope correctly, that there will be some Green Paper consultation on changes to the habitats regulations and that, in making any changes, the Secretary of State will consult the office for environmental protection. The Minister did not mention the other bodies that I listed—Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee—but I hope that the Secretary of State will also consult them. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, he also confirmed that there would be some form of impact assessment related to any proposed changes.
In spite of that, having listened to what the noble Baroness, Lady of Young of Old Scone, just said, I think that a number of us are not totally convinced and wonder why, if the Government’s intentions are so genuinely for nature, they are not prepared to make some relatively modest changes to Clause 105 and, possibly, if not remove Clause 106, certainly change its wording to give us in the Bill the reassurance that the Minister is prepared to give us at the Dispatch Box.
I will also comment on a few points that were made by various contributors to the debate. Many Peers, including the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, my noble friend Lord Devon, the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, spoke about the balance between the needs of nature and the needs of people. None of us doubts that there is a balance to be struck, and we do not know exactly what that balance is. But what we do know, without any question—I do not think anybody in this Chamber or elsewhere could deny it—is that, in the past, the balance has been in favour of human exploitation, wealth and economy, and against nature. Otherwise, if we have not got it wrong in the past, why are we living in one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world? Whatever balance we seek, it must be a balance where the needle shifts from the past towards a position on the dial where nature is given higher priority. That is what I and many other Peers who have spoken in this debate and previous debates in Committee firmly believe. I think the Minister shares that belief.
The second point is about the combination of trust, consultation and non-regression. My noble friend Lady Boycott gave a compelling example of why we should not take things on trust—why we have to look at what is happening on the ground rather than honeyed words that we might hear. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also referred to the Government’s commitment to non-regression, which the Minister did not actually repeat but I think he implied. It is not that we do not trust the Minister, but trust is something that has to be borne by future generations of Governments and many of us would like to see some tweaking of the Bill to underpin that trust.
The final point that came up in the debate, which the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, mentioned, was the question of whether this is really all about cutting red tape. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, gave us the impression that, in her view, there is a need to cut excessive bureaucracy that we have inherited from the European Union.
I will take away and reflect on what the Minister has said, but I end with one final comment, picking up on something that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, about the biodiversity metric. Yesterday, I read a very powerful criticism of the biodiversity metric by Professor Katherine Willis, a member of the Natural Capital Committee until it was disbanded. She argues that the metric, as currently developed by Defra and Natural England, is absolutely not fit for purpose. Among the many other meetings that he is now committing himself to, is the Minister prepared to meet me, Professor Willis and perhaps some other interested Members of this House to review these criticisms of the biodiversity metric and, perhaps at the same time, to discuss any changes in wording to Clauses 105 and 106? In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 257E. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 108: Local highway authorities in England to consult before felling street trees
Amendment 257E
Lord Kerslake
“(2A) Before giving any guidance, the Secretary of State must undertake detailed consultation on the impact of the guidance with local authorities.”
Lord Kerslake (CB) [V]
My Lords, I first declare my interest as the recently stood-down president of the Local Government Association. My other interests are as listed in the register. I take this opportunity to apologise that a technical problem prevented me from speaking to my Amendment 201D last week. I plan to return to this on Report.
I shall speak today to two amendments in my name. Amendments 257E and 257F seek to require the Secretary of State to understand the impact of the new duty of consult residents on the felling of street trees on councils before the duty is set out in guidance and to allow a local highways authority to create a local exemption to the duty to consult. I am very conscious that I am tabling these amendments remotely from the city of Sheffield where the origins of Clause 108 probably lie. Although not directly involved, my family home is some 15 minutes’ walk from where some of the most contentious issues arose. Suffice it to say that the tree-felling debacle in Sheffield has been a particularly unhappy episode in the life of the city. I hope that the new Labour and Green Party administration can finally lay this issue to rest.
I can therefore well understand the desire to bring in greater requirements on councils to consult before trees are felled. However, I am concerned that, in addressing an issue particularly related to the actions of one council, we do not inadvertently create a whole set of other problems for other councils. Local authorities are responsible for the management of many thousands of trees, so this will not be a small issue. Councils generally work hard to protect and maintain the natural environment, including urban trees. That is why a lot of councils have set out their long-term vision for trees and are seeking ways to increase tree-planting, for example by working with local volunteer groups to promote trees and woodlands.
Tree preservation orders provide an established route for protecting trees as part of the local environment. Trees in conservation areas also benefit from protection in law. However, decisions on the felling of trees should ultimately remain a matter of local determination. There is a risk that the new duty will be bureaucratic, and a lot of care must be taken that it does not clash with the existing duties—for example, the statutory duty to consult if street trees are to be removed as part of a housing development.
As a whole, this Bill relies significantly on secondary legislation. We have seen quite a bit of detail on proposals to be enacted by regulation in other areas such as waste, but less in this case. My amendment would require the Government to consult fully with local government and others on the impact of the guidance before it is taken forward. It may be that the Minister can provide greater assurance today on this issue, which would make such an amendment unnecessary. I do not of course intend to push my amendment to a Division. However, it is an important issue: when we put forward legislation, we should have a clear understanding of how it will impact on individual areas up and down the country.
My second amendment, Amendment 257F, would allow local authorities to set exemptions locally, in addition to the reasons for exemptions set out in the Bill. Councils must have a workable set of exemptions, so that they can protect the public from harm and act quickly to prevent the spread of pests and diseases. I am concerned that the areas for exemption on the face of the Bill may be too narrowly defined and again have unintended consequences in their implementation.
These are two practical amendments about the delivery of policy that do not challenge the intent. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is the tree group of amendments: we seem to have quite a large number of them clustered together. I declare my interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust.
My Amendment 258 would give protection to ancient woodland equivalent to that already provided for sites of special scientific interest. Ancient woodlands are at least 400 years old. By their very age, they are one of our most rich and complex communities of biodiversity, both above the ground and below in the soils and mycorrhizal communities. Many of them are also historically and socially important. They have the added value, these days, of continuing to sequester carbon every year that they continue in place. They are known as the cathedrals of the natural world. They are irreplaceable—if you plant a new wood, it will not be an ancient woodland for 400 years at least—yet over 1,200 ancient woodlands across the UK are currently under threat from development: mostly housing, roads and railways. Over the last 20 years, nearly 1,000 ancient woodlands have been permanently lost or damaged. Many of the remaining fragments are small and incredibly vulnerable to pressures from surrounding land or the built environment. They are often much loved, and trampled excessively out of love by dog walkers. They are damaged by fly-tippers and subject to drift from agricultural operations. They currently have inadequate protection, hence the 1,200 currently on the threat list.
Planners and developers are warned away from developing on ancient woodland in the National Planning Policy Framework, except in “wholly exceptional” circumstances. But the NPPF is not always observed and does not apply to major infrastructure projects—and who knows what will happen to the NPPF under planning reform? Developers and planners are supposed to consult the ancient woodland inventory in order to avoid trashing ancient woodland through their development. They can see where there is ancient woodland and try to avoid it. However, the inventory is pretty out of date, it was always geographically patchy, and it does not list a large number of small sites. Very late in the day, it is now slowly being updated.
My amendment seeks to use a well-known, long-standing and comparatively easy and effective model, the system used for protecting sites of special scientific interest, to protect ancient woodland. Planners and developers have been working with SSSI rules for 70 years. SSSI status was part of the post-war settlement introduced in 1949. It is a well-known process, so we would not be inventing new bureaucracy, simply adding gently to existing regulations. I am not saying by my proposal that ancient woodlands should meet the biodiversity standards outlined in SSSI regulations, but that all ancient woodlands entered on the ancient woodland inventory would be protected from development, would be monitored in respect of their condition and would be required to be managed to reach and maintain ecological status, under the same processes that are in place for SSSIs.
I hope the Minister will seek to assure me that the England trees action plan has lots in it to help protect ancient woodland by bringing in measures to support long-established woods—woods established before 1840—for example by bringing in schemes to increase buffering around the smaller fragments, and by the removal of inappropriate conifer overplanting on ancient woodland sites. We may see targets for ancient woodlands, but there is nothing quite like statutory protection on existing highly threatened sites, and it could be so simply achieved by my amendment to stop the rot. Otherwise, our children and their children will judge us harshly for our record of destruction of these very English cathedrals of the natural world. SSSIs were an iconic part of the post-war settlement. Let us have ancient woodland protection as an iconic part of the post-Covid settlement.
I turn to my Amendment 259 on a biosecurity standard when planting trees using public money. Tree disease resulting from importing seeds, young plants, and more mature stock from abroad has been disastrous for the health and existence of our woodlands, their biodiversity and our landscapes. There is now a pest or disease for virtually every species of native tree. Many noble Lords will remember Dutch elm disease and how dramatically it changed the nature of our landscapes. We now have oak diseases, oak processionary moth, and, of course, with ash dieback we will lose millions of ash trees and change the face of the countryside and its wildlife dramatically. The incidence of new pathogens entering the UK mirrors exactly the rise in plant imports.
Amendment 259 would require the Government to draw up and implement a biosecurity standard which would apply to all planting of trees and shrubs by Governments, their agencies and contractors. The standard would include a provision that all native tree stock would be “sourced from UK growers” and be certified as having been grown within the UK for its entire life. At the moment, stock moves backwards and forwards between the UK and Europe for stages of its rearing, with all the risks of tree disease importation. The amendment would be good for woods, trees, nature and landscapes, and would represent a major opportunity for job creation in an expanded UK tree nursery industry.
The Woodland Trust’s UK and Ireland sourced and grown assurance standards will have produced 27 million home-grown trees between 2014 and 2024. More and more nurseries are taking part. We applaud the Government’s commitment to an exponential uplift in the number of trees planted, in the interests of climate change and biodiversity, and major taxpayer money is going to be invested. So there is no time to lose. We need more than a voluntary scheme; we need a statutory basis for the standard. We need a clear future estimate of the number of trees required, so that nursery businesses can grow in the UK and get on with confidence to develop a UK-based capacity to meet the demand for safe trees.
My Amendment 260 places a duty on the Government to prepare, maintain and report on a tree strategy for England and to produce targets for the protection, restoration an expansion of trees in woodlands in England. I welcomed the Government’s recent England trees action plan, which is, to all intents and purposes, a tree strategy. But it is non-statutory and, as we all know, Governments come and go and Ministers come and go. I hope that the Government are going to be consulting on tree targets of the sort I have touched on. So, if there is to be a tree action plan and tree targets, why not just make them statutory? Can the Minister tell us why he is not keen on a statutory basis for these two issues?
I support Amendment 260A in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, to which I have put my name. We will be planting 30,000 hectares of trees a year to meet our carbon and biodiversity targets. This will be severely compromised if damage, not just by disease, but by deer in particular, is not reduced to below its current level. The standard proposed would need to be based on clear evidence on tree losses following proper assessment and to be set in a framework of landscape-scale deer management plans across multiple owners. As the noble Earl will no doubt say, part of the current problem is landowners who do not undertake control and who could wreck the efforts of others around them to control damaging pests such as deer. I therefore hope that he receives support for his amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who spoke with her typical authority and strong logic. I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly those in respect of agriculture and as chair of UK Squirrel Accord, of which more later.
I shall speak to Amendment 260A, which stands in my name, and Amendment 259 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. One plank of this Bill is afforestation. We have heard much throughout the many days of debate on the Bill about the benefits of carbon capture and the biodiversity dividend of afforestation. It is worth recalling that the level of afforestation in the United Kingdom in 1919, just after the First World War, was just 5%. Today, it is 13%, but the 2021 EU factsheet on afforestation for the EU shows that it is 37% afforested. In his very good speech at Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington pointed out that it is important to balance food production with forestry on our limited land area, but I still feel that 13% is the wrong number and needs to go up significantly. I agree with many others who have said that over the course of our many days.
The problem is that simply planting trees is not enough. Amendment 260A is about the management of the main animal damage threats, while Amendment 259 is its biosecurity analogue. The squirrel problem is very simple in that grey squirrels ring-bark trees between the ages of about 10 and 40 and suck out the sap. This damages the trees and kills many of them. UK Squirrel Accord was formed five or six years ago to try to combat this at a UK level. It comprises the four Governments, their nature agencies, the main voluntary bodies and the main commercial sector bodies. There are 40 signatories overall. It seeks to co-ordinate not only communication among those bodies so that everybody knows what is going on but the use of science in controlling squirrels, and that science will of course be able to be used for the control of deer.
The key thing at the moment is the fertility control project, which is getting to the end of its third year at the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s main laboratories just outside York. The project will do exactly what it says on the tin, which is to control the fertility of grey squirrels and therefore shrink their numbers dramatically.
This year saw a very interesting piece of academic research by the Royal Forestry Society on the level of the problem that the grey squirrel poses to afforestation. It is called An Analysis of the Cost of Grey Squirrel Damage to Woodland. It is quite a lengthy report, and I shall not give your Lordships all the details, but 777 land managers were surveyed. They said clearly that the greatest threat to them in trying to grow woodland was the grey squirrel, and 56% of them said that they were experiencing damage quotients of between 35% and 100%, with only 14% feeling that the damage quotient was less than 5%. I should say in addition that the oak tree, which is one of the most iconic species for our country, is the greatest supporter of biodiversity, with some 2,000 species supported by oak trees.
The UK Squirrel Accord and its associated voluntary bodies are extremely worried about there being safe zones for squirrels because some people do nothing. The biggest problems we see in those safe zones are patrolled by Amendment 260A. First, if you have been in receipt of a grant or if you are a public body—this is a very big problem—you must comply with the animal damage protection standard. If you are somebody else, you will be encouraged to comply with it. Given those who are interested enough to participate in the UK Squirrel Accord, I think people will obey that, but I feel that some motorway and railway agencies in particular are doing nothing at the moment and therefore have a lot of safe harbours for the squirrel.
I will say a brief word on the cost of compliance. I congratulate the National Forest Company, which has employed volunteers to help with some of its control issues, greatly reducing any costs that may be involved. I believe there is a significant number of volunteers—the UK Squirrel Accord is very much in touch with them—who would assist with that and therefore help with the cost element.
I turn briefly to Amendment 259. I feel that the science will get there for Amendment 260A in the end, and we will have sufficient scientific weapons to be able to reduce the level of grey squirrels in the country so that it will be commercially possible to plant broadleaf trees in the south of England again. We will hear about that from later speakers. The difficulty is that the disease problems associated with importing trees, particularly pest problems such as the oak processionary moth, fill me with an appalling dread. Here I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said just a moment ago. It is important to be a bit like a Chinese doctor and act before some of these problems arise, and act very strongly indeed. Both these amendments are enabling provisions for afforestation. We will not get there without them.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to follow the noble Earl. I declare an interest as an owner of a plantation on an ancient woodland site, mostly replanted in 1986. I reckon that my cumulative loss to squirrels is about 60%. There are areas of the wood where nothing has survived except the coppice regrowth, and a lot of that is damaged. I have been trying to control squirrels throughout that time. This is a really serious problem if we want to take trees seriously, particularly if we want them to be commercial. I therefore very much support Amendment 260A. It would be a really useful way to go, getting us all working together in the same direction.
Deer are important too. Those who know the border between Wiltshire and Dorset will know the troubles the RSPB has had in Garston Wood with the herd of fallow deer it had there. It got zero regeneration at the end of the day because there were just too many deer. It has now excluded them, which is not fun for the local farmers, but at least it solves the RSPB’s problem. However, generally we have to recognise our position in this ecosystem. We are very important as the top predators—the controller of what happens with herbivorous activity—and if we want particular species and kinds of things to grow, we must act on that responsibility.
We need to start to understand how regeneration is working around us. Oak regeneration does not seem to be happening at all, something that is echoed by other people in the south of England. I do not know what circumstances need to change to make the ecology right for that. These are things that, with a big ambition for forestry, we need to understand. We do not want to have to be for ever planting trees; we ought to be able to rely on a pattern of regeneration.
I am very much in favour of the direction of Amendment 259. We need to be quite strict about the diseases that we let into this country. We have a very limited degree of biodiversity when it comes to trees and shrubs; we have about 30 different ones, around one-tenth of what an ideal temperate woodland would have by way of variety—courtesy of the Ice Ages, mostly, and the opening of the Channel but also, subsequent to that, the effect that man has on restricting the natural movement of plant species. We need, as the Forestry Commission is setting out to do, to improve our genomic diversity within species as well as the number of species that we have.
While I do not at all resent the activities of the Romans and others in bringing across chestnuts, for instance, or the buddleia in my garden—a cousin to many that are spread over the south downs—I do not think additional biodiversity hurts us. We are a very impoverished ecosystem and should be able to stand some introductions—but not, please, diseases. We have seen the devastation caused by ash dieback around here in Eastbourne. With a limited ecosystem, each disease is a big hit, and we do not want to risk more of that because it will take a very long time before we have a more diverse forest population.
However, I am not convinced by Amendment 258. As I said, I own a plantation on an ancient woodland site, and an SSSI designation would be a disaster. There is so much needed to do to make it better. The point of an SSSI is that you pick on a bit of landscape that is as you wish it to be, and the focus is then on keeping it as it is and making it difficult for people to change it. A plantation on an ancient woodland site means a lot of restoration to do, and you do not need the level of bureaucracy that goes with being an SSSI. I would be happy to have something to give it greater protection against invasion by planners but not something that stops the woodland owner from making it a better wood.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this group on the subject of trees. As we know from the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the Woodland Trust, which I think she chairs, only some 7% of our woodland is in good condition. We have a very small percentage of cover—13%—as has been noted by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and ancient woodland covers roughly 2.5% of our area.
I have put my name to Amendments 260 and 283, but I shall start with some comments on Amendments 258 and 259 about ancient woodlands and SSSIs. I very much take the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in that SSSIs can be complicated areas involving many rules. One issue that we have not tackled in the Bill, and which appals me, is that—if I have this right—the target by which to get 75% of SSSIs in good condition is 2045. I am sure the Minister will put me right if I am wrong, but it is an atrocious statement of where we are and where we intend to be if that is the case. Having said that, I can say on behalf of my colleagues that we would very much welcome this sort of amendment, even if it were not drafted exactly as at present.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn from this set of amendments, so I call the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, that decisions on the felling of roadside trees should remain a matter for local determination, and I support Amendment 257E. It is right that the Secretary of State should have to consult extensively with local authorities before he issues guidance on a public consultation, as provided for in Clause 108, which adds a new section to the Highways Act 1980. There is a risk that the new duty will be too bureaucratic, and care should be taken to ensure that any guidance issued does not encourage that.
I also support the noble Lord in his Amendment 257F, which allows local authorities to decide which exemptions there should be to the new duty to consult before felling any roadside trees. Councils should be free to take quick action to protect the public from harm, including against the spread of pests and diseases. Councils do not always get these things right, however, and the Committee may remember the outcry when South Tyneside Council cut down six horse chestnut trees to prevent children gathering conkers in 2004. At the time, my noble friend Lord Callanan was MEP for the north-east, and he described the pruning as
“the nanny state gone mad.”
He said that:
“In years gone by people didn’t try to rule lives in quite the same way as this. I wonder if the council will follow this to its natural conclusion and cut down all the trees in South Tyneside so that children won’t hurt themselves climbing up them.”
I hope that any guidance issued by the Secretary of State with regard to the felling of trees would aim to discourage councils from taking such disproportionate action to prevent the citizen from each and every risk he undertakes when he passes his garden gate.
As for Amendment 258 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, I think it may be unnecessary, because ancient woodland sites worthy of protection are already included within the category of sites of special scientific interest. I cannot see any sufficient reason to create a separate category of land— ancient woodland—which, as the amendment is drafted, does not even need to be of special scientific interest to qualify for Natural England’s protection.
I am not sure that I can support Amendment 259, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I understand that they think that a policy of diversity and freedom of movement, as far as flora and fauna are concerned, could introduce unwanted tree diseases, but could it not equally prevent the importing of other tree species with genetic resistance to diseases? What would Capability Brown and Humphry Repton have achieved without the exotic cedar of Lebanon or the magnificent Wellingtonia? I confess that I am sceptical about whether the Secretary of State’s adoption of a “biosecurity standard” would actually have a positive impact on the natural environment.
I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her Amendment 260, because the tree strategy is perhaps too modest in its aim to raise England’s woodland cover from 10% to just 12% by 2050. The Conservative Party’s manifesto commitment was to plant 30,000 hectares of trees a year across the UK by 2025. It is therefore impossible to measure the extent to which the tree strategy meets the manifesto commitment, which sadly shows yet another instance where the devolved authorities will not, but should, co-operate together to agree on a single national tree strategy.
Sir William Worsley, chairman of the Forestry Commission, has said that it will work with the devolved Administrations to deliver a UK-wide step change in tree planting and establishment. I am not sure whether the England trees action plan is exactly the same as the proposed “Tree Strategy for England” from the noble Baroness, but given the number of statutory targets proposed in the Bill, the absence of one for trees seems to stand out. I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s views on this.
I also sympathise with Amendment 260A, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, my noble friends Lord Colgrain and Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. However, I am not quite sure how the standard would actually work. As the Committee is aware, deer and grey squirrels, among other species, can cause great damage to young trees. I worry that the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, now before your Lordships’ House, may become a medium for increasing restrictions on the control and culling of animals that cause damage to young trees. Does my noble friend the Minister recognise that the entire countryside and farming community would applaud him if he and my noble friend Lord Benyon were to make the sensible decision to withdraw that Bill and use the available parliamentary time to better effect?
Lastly, I will comment on Amendment 283, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and others. First, its heading refers to the burning of peat, but the text of subsection (1) refers to the burning of vegetation on peatland. As has been pointed out, the two are very different. The prohibition of the rotational burning of heather is likely to increase the burning of peat because old, dry heather is very susceptible to uncontrolled wildfires in the summer months, which are much more likely to lead to the burning of peat. My experience of assisting my father in managing moorland in Angus, in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, showed that the rotational burning of heather is hugely beneficial to biodiversity. Moorland where this is practised sustains much greater numbers of butterflies, caterpillars, hen harriers, golden plover, black game and short-eared owls, besides the obvious higher numbers of red grouse.
Could the Minister confirm his remark on 18 March, that the Government will
“continue to listen to the science and keep our policy and our minds open”?—[Official Report, 18/3/21; col. 529.]
In any event, I cannot support this amendment, which I think would have an effect that is the reverse of its mover’s intent.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I wish to speak to Amendments 259 and 260 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and to comment on Amendment 260A in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I once again state my interests, as far as this debate is concerned, as a trustee of Clinton Devon Estates and chair of the Cawood group.
Much comment has already been made in this debate about tree health, including the deep concern about biosecurity and tree diseases and the need for a tree strategy. Given the Government’s ambition to plant 30,000 hectares of trees each year to improve tree cover and for climate change mitigation, and with the perilous state of tree health in Britain, the need for a tree strategy is undeniable. As has been said already, it was a tragedy when we lost our elm trees to Dutch elm disease; what a lovely tree the elm is. Our ash trees are now at risk from ash dieback, not to mention our larch. We have in our garden an ash tree that will have to be felled soon because it is infected. A recent forecast predicted that more than 90% of ash trees will be taken out by ash dieback. Most of our fence lines—our field divisions—in Northumberland are populated by ash trees; it is the most dominant species. Many are mapped as part of stewardship audits and are the homes of little owls, for example, and many other species, so their disappearance will be a disaster both visually and environmentally, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned.
Biosecurity is so important. We must reduce our dependence on imported tree stock. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said, this does not mean that we need to ban imported trees completely, but a biosecurity plan would be able to identify the tree species that we could safely import. Outside the European Union, we can grow our own and in doing so support the rural economy. The Government should see this as yet another important opportunity.
The tree strategy should not only include our ambition to plant trees but incorporate the appropriate biosecurity measures and guidance on a species mix to minimise disease spread. I spent some time early last year in New Zealand, where large numbers of farms are being purchased and planted as part of a carbon offsetting scheme by global corporates. A lot of the planting has been indiscriminate, without due regard to soil type or carbon sequestration potential and without assessing the risk of disease. We must not make these mistakes. Identification of land quality in areas suitable for growing a specific mix of tree species to optimise long-term carbon sequestration is essential. To plant vast areas of land with tree cover—30,000 hectares a year, for example—to ease our climate change conscience and potentially become part of the carbon market without clear guidance on tree species and topography would be hugely irresponsible.
This strategy would help to reduce this risk and hopefully maximise the benefits: economic benefits; environmental benefits in terms of both carbon and biodiversity; and, importantly, public access benefits. The adequate protection of trees from a variety of predators is of course also essential, as suggested in Amendment 260A, and could be part of a tree strategy. I encourage the Minister to think about this very seriously indeed.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. I rise to commend the statements by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and her excellent moving of the amendments. She set out the case admirably. I also agree with what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and just now by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle.
I strongly believe that ancient woodlands must be protected where possible since they cannot be created except through a process that takes 400 to 500 years. This means that all developments that would remove them or parts of them or damage them must be avoided, and only in very exceptional circumstances should an ancient woodland be harmed. There should be a presumption against all developments affecting them.
The suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, in Amendment 258 is ingenious and I have some sympathy with it. However, I am not certain that classifying every ancient woodland site—I think she mentioned 1,200 of them—that has been wooded since 1600 AD as an SSSI automatically is the right answer. As I understand it—I think the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, made this point—there is nothing to prevent any woodland being classified as an SSSI right now if it meets the current criteria. I would prefer to see ancient woodlands assessed individually and, if suitable, declared—each one on its merits—an SSSI. I must also say to the noble Baroness that I do not think that it is legally possible to mass nominate dozens or even hundreds of pieces of land and to do it en masse, whatever features are on them.
As someone on the board of Natural England who has to decide on new SSSIs or extensions to them, I can tell the House that it is an incredibly detailed and exacting procedure. Officials must produce reams and reams of scientific justification and strict legal protocols must be followed, with all affected landowners entitled to make representations and appeals. If over that two or three-year process we put one foot wrong, we are straight into judicial review territory, which I should say has never happened yet. There might be an argument for simplifying the procedure—we certainly need to do that in the case of declaring new national parks or AONBs—but, for the moment, we have to follow the current law. Thus, while the noble Baroness’s amendment is ingenious, it will not stand up.
On Amendment 259, I am 100% behind her. This is not a “little Englander” new clause. For tens of thousands of years, our native fauna have survived and developed in a habitat of native British flora. Putting it simply, we cannot have red squirrels unless we have the native woods producing the nuts, fruits and seeds they normally eat. The Back from the Brink project to recover 20 species from near extinction depends on native habitats. As colleagues will know, we face an increasing threat from diseases unwittingly imported along with plants sourced from abroad. Even if we step up biosecurity now that we have left the EU, there will still be an enormous risk of bringing in destructive bugs and diseases. Nearly every single disease or bug that has destroyed our UK trees has been imported. If Xylella fastidiosa—the most dangerous and lethal plant disease in the world—gets here, God help us. It can kill 595 different plant species in 85 different botanical families. Our countryside and all our gardens would become wastelands.
No matter how good port control might be, even if it is beefed up from the current inadequate levels, we cannot stop bugs and diseases coming in. Contractors will want to source the millions of trees and bushes needed for HS2 or Highways England road schemes from the cheapest suppliers. At the moment, they are the huge Dutch growers; that is where diseases will come in. This is why a requirement on acquiring plants from UK sources is so important. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, it will also be good business for UK nurseries, which can easily supply all that would be required in due course.
We have a huge range of UK native trees, and there is no excuse not to use them: noble Lords need only look at the Woodland Trust website to see the range of native species and all the animal, bird, butterfly and other species that depend on our native flora for survival.
Finally, I want to support Amendment 260A. We will never achieve a fraction of the new woodlands that we wish to create unless we deal with rabbits, which are no longer much of a problem, and grey squirrels and deer, which are. One day in 1990, the then Minister of Agriculture, John Gummer MP, asked me, as junior Minister, to go through the MAFF research budget and root any unnecessary or wasteful research. Among others, I found a £250,000 programme researching the effect of rabbits on new woodlands schemes, which the department was funding. There was also one on controlling rabbits, which had been on the go since the 1940s, and another that was also running at £250,000 per annum and was on something that I cannot recall. I called in officials and said, “Have you found that rabbits are eating the bark of new saplings and killing them?” They looked surprised and asked if I had seen the report’s preliminary findings. Remaining remarkably calm for me in the circumstances, I pointed out that I was a countryman and did not need to spend £250,000 to discover that rabbits eat the bark of young trees.
When I spoke to officials on rabbit control, they informed me that there had been a marvellous breakthrough in that contraceptive pills were now 100% effective if eaten by the rabbits—but they could not find any way to make the rabbits eat them. I said that we did not need to spend another £250,000 researching the effects of ferrets and shotguns on rabbit populations, which had been proven to work in the past. But the problem was—and I think still is—that the department, understandably, was looking for huggy, squeezy, nice ways to control rabbits, and we have the same attitudes today dealing with grey squirrels, the destructive American tree rats. I recommend that the Minister have a word with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who ran a highly successful programme to deal with grey squirrels in Northumberland. With proper funding, that should be replicated throughout the country.
We also need to eliminate the Chinese muntjac deer. They are not a native species, either, and the damage they do to our native flora is immense. I quoted that story about rabbits, but rabbits are not the main problem now: squirrels and deer are. The point is that for over 40 or 50 years we have been researching how to deal with rabbits and have not got the solution. I wonder how many years we have been researching dealing with grey squirrels. We cannot wait another 40 years until we find a solution. This proposed new clause cleverly does not state what the solution should be, but that there has to be an animal damage protection standard. That is a clever way to tackle the problem and I commend it.
To conclude the anecdote of the never-ending Ministry of Agriculture rabbit research programme, I told that story in 1998 to the new Minister, who is now the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who chuckled and said, “Don’t worry, David, we’re not so daft as to do that.” Two weeks later, he came steaming up to me and said, “You’ll not believe this, we’re still spending £700,000 on rabbit research”. Policies and Ministers change, but academic research goes on for ever. I am told that there has been an amazing scientific breakthrough in dealing with squirrels. The current research shows that contraceptive pills for grey squirrels, I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, are apparently 100% effective—but they still cannot get the squirrels to eat them. It will take 10 more years of research, the experts will no doubt advise the Minister to pay for. Omnia mutantur nihil interit: Everything changes but nothing is lost.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. Much of what I was going to say has already been said by more eminent voices than mine, and, given that I have the lead amendment in the final group this evening, I will cut my comments quite short. I support the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to introduce a national tree strategy for England. If she does not achieve her national land-use strategy, this might very well be the next best thing. We need a consensus that is locally informed but nationally co-ordinated, so that all areas of England can grow the trees that their local topography, climate and land-use heritage recommend.
I am also fully supportive of the thoughtful Amendment 260A, which was well introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, regarding animal damage. There is simply no point in planting broad-leaf trees in the south-west of England on a commercial basis these days, as squirrels and deer execute them long before they become viable.
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 259, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. It is tragic how many of our native trees have died and are dying from imported diseases. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, will not mind me gently correcting him on one point. The giant sequoia tree—known in this country as the Wellingtonia—was imported from California many years after Capability Brown and Humphry Repton. I also support Amendment 260A, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and particularly the need, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, to try to find a way to control grey squirrels, who are certainly destructive of so many tree species in this country.
I now turn to Amendment 283 and wish to pose some questions. The amendment has been tabled by the much-respected noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I often agree with them on their amendments, but on this one I fear it is far too complex a matter to be solved simply by a ban on burning heather, bracken and other vegetation. I must make it clear that I have no interest to declare, other than that one of my children is trying in Scotland—which I think is outside the scope of this Bill—to regenerate heather in an area where there are no grouse and have not been for many decades. So far there, they have not burnt heather but are experimenting with cutting. Heather burning has become controversial, but it has been used for generations for moorland management and often in areas where there are no grouse.
I commend to noble Lords two papers that I have read recently. One is entitled “Experimental evidence for sustained carbon sequestration in fire-managed, peat moorlands”, published in Nature Geoscience in December 2018, and I quote from it:
“we quantify the effects of prescribed burning … and show that the impacts … are not as bad as is widely thought.”
The second paper I commend is the report of the Molland Moor project on Exmoor, where also there is no grouse interest. This study was co-ordinated by the Exmoor National Park Authority and brought together landowners, conservationists, farmers, ecologists and academics. The lessons learned from the project include:
“We can regenerate heather by burning on as large a scale as possible … We can control the Molinia and reduce the stands of bracken”.
The report comments that it is necessary to micromanage each small area, as there are so many variables. It continues:
“National policy makers must understand this. Molland Moor is hugely different”
from the moor next door.
In March, we debated the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021, which ban the burning without licence of heather on peat over 40 centimetres in depth, on sites of special scientific interest, in special areas of conservation and in special protection areas. In that debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, talked with local knowledge about terrible wildfires on Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, described a horrendous fire in Caithness and Sutherland in 2019. It burned for six days and emitted 700,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. I mention these fires as there is plenty of evidence that controlled burning in relatively small strips at the right time of year and in the right place creates, among other outcomes, firebreaks against wildfires. The risk of wildfires is greater on unmanaged moorland, as old heather becomes woody and tinder-dry. Wildfires do much more damage to peat and to the environment generally than controlled, limited burns, sometimes described as “cool burns”.
All I am saying, and I repeat that I have no direct interest, is that this is a complicated matter on which the science is still evolving. Therefore, to include a ban in the Bill would be inappropriate. I suggest to Ministers that they consider and gather more evidence. Clearly, there should be rules, and perhaps they should be in a future regulation, but such rules must recognise that no two areas of land are ever exactly the same. Of course, this general point may be one of the difficulties of the new environmental land management schemes.
In conclusion, I could not support Amendment 283, but I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I absolutely agree with him that no two pieces of land are exactly the same.
I support Amendment 260 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Jones, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in particular proposed subsection (3) about the percentage of native woodland and the new native woodland that is achieved by natural regeneration.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the work of Professor Simard at the University of British Columbia. When she was 20, she was put to work on commercial forestry—the process of clear-cutting large areas of old-growth forest and planting individual seedlings, pine or birch, in neat and regimented rows. The thinking was that, without any competitors, trees would grow faster, taller and stronger. Instead, they were more frequently found to be vulnerable to disease and climatic stress than the older trees, which shared their patch of soil with other plants, mosses, firs and associated lifeforms. In particular, she studied the newly planted Douglas firs—great giants which provided valuable wood to the logging companies. Ten per cent of those plants invariably got sick and died whenever nearby aspen, paper birch and cottonwood were removed. Initially, when she was 20—she is now 60—she did not know why, because the trees had plenty of light and water, more than the old trees in the crowded forest. She worked through her life and in the end revealed and became the inventor of what is known as the “wood wide web”. The forest, she wrote, is like the internet, but instead of computers linked by radio waves, the trees are connected by fungi. There are centres and satellites, with the oldest trees as the biggest communication hubs. When the piece with her theory was published in Nature in 1997, it had that title of “Wood Wide Web”, and the name has stuck.
Once the underground pattern is understood, it is easy to see how seedlings can emerge in clear ground, because they have been nurtured underground by other trees, waiting for their moment to start growing. They are being fed by the mother trees—the central hub that the saplings and seedlings spring from—with threads of different fungal species, of different colours and weights, linking them layer upon layer in the strong and complex web. When the forest is cleared and the mother trees are cut down, the forests lose their way.
Professor Simard’s discoveries have kept coming, and she now finds that trees support each other in times of stress, drought or disease, and they can communicate needs and send supplies. Since Darwin, biologists have always maintained that survival is all about the selfish gene, doing anything to get ahead in the evolutionary race. But her work tosses that on its head.
We now understand that monocultures, whether of crops, trees or any plant species, are not healthy. My plea would be that in the tree strategy we understand that all new planted forests and woods must be of multiple trees. I absolutely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, when he says we should start experimenting with trees, especially in the south of England, that will thrive in our newly warmed environment. But please do not let us spend all our tree-planting money on monocultures which end up leaving dead soil beneath that is not home to myriad mosses and animals and, in fact, ends up sequestering much less carbon than a mixed forest growth.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. I have pleasure in supporting my noble friend Lord Kinnoull on his Amendment 260A.
The Government are setting ambitious tree-planting targets in their various plans, which is to be lauded, but those targets in England are not only not being met but, frankly, are being missed by a mile. Partly, this is to do with the delay in providing the much sought-after grant details associated with ELMS. More importantly, in my view, it is to do with the two uncontrolled destroyers of trees: deer and grey squirrels. I know there is a body of opinion that views these two mistily as Bambi or Landseer’s “The Monarch of the Glen”, or Beatrix Potter’s Squirrel Nutkin. But the reality, I am sorry to say, is that these pests have assumed the characteristics of vermin and, between them, have made the planting of trees in many parts of England a completely uneconomic proposition.
There are now more deer in the wild in England than in the Middle Ages, and climate change will only help expand their number. By way of example, in west Kent, Knole Park had a very nice deer herd. The deer fences were completely obliterated in the hurricane of 1987, and those 600 deer became the foundation of the indigenous population of fallow deer in our part of Kent. I am sure the same has been true of many other deer parks. In answer to the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about SSSIs: a piece of council land that was adjacent, that was an SSSI, was also completely obliterated in that hurricane. The council has no money to replant that, and therefore it is never going to come back as the SSSI it once was. Looking forward to 2045, I do not think it is reasonable to assume it will, to be honest.
The grey squirrel population, not indigenous but an import gone feral, has exploded in number, to the detriment of the red squirrel, all bird life—eggs and chicks—and, most importantly, trees. Until the Government contribute to taking responsibility for its control, woodland owners, whether in the public or private sector, are being asked to put good money after bad. This amendment is intended to address this. The animal protection standard, as proposed, would ensure some accountability for public funds. It would ensure that land owned by the Government, local authorities, the Forestry Commission and agencies owning or operating public roads and railways would be obliged to undertake control against deer and grey squirrels. Given the parlous state of the public finances and, in particular, the demands being placed on the funds of local authorities, this amendment would necessitate proper commercial audit funds being invested in woodland, rather than have tree planting be a palliative feel-good factor.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Colgrain, and I add that deer are a problem in my part of Wiltshire. Unfortunately, they also eat my roses.
I am very glad to speak on the subject of trees, which make Britain so special, captured for eternity by John Constable and indeed by David Hockney. In my career at Defra, I legislated for and launched the farm woodland scheme, which encouraged the planting especially of native oak and beech trees on agricultural land, working with Natural England’s very professional predecessors. We also had a 33,000-hectare planting target for the Forestry Commission, which was quite forward looking, if one thinks about it.
Turning to the proposals before us, my impression is that local authorities and highways authorities are paying more and more attention to the need to conserve trees, so is there really a case for the heavy-handed and detailed regulation in Clause 109? There is a cost, not least to local authorities, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, that there should be consultation on any guidance. Assuming that there is a harm and that the case is made for new powers, I would be grateful for some idea from my noble friend the Minister of the caseload expected. How will the consultation take place? For example, will there be a paper notice on the tree or nearby lamp-post? Will there be any statutory consultees and how long will it take for approvals to be given? I would also welcome confirmation that the pruning of trees will not be affected and will indeed be encouraged. In my experience, councils do not keep up to date with this at all well. Indeed, I have personal experience of an overhanging tree that was missed two or three years ago, and which is causing a lot of trouble to adjoining houses, notably mine.
We also need to be aware that nature is not the only objective in road maintenance. The safety of pedestrians, cyclists and drivers is important too. The latest fashion for leaving roadsides uncut can be dangerous, certainly in the lanes around my home in Wiltshire. The lusty green growth on banks and hedges makes it tight for passing cars and can hide cyclists, causing accidents.
Turning to the important issue of cost-benefit, apparently the costs for the felling proposals total £81 million over 10 years if you top up the figures in annexe 41, on page 260 of the statement of impacts. I await a reply from officials as to whether it is right to tot them up in that way, but I think that the costs will be significant. Can we really justify this, or should we be finding a simpler way to deal with the problem of the cutting down of trees alongside housing?
Still on the subject of trees, I should add that I could not find an impact assessment on the forestry provisions in Clause 109 and Schedule 16, which are not being discussed. These appear to introduce very wide-ranging powers to regulate and perhaps ban imports of products such as beef, rubber or soya that might be associated with wide-scale conversion of forest. One obviously understands and supports the rationale for this—saving the rainforests—but it could have a huge impact on business and trade if done in the wrong way. The Bill’s impact assessment is of course out of date because it was prepared on 3 December 2019, and the Bill has not made as rapid progress as we would all have hoped. Is there a late addition on the forestry risk commodity proposals that could be shared with us before Report?
In closing, I recognise the significance of the Bill and my noble friend’s understandable wish to progress it, but there are many uncertainties for us to swallow because of the use of delegated powers. Even affirmative resolutions, favoured by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, do not allow amendment to a set of regulations in the light of parliamentary scrutiny, and it is very unusual for draft regulations to be withdrawn. That applies to the trees regulations as well as to several other sets.
That is why, on Wednesday, I shall be moving an amendment to sunset individual regulations after a five-year period to allow a review of such provisions in the light of a cost-benefit analysis. An amendment of this type might help to make some of us happier with the wide-ranging powers being taken here and the lack of clear plans showing how many of them will be deployed to deal with the sort of issues being raised in this group of amendments and elsewhere in the Bill.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
I support Amendments 258 to 260 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. Amendment 258 would place ancient woodlands, which are clearly defined in the amendment, on an equal footing with sites of special scientific interest. The reason why it is so important to preserve ancient woodlands from the point of view of biodiversity, climate change, heritage and health of both nature and human beings has already been well spelt out, and I shall not repeat it. I shall add only that their significance is perhaps even greater than that of sites of special scientific interest; and the reasons put forward for why such sites need to be protected are perhaps even stronger in the case of ancient woodlands.
Amendment 259 requires the Government to implement a tree-planting standard that makes biosecurity an essential consideration—in particular, protecting our native trees from diseases coming from outside the UK. This welcome amendment relates to Amendment 31, on tree health, standing in my name and debated earlier in Committee. Amendment 31 stated:
“The Secretary of State must by regulations set targets in respect of trees, including targets on the overall health of tree populations, particularly in respect of native species, research into disease-resistant varieties, and progress in planting disease-resistant varieties.”
Sadly, as has been said many times this evening, the trees in this country are in a terrible state. A few years ago, as we know, the magnificent English elm, such a feature of our landscape when some of us were young, was completely wiped out by Dutch elm disease. Most recently, ash dieback has swept the whole country, from the east coast to the west coast, in just a few years, leaving a trail of thin, leafless branches. Our oaks are suffering from a blight, and so are our chestnuts.
The health of our trees must be a fundamental consideration in assessing the overall health of our environment. Ash dieback originated in Asia, where it has little impact on the local species, and has moved steadily west where, sadly, it has a deadly impact on native ash. Coming, I believe, from trees imported from Holland to East Anglia as recently as 2012, it has left a terrible trail, which breaks one’s heart to see, as I see it in west Wales.
In a highly globalised world, our native trees, like the human population, are increasingly vulnerable and susceptible to diseases, which may do little harm elsewhere but which are killers here. The need for tight biosecurity regulations and a clear standard of what is required is obvious. This requires an overall strategy, involving not just government but other public authorities, and the amendment sets that out clearly. I very strongly support it.
I also strongly support Amendment 260, which requires the Government to have a tree-planting strategy that contains targets for the protection, restoration and expansion of trees and woodland in England. This chimes in well, but in much more valuable detail, with an earlier amendment in my name, Amendment 12, on the planting of new trees. There I set out the reasons why we need to plant new trees—reasons mainly to do with climate change, which I shall not repeat here. The amendment before us requires the Government to have targets. Where I believe my earlier amendment has something to add to the present one is that that Amendment 12 said
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement containing information about progress towards meeting any targets set under subsection (3)(e) on an annual basis after any initial target is set (in addition to the requirements under section 5).”
Climate change is a threat of such urgency now that it is not adequate just to have targets. We need an annual report to Parliament on the progress being made to meet those targets, and this my earlier amendments sought to ensure. However, this present amendment is very welcome indeed because it sets out in detail what such a target should include, and I strongly support it.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord. I support the general message conveyed by most of the amendments in this group, but I single out for special mention Amendments 258 and 260 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and Amendment 260A in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull.
Amendment 258 seeks to place ancient woodlands on an equal footing with sites of special scientific interest. I have to confess that it was not until I was introduced to them when I was sitting on the HS2 committee that I became truly aware of what ancient woodlands are and how much they contribute to the biodiversity of our countryside. However, that introduction made a very real impression on me, as the evidence drew my attention to what was being lost as ancient woodlands—fortunately in very small sections in my case—were being given up to make way for the railway: a matter that I know is of great concern to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I have taken a close interest in them ever since, whenever I can get out into the countryside.
As I have said on several previous occasions, ancient woodlands are not just about trees; they are, in short, havens of biodiversity of a kind that has been built up over centuries. It is all too easy to overlook what is going on at ground level. As the years go by, leaves fall, the ground lies undisturbed and a carpet is built up which gathers together a huge variety of wildlife within the soil and on its surface. There is much else above ground level, too, in the trees themselves, in that they provide food and shelter for other creatures. The older they are, the richer the habitat becomes. You cannot create, or indeed recreate, such an environment overnight, or even in a few decades. That is why we must redouble our efforts to preserve what remains of this part of our heritage as much as we can.
Of course, many sites of special scientific interest contain ancient woodlands. Indeed, in their case it is the woodlands themselves and the biodiversity that goes with them that justifies their listing in such sites. However, size matters when it comes to the listing of SSSIs and, indeed, the other elements of diversity. Many areas of ancient woodland are too small to justify that kind of listing. However, I wonder whether that is a reason for discarding the idea that they are entitled to special protection. It may be that to protect every single one of them in the kind of scheme that is referred to in this amendment goes a little too far, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggested. However, I would be very reluctant to rely simply on SSSIs as a means of protecting ancient woodlands. More needs to be done, which is why I support the thinking behind this amendment.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. He invariably has something interesting to say and, normally, when I find it is not interesting, it is about legal matters, but that is because I cannot understand what he is saying. That is my fault. I refer to my interests in the register, particularly in forestry. I begin by underlining my support for trees, tree planting and ancient woodlands for all the obvious, well-understood and generally accepted reasons.
I particularly underscore my support for the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about pests and squirrels because, if they are not kept under control, tree planting is very difficult. I equally support his remarks and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about stock and phytosanitary protection. It is important to point out that this is not simply a matter of having legislation in place—you need an Administration that can act when appropriate. While we were members of the EU, the phytosanitary rules would have enabled us to put stipulations in place about importing foreign stock if we were concerned about health. It did not happen because the relevant part of Defra did not do anything about it.
My focus this evening is on trees and forestry strategy, in particular the mechanics of delivering whatever detailed strategy may be put in place, rather than the ostensible purpose of the strategy itself. In many ways, this is more difficult to get right than working out the specific target to achieve. In the case of forestry, we are looking for a considerable increase in the area of the country’s land surface growing trees. Trees, however—this point was very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle—come in different types and configurations. They can be planted in large blocks, known as forests, in smaller parcels, normally known as woods, or individually. The issues they pose, as a number of speakers have said, are slightly different in urban and rural locations. These nuances need careful thought and to be built into the policy.
On top of this, increased tree planting impinges on other land uses and livelihoods either based directly on it or derived at arm’s length from it. For example, in the Lake District, which I know well, the visitor economy is dependent on the open fells. If such land is planted up, regardless of any other consideration, it may have a serious impact on other apparently superficially separate sectors of the economy. Similarly, obviously, most tree planting, which costs money, is likely to take place on land currently in agriculture. How is this migration going to be effected? Is it by making tree planting more attractive or farming less so? We know that traditional farming is facing a gloomy outlook, which is frightening many farming families. Perhaps we may see some development of the EU system of cross-compliance.
In this country, certainly since the town and country planning system came into place, rural Britain has been seen as what I might describe as the natural location for agricultural forestry. Now public policy appears to be concluding that we need less farming and more forestry in rural Britain; they are no longer as evenly balanced as they used to be. In the 18th and 19th centuries in England, the enclosure movement was precipitated by a change in farming practice responding to the increased demand for food brought about by the Industrial Revolution. These changes, which introduced a new economic and social dynamic into rural Britain, seem somewhat similar to those we are considering in this particular push for forestry and, probably more widely, in the approach to the environment.
The changes I have referred to caused, in turn, a real revolution in rural livelihoods, rural land use, rural communities and rural land ownership. That is widely recognised and understood. Are these things that the Government are happy to bring about, either as a result of these policies or as a necessary precondition of their policies achieving what they are setting out to do? In north-east Cumbria, small farmers who now see no future for their current activities are selling out to large forestry companies. Do the Government support this, do they think it is a bad development or are they more or less indifferent to it, considering it a matter solely for the invisible hand of the market?
It seems to me that the lesson of the enclosure movements, and then the system of town and country planning, is that changes in land use can have very far-reaching changes in rural Britain. These go far beyond the specific change itself. In this context, the question I pose to the Government is: in their policy for increased tree planting and forestry, do they consider the inherent and inevitable collateral consequences for the wider rural economy to be an integral part of tree and forestry strategy, meriting at least as much consideration as the planting of the trees themselves?
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, it is a challenge to follow a contribution as knowledgeable as that which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular as an owner of both ancient and not-so-ancient woodland. I will speak to Amendments 258, 259 and 260, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. While understanding their worthy intention, I oppose them, but I give my full support to Amendment 260A of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, as will become clear.
My reasons for opposing Amendments 258, 259 and 260 are as follows. With regard to Amendment 258, I agree with almost every word that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. There is much misunderstanding of the words “ancient woodland”. A great many woods listed as “ancient woodland” are not ancient at all, although they may occupy the site of a wood that once met that description.
In England, during the first half of the last century, many of these woods were clear-felled, principally due to the exigencies of war. After the Second World War, many farmers and landowners who were, like others, desperately short of cash, sold or leased their woods to the Forestry Commission, which then planted them according to the norms of the time, which often meant Corsican pine, spruce and similar species, without sufficient regard for their suitability or the location. Much of that woodland has been felled in its turn, and new trees, often native species, have been planted.
All I am saying is that we should be careful about how we envisage ancient woodlands. They are often anything but ancient and often distinctly commercial, so placing them on the same level as an SSSI is not always appropriate and could be distinctly counter- productive if they are to be managed commercially.
Amendment 259 is much more worthy of support, with its objective of preventing the importation of diseases, but I cannot accept a situation where native broad-leaved trees and shrubs are sourced only from UK growers and grown within the UK for their entire life. I will give two reasons. First, with our huge tree-planting ambitions—in particular in urban planting, where more mature trees are required—domestically sourced trees are unlikely to be able to fulfil this requirement for many years, as has already been said by the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
Secondly, surely science and gene editing will steadily improve the safety of imports? With the effects of climate change, we need to look at importing trees grown in more southerly climates, as mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. Obviously, we need to stringently inspect and test such imports, but please do not forget that ash dieback was spread by wind, not soil.
I was hoping to hear from the proposers of Amendment 260 who would do all the work, and with what resources. Setting out the vision, objectives and policies is pretty simple, but that cannot be said of assembling the underlying information to see what targets are achieved. No doubt it is fine in the case of woodland and forestry owned by the Forestry Commission and other institutional owners such as the Woodland Trust, but think of the burden that this imposes on private owners without access to the generous taxpayer or charitable or institutional funding. Some of the information required may also be of dubious value. I hate to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, but there is a problem in proposed new subsection 3(c) on woodland creation achieved from natural regeneration. Where I live, the natural regeneration at present is almost exclusively ash, which is unlikely to survive Chalara.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is very difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, with his expertise and knowledge—much as previous speakers. I share his love of the Chilterns, not only because of the hanging beech woods, where I have often wandered around looking at the orchids, butterflies and other biodiversity, but because, about four generations ago, my family sold furniture that had been made from the beech in those Chiltern woods.
I speak, first, to Amendment 258. I was initially attracted to this because, as we have heard, the importance of ancient woodland is well understood. I was fascinated to hear the epiphany of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, following his excellent chairmanship of the HS2 committee—I am glad that something good has come out of HS2 for once—which was almost matched by the Damascene conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in his previous incarnation as a purveyor of peat. However, to me, this is about protection; whether it is a SSSI or ancient woodland, this is about whether we can protect them adequately.
As they say on news programmes, “While we’ve been on air,” though I think it was probably earlier today, I have discovered that 553 acres of privately owned woodland—I do not know if it is ancient woodland—is going to be taken, it is reported, by Center Parcs to open a new site. This area is, I think, a SSSI; it has Schedule 1 breeding birds such as honey buzzard, goshawk, firecrest, hobby and crossbill nesting there, as well as threatened species such as redstart, nightjar and lesser spotted woodpecker. I do not know how protected this will be—we heard in the previous debate from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about Swanscombe peninsula and the threats there. If the designation means protection, that is obviously a good thing, but if it is just another designation that does not help, is it necessary? I have listened to the other arguments and I am not sure whether this is necessary. Normally, when it comes to woodland issues, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has a lot going for her, so I am tempted by her amendment.
I move on to Amendment 259. Again, we have talked a lot about biosecurity. The idea that this should be British trees initially appeals. However, the arguments about climate change and the amount of capacity that we have with British growers—as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and others mentioned—are also compelling. The problem is not so much that they are being imported and grown elsewhere but in the actual word “biosecurity”; it is about what they may bring with them. One thing that is a problem is whether we have enough inspections for such things. There are a lot of bad things that are brought in—not just viruses or plant diseases but parasites as well. I am sure that many noble Lords know about the Obama worm, Obama nungara, which is a South American species that is very bad for invertebrates that are very helpful to horticulture. They came over, there are large numbers in France and we have now found them here. They have been coming in the soil; they are not necessarily visible. I do not know what the answer is—perhaps quarantine or something else—but it is too simplistic, I fear, to say that we must restrict ourselves to British-grown trees, however inviting that might seem.
Finally, I would like to say a few things about Amendment 260A. I agree entirely about the problem of grey squirrels. My noble friend Lord Blencathra mentioned muntjac, which not only have been a terrible curse for my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s roses—we suffer from that in our own suburban garden here in Uxbridge—but have been devastating the habitat of many birds. I think they are attributed to the decline of the nightingale, certainly in Norfolk and elsewhere, because they are eating that habitat.
I have a solution, possibly for the grey squirrels and the muntjac—and that other invasive species we are not talking about because it has nothing to do with trees, which is the signal crayfish—and that is that they are all excellent to eat. If we could just get the muntjac and grey squirrel shot, but not with lead, we could probably do a good service. Muntjac is particularly tasty.
I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who talked about plastic tree guards. There are now surveys looking at jute and wool tree guards, which may be the answer to that. Certainly, there is a problem. Some people will say that too many deer is a reason to introduce lynx—I am not sure whether that would be very popular in Sussex, or elsewhere, but I have a great deal of sympathy with Amendment 260A. I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say, and I will not detain the Committee any longer.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to three amendments: Amendments 259 and 260 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and Amendment 260A, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I have listened carefully to this very interesting debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, put his finger on it when he talked about the need for commercial forestry in this country. I have spoken a lot in the past about forestry. We are not good foresters in this country—we have the ideal climate for growing trees, and we do grow trees, but we are not good foresters, and that is why our timber is in the bad condition that it is. In Amendment 260, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, proposes that the Government introduce a tree strategy. That will be hugely important because whenever we have mentioned trees recently my noble friend Lord Goldsmith has said, “Well, there is plenty of room beside riverbanks and stream-banks and unfarmed bits of land.” Yes, there is, but those are amenity trees and nothing to do with commercial woodland. We are the number two world importer of timber, which is a very bad statistic for the UK to have.
The problem with the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for commercial woodland was rightly exposed by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who said that commercial woodland is unprofitable: nobody is growing hardwood timber commercially any more. You cannot, because of pests and diseases. That is why Amendment 260A is so important, as is Amendment 259, which deals with biodiversity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said that there are pests and diseases for every native hardwood. If that is the case, and the Government’s strategy is what it is, commercial hardwoods have seen their day in this country. That is a terrible thing to have to say but, sadly, it is the truth. Not only do we need a tree strategy; for that we need a land strategy, because 20% of agricultural land will come out of production to go into forestry and biodiversity. Where is it going to happen? We do not know; this is all a bit pie in the sky from the Government.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester [V]
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to speak in the same debate as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, from whose wisdom, when I was a very young bishop some 20 years ago, I learned a great deal. I also an honour to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who has reminded us, powerfully, of the crucial role that commercial forestry and good moorland management should be enabled to play. Hence, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my interests as set out in the register, specifically my deputy chairmanship of the Church Commissioners, which the noble and right reverend Lord famously once took to court. We are one of the foremost owners of sustainable commercial forestry in the UK and beyond.
I speak, tonight, in support of Amendment 260. I also believe that Amendments 258, 259 and 283 are worthy of further consideration, but note the arguments of noble Lords who believe more work needs to be done to get the balance right. On Amendment 260, we will not achieve the recovery in levels of forestation that our country needs unless we have clear national targets, broken down into detail, as set out here. Moreover, a tree strategy will set those targets in the context of a wider narrative and allow major landowners, such as the Church Commissioners for England, to best play our part in its delivery. As a glance at the Hansard from another place will confirm to noble Lords, my colleague the Second Church Estates Commissioner, Andrew Selous MP, regularly responds there to Members’ questions about the work of the commissioners on forestry, tree and land management best practice among our many tenants. Commissioners have also met regularly with the Minister and his colleagues, and we look forward to a continued dialogue regarding both our domestic and international forestry activities.
This country needs a tree strategy; trees are not a problem to be solved, but a core part of our heritage and our future. Our aspiration is that a tree strategy will help us to plant the right species of trees in the right places. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has reminded us, it is not simply a matter of increasing out total forest cover. Planting trees on high-quality arable land, or where a large number of visitors come to enjoy open vistas, simply to meet a target would be retrograde. However, as well as adding to the total number of trees, planting them where they can assist with managing water levels, prevent flooding or help maintain soil richness, will have a huge positive impact.
To save your Lordships’ time, I have not requested to speak at this stage in support of the later group of amendments that focus on indigenous communities and forestry products imported from overseas. However, I endorse them strongly, and I can assure noble Lords that these are matters that the Church Commissioners take into full account with regard to our own overseas assets. Indeed, we are already proactively engaging with Governments around the world to look at the good stewardship of our global natural assets and protect the rights of indigenous communities.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has withdrawn, so the next speaker is the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham.
Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendments 258, 259 and 260, and I declare my non-pecuniary interests. I was, many years ago, president of the Arboricultural Association, and I am currently an honorary fellow. What a terrific debate this has been so far, with thoughtful, knowledgeable and concerned contributions. There have been 23 Back Bench speakers, and I am number 23, so I am sure you will appreciate that I do not have a huge canvas unworked to paint.
On Amendment 258, ancient woodlands are so precious. Their value and what they contribute to our environment and enjoyment have been so well explained that I need not dwell on it again. I simply remind us all of two things. First, they can be seen as a touchstone—a bellwether for how much we really value them and, by association, our environment. Secondly, we should be judged by how seriously we take steps to protect them from damage and destruction by developments of all kinds. The biggest culprit by far at the moment is HS2, which I have spoken about before. There are 108 sites endangered by this project, 32 of them in phase 1. The photographs of the destruction already done are heart-breaking. We must surely do better.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, this varied group had attracted some 25 speakers, but some have withdrawn due to the timing. The main debate has been about trees, not some of the other amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, set out extremely well the reasons for Amendments 257E and 257F and the dramatic effect that the guidance that the Secretary of State provides could have on the local authorities. It is therefore not only advisable but imperative that local authorities are consulted on the likely impact on their activities and service delivery. We have all heard of the outrage in Sheffield over the felling of trees without consultation. Local authorities need the power to act to prevent the spread of disease in trees, but local people should be consulted and understand the reasons for local authority actions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, introduced Amendment 258 on the protection of ancient woodland, Amendment 259 on introducing biodiversity standards when planting trees, and Amendment 260 on the duty to prepare a tree strategy for England. She is extremely knowledgeable on the subject of woodlands and trees, and we support her amendments. Other Peers also spoke in favour of these three amendments to protect and expand the planting of trees. We support placing ancient woodland on the same basis as SSSIs, but on an individual basis. Some 1,200 ancient woodlands are on the at-risk register and in need of protection, so something has to be done.
Importing trees runs the risk of introducing pests and diseases into our already depleted woodlands. Growing our own trees has been discussed previously during the round of statutory instruments introduced to assist our passage from the EU. Growing our own is one way to limit the damage from pests. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has supported this.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, introduced Amendment 260A on the risks that deer and grey squirrels present to newly planted and already established trees. The majority of speakers supported the amendment. Grey squirrels in particular are typical of a non-native invasive species that has been imported from abroad, and they have decimated our own red squirrel population almost to the point of extinction. Red squirrels are beginning to make a comeback in selected protected environments—the Isle of Wight and Brownsea Island are two such—but there is a long way to go for them to reach the numbers seen in previous decades.
Deforestation has decreased overall tree cover over the decades to an appallingly low level of 13%. The damage caused by grey squirrels is enormous. The UK Squirrel Accord is working to tackle the problem, but the motorway and railway agencies are not complying. Could the Minister encourage them to comply? Unless a robust standard is set for the protection of newly planted trees from animal damage, I fear the Government are not likely to see many of the trees they plants reach maturity.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has lost 60% of his replanted ancient woodland to grey squirrel damage, and my noble friend Lord Teverson has championed biodiversity, the protection of trees and increased planting. Only 7% of our landscape is covered with trees, and only 2% is ancient woodland. A tree strategy and action plan to protect and invest in trees, based on science, is essential.
Amendment 283, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Teverson would ban the rotational burning of vegetation on upland peat moors. I have listened to the arguments that this will protect the peat, but I am not convinced. In March, we debated the effect of wildfires on peat moors, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, reminded us. There are frequent wildfires on Bodmin, Dartmoor and Exmoor peat moors. Some are accidental; some are set deliberately. Wildfires are not confined to the West Country; the upland moors also suffer from them.
The managed burning of a heather moor is carried out under controlled conditions and by a patch at a time. It is a cool burn, and the underlying peat does not ignite. This is not the case with wildfires, which can rage out of control for days, with the underlying peat catching fire and spreading underground over significant distances, causing considerable damage.
Managed burning is better than out-of-control wildfires—a view supported by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. The Government have trailed their peat strategy, which is due to be published this year. However, it is a long time coming. I would rather see amendments to the way we produce and use our peat, both commercially and on uplands, dealt with under this strategy and not piecemeal, as with this amendment.
Peat takes hundreds of years to form but can be depleted very quickly. My husband recently went to the local garden centre to buy compost. He asked the owner which were the peat-free bags—there was only one variety. He stood next to a woman who was instructing her husband to buy several bags of compost with the words, “Make sure it has a very high peat content”.
The message about the finite quantity of peat is not getting through. Can the Minister say when the peat strategy for the country will be published? It will affect not only the upland peat bogs but the lowland peat moors, which are currently being exploited under licence for the benefit of the English country garden. I urge the Minister to consider Amendment 283, along with the peat strategy, when that eventually appears.
Peatland restoration is taking place in a variety of types of peatland. Restoration on the levels referred to by my noble friend Lord Teverson is very impressive: it has created new habitats and restored the water levels. On the next moor, however, peat is still being extracted. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the many and varied arguments put forward in this very long debate.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, for moving his amendments, which now seems quite a long time ago. But I am sure he has listened with interest to the rest of the debate.
I am speaking in support of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, to which I have added my name, and to my Amendment 283 on the prohibition on burning peat. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for adding their names.
My noble friend Lady Young has made an excellent case for the need for a tree strategy to be included in the Bill. It is interesting that the only mention of trees in the Bill is about felling rather than planting trees. Obviously, the Government’s announcement of the England tree action plan is welcome, as is the commitment to treble woodland creation rates to meet a target of planting 30,000 hectares per year by the end of this Parliament. But I echo my noble friend’s concern that the plan lacks the clarity and targets needed to ensure an effective implementation. As noble Lords will be all too aware, government targets for tree planting have come and gone before and, at last count, we were still way behind the Government’s earlier target to plant 11 million trees.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this important topic. The best time to plant a tree was, of course, years ago; the second-best time is now, so I am glad that we have committed to doing so at scale. The Government committed in May through our new England Trees Action Plan to action in this Parliament to support unprecedented levels of tree planting to deliver the many benefits that trees can provide. The action plan was widely and warmly welcomed by NGOs, conservation groups and stakeholders. This Bill includes measures which will update our tree protection laws, including by increasing fines and attaching restocking orders to land rather than landowners, who could sell their land without restocking trees.
I want to start by addressing Amendment 260. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for championing trees through her support for the Woodland Trust. I have enjoyed talking to her on many occasions about this issue in recent months. I share her ambition to see more trees planted and our existing woodlands protected. It has been positive to see such support from charities and the public for our plans and ambitions, as these ambitions can be delivered only with the support of the country.
That is why the Government committed to at least trebling tree-planting rates in England over this Parliament and to consulting on a new long-term tree target under the Environment Bill. We have committed in this Bill to producing regular statutory environmental improvement plans, beginning with our 25-year environment plan. This will regularly update our natural environment policies, including for trees. Therefore, we do not need another separate, individual strategy for trees; we have a strategy for trees.
Amendment 258 proposes an amendment to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, introducing an additional differentiation between sites of special scientific interest and ancient woodland. Ancient woodlands established before 1600 are some of our most precious habitats and many are already designated under the SSSI series. The definition of ancient woodland is also already clearly established in the Forestry Commission and Natural England standing advice. However, we need to update the ancient woodlands inventory to map where they are and we are doing so, as the noble Baroness knows, alongside the Woodland Trust. Our England Trees Action Plan includes new steps to protect and restore ancient woodlands through management and restoration. Our new England woodland creation offer will fund landowners to buffer and expand ancient woodland sites by planting native broadleaf woodland. We will update the keepers of time policy on management of ancient woodland, veteran trees and other semi-natural woodlands, and we are also expanding the ancient woodland inventory to better map those ancient woodlands. The action plan announced our intention to establish a new category of long-established woodland, in situ since 1840. The Government will consult on the protections that these critical woodlands are afforded in the planning system. I also confirm that our upcoming planning reforms will not weaken our strong protections for trees but rather enhance them, with many more trees planted as well. As such, I reassure the noble Baroness that we are taking significant steps to protect and restore ancient woodlands. That said, I will look closely at her proposal. As she said, ancient woodlands are irreplaceable and need our maximum protection.
Turning to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 259, I also assure her of our commitment to increasing UK biosecurity. I know that I do not need to lecture your Lordships’ House about the devastating impact of ash dieback or Dutch elm disease, or the importance of vigilance against other threatening diseases. The Government already support the plant health management standard and certification scheme, which is an independent, industry-backed biosecurity standard available to all market sectors and it covers international supply chains.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from two noble Lords. First, I call the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have rightly heard much about the importance of protecting ancient woodland in Britain for global reasons. Is it not as important, and perhaps more urgent, to halt and prevent the loss of tropical rainforests, such as the Amazon? Has my noble friend considered the proposals that I made at Second Reading for the relief of national debt, both interest and capital repayment, equal to a multiple—possibly a high multiple—of the commercial value of the rainforest that we want to protect? Only if the rainforest were interfered with would the debt be reinstated.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. We will talk a bit about similar issues in the next debate on due diligence, but it is certainly the case that, if we want forested countries to protect what they have, implement the laws that are in place and help us to turn the tide on deforestation, there will need to be an incentive. In some part, that means financial transfer from other countries. The UK is leading efforts, with the development of a new programme called LEAF, which has already raised in excess of a £1 billion, in theory at least. We hope to continue to attract partners from the private sector and Governments, with a view to working with the main forested nations to protect the forest that they have. This is just one of many initiatives; we are working on a number of initiatives between now and COP, with a view to making a meaningful intervention, we hope, at that event.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am conscious of the hour. I thank the Minister for the initiatives that he spoke of on ancient woodland but ask that, when he continues to look at ancient woodland protection, he also raises the effectiveness of the implementation of the current planning guidance with the MHCLG, because it is clear that, if we have 1,200 cases of ancient woodlands at risk, the implementation simply cannot be working. I would be grateful if he would agree to raise that with the MHCLG and, while he is there, he could ask them about the planning reforms and get some guarantee that they will not reduce the level of protection for ancient woodland below the current NPPF and, preferably, improve it.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I have had commitments from the MHCLG that our protections for trees will be improved and enhanced, and will not move backwards, but I will continue to press home that case. I am seeing the Secretary of State in a matter of days to talk about this and a number of other issues, and I will raise the points that the noble Baroness raised in her speech today.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB) [V]
I am also sorry to delay matters. I thank the Minister for his response, but I am afraid he did not address my point about refuges and safe areas caused by governmental bodies not controlling the problems of squirrels and deer. They were listed in subsection (3) of my proposed new clause. To save time, I wonder whether he might add to his lengthy list of things a meeting to discuss that, because it is a very serious area. If we do not address that problem successfully, as I and many others pointed out, we will not be allowed to do the forestation we need.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am very happy to meet and will be in touch.
Lord Kerslake (CB) [V]
My Lords, I first thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Bakewell and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for their comments. I also welcome the Minister’s response on the consultation. I am concerned about the need to get the practicalities right and, in particular, to have a workable model. That will require the extensive involvement of local government before it is finalised.
On exemptions, I still feel that the Bill is too narrowly drawn to cover eventualities when local authorities will need to move quickly. I wonder if that can be entirely covered by the Bill, in any event. I recognise the risks that local authorities will abuse such a power but, nevertheless, we have not quite got it right yet. Recognising the hour, though, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 260B. Anyone who wishes to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 109: Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity
Amendment 260B
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
“(ba) paragraph 3;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would change the parliamentary procedure for making regulations to specify requirements for the due diligence system to the affirmative procedure.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak principally to my Amendments 260B, 260C, 265B and 265C. Bearing in mind the hour, I will try to make this brief, but they are on important issues.
In the 25-year environment plan, the UK Government articulated an ambitious set of goals and actions for the UK, including the commitment that
“our consumption and impact on natural capital are sustainable, at home and overseas.”
I believe that the Environment Bill should reflect this commitment but, sadly, I do not think it adequately does. The goals and actions must be strengthened to tackle the growing problems caused by deforestation and drive action to significantly reduce our global footprint.
Due diligence legislation is only part of the comprehensive approach that will be needed to deliver deforestation-free supply chains and significantly reduce global footprint impacts more broadly. A mandatory due diligence framework should formalise and obligate responsible practices throughout UK market-related supply chains and finance to ensure comprehensive accountability and help prevent deforestation and other global environmental damage.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group: Amendments 263 and 265. I thoroughly welcome the Government’s approach in this area. We have a responsibility as the consumers of forest products to make sure that they are sourced in a way we are comfortable with. To keep blindly consuming, say, palm oil without regard to the consequences is to take less than our responsibility for what is happening. It is our demand that is driving the production, and it is therefore our responsibility. We need to find ways in which we can exercise that responsibility without encroaching on the national rights of the people doing the producing. For instance, in the case of palm oil, I think it is entirely reasonable to ask that it is produced without further encroachment on virgin forest. My Amendment 263 suggests that we should also include peatlands and wetlands within that definition of “forest”. Both of these are environments that palm oil plantations can encroach on. They are both environments of great ecological significance, and we should therefore have as much interest in them as we do in a forest.
In order to know what is going on in response to our demand for palm oil, we need some information. The obvious information we have access to is satellite records, but they are not much use unless you can tie them to what is happening on the ground. We will need some form of baseline—I hope very much that COP 26 may provide that—or a map of where things are so that change can be measured from that. We need to be conscious of the fact that it is not necessarily the big boys doing the encroaching. It can be small farmers, subsistence farmers or people working out a small living who make the first cut, and then the big boys come in behind them, reward them and move them on to the next patch of virgin forest. What we need to watch is not some small detail but the overall effect, so that we know that palm oil sourced from a particular area or country has been done so ethically.
Amendment 265 deals with how we might make that work. I am suggesting that we should be able to give our approval to an organisation such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil so that we can use it as an internationally recognised collaborative method of telling us which sources of palm oil are ethical. Then we should build some reward into that system. I am sure we would come up against the WTO again, but, as we have discussed before this evening, we need the WTO to become responsive to environmental imperatives. If a country is producing ethically farmed palm oil, we should be able to reward it with a premium, which should then go back into the process of making sure that palm oil is ethical and supporting the people producing it on those terms, so that we get a virtuous circle.
Those are my two suggestions for how we might make things more effective than they appear to be in the Bill. It is important that we look for a system that does not just deal with the import of the primary product but enables us to get at imports that contain substantial amounts of the product; otherwise, we just disadvantage our own producers. Working through something like a round table or an import tariff scheme would allow us to do that.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 264A. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, was very keen to speak on this amendment, to which he added his name, but for technical reasons was unable to do so.
I congratulate the Government on their attempt to tackle the alarming rate of deforestation. They plan to do this by prohibiting the use of certain commodities associated with illegal—I emphasise the word—deforestation and by requiring large companies to undertake due diligence and report on their activities in the relevant areas. I emphasise the word illegal because here lies the risk; the Bill as it stands risks incentivising Governments to change their laws to make sure that far greater deforestation—perhaps all of it—becomes legal. This Environment Bill will then have little or no benefit in preventing deforestation. I know this is not the intention of the Government, but I ask the Minister to consider most carefully the risk of leaving Schedule 16 as it stands.
As other noble Lords know, deforestation is a huge global problem and solving it has to be a top priority for COP 26. Just a couple of statistics will make the point. In 2020 alone, primary humid tropical forest loss covered some 4.2 million hectares—an area the size of the Netherlands. Paragraphs 2(1) and 2(2) of Schedule 16 make it clear that, as long as local laws are complied with, commodities grown on land where forest has been cleared can be traded commercially by UK companies. However, deforestation behind UK imports of commodities accounts for an area of tree loss almost the size of the entire UK. This year has seen the highest deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon in over a decade. This will only get worse without this amendment.
Apart from the Bill as it stands incentivising Governments to legalise deforestation in their own countries, even now a third of tropical deforestation is defined as legal and will not be tackled by Schedule 16, unless it is amended. Scientists in Brazil tell us:
“Currently in Brazil, approximately 88 million hectares … 4 times the size of the UK, could be cleared legally on private properties under Brazilian forest law.”
Another major issue is that laws relating to land use, forests and commodity production are often uncertain, inconsistent or poorly implemented, making the determination of legality very difficult, time-consuming, expensive or virtually impossible. Schedule 16 as it stands risks bogging down UK courts with difficult questions about the interpretation and application of foreign laws.
I know the Government have absolutely no wish to impose these problems on our industries. If they accept this amendment, they will surely provide clarity, consistency and certainty for UK businesses and for the countries of origin where deforestation is currently taking place. Leading UK companies have appealed to the Government to support a more rigorous standard than that set out in Schedule 16.
I thank the head of the Bill team and four other officials for the very helpful meeting we had on Thursday. They argued that 70% of deforestation for agriculture is illegal. Yes, but 30% is legal. Also, this is changing as we speak. The Brazilian Government are in the process of legalising forest lands. Paulo from Brazil, at a highly informative Global Witness meeting—I thank Global Witness for its incredible help on this—referred to a recent forest code which has legalised 12 million hectares of forest and a legislative package that will retrospectively legalise deforestation. The Bill encourages further legalisation to circumvent laws based on legality. This is dangerous. I understand that, despite all these issues, the Government want to work with producer countries to improve governance. This approach assumes that we are dealing with Governments who share our values—sadly, we are not.
Paulo from Brazil was appealing to the UK—appealing to me to appeal to the Minister, I should say—to introduce a strong law to prevent commercial activity based on deforested land, whether legal or illegal. He is deeply concerned about his Government’s determination to undermine our legality-based legislation.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to the five amendments in the group which either appear in my name or to which I have added my name. I will confine my remarks to them in the interests of time, but I register my strong support for all the amendments in the group, with perhaps a question mark over Amendment 265 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It has not been explained in the amendment how relative product advantage would be measured.
I am fortunate to have been preceded by the noble Lords, Lord Randall and Lord Lucas, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who spoke about why these amendments needed to have been tabled, so I can say a lot less. I am sorry to have to speak before my noble friend Lady Parminter, in whose name Amendment 265A appears. This is an important amendment, which—given the UK’s position as a leader in financial services—in many ways goes to the heart of our leadership on both climate change and human rights issues. It has my strong support.
I will address Amendment 264ZA in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lord Oates, and to which I have added my name also. The amendment has been tabled to draw attention to the current situation in which human rights abuses of indigenous peoples abound, sometimes leading to death, and to offer a remedy of sorts. In order to make local laws fit for purpose, it is critical to ensure that the UK requires businesses to have evidence that the free, prior and informed consent—FPIC—of indigenous peoples in forest communities has been obtained in the production of forest risk commodities on their land and local area.
There is a strong body of evidence which shows that FPIC reduces deforestation, reduces attacks on forest custodians and develops strong, commercially productive relationships. This is particularly important for the 80% of indigenous and community lands that do not yet have secure legal rights. FPIC is defined under international law, and commitments to full or partial FPIC are included in a diverse array of industry standards, OECD guidance and company commitments. It should be specifically included in Schedule 16 to underscore our global leadership on both climate change and human rights. I also point out that the Global Resource Initiative task force—commissioned by BEIS, Defra, and the FCDO, so this is the Government’s own body—in its report of March 2020 specifically recommended that the UK Government urgently introduce a mandatory combined human rights and environmental due diligence approach to forest risk commodities.
Schedule 16 is the UK’s first due diligence process with respect to forest risk commodities, yet it makes no mention whatever of mitigating human rights abuses through free, prior and informed consent. This is a moral and practical oversight and I look forward to the Minister’s response about how this omission can be justified.
Amendment 264A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, which I support, seeks to address the potential gaping loophole that would be set up by differentiating between legal and illegal deforestation. Does the Minister accept that the British public do not want these tainted goods? I cite the remarkable outcome of the Government’s public consultation on due diligence on forest risk commodities: over 99% of respondents supported the introduction of legislation to reduce all deforestation. When can we expect a response to the consultation?
I tabled Amendment 264B to paragraph 3 of Schedule 16 on the due diligence system as a probing amendment to see what estimation the Government have made of the acceptable level of mitigation of risk by businesses operating forest risk commodities. If the objective of Schedule 16 to avoid products consumed in the UK contributing to deforestation abroad is to be met, UK businesses must be confident that there is no more than a negligible risk that their products are linked to deforestation. Does the Minister agree that a requirement to mitigate risk without specifying the extent to which risks must be mitigated is rather vague and subjective? What consideration have the Government given to the question, as an unqualified requirement to mitigate risks leaves businesses open to legitimately take the least action required to achieve the most minimal reduction in their assessment of risk rather than the action required to genuinely minimise the level of risk? What would stop this happening? In the way that Schedule 16 is currently drafted, it is not clear to me; maybe the Minister can enlighten me. I would appreciate a thorough response from him on this amendment, maybe in writing.
Amendment 265ZA in my name would require the Secretary of State to consult stakeholders when making regulations on the content and form of annual reports on the due diligence system, and on how such reports are to be made publicly available. The amendment is, I suppose, inspired by lessons learned in the implementation of Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which introduced a requirement on businesses above a certain size to publish a slavery and human trafficking statement every year. It has become apparent that changes are needed. The Commons Foreign Affairs Committee recently published a report which concludes that the MSA is too weak and the criteria for producing the statements are in need of reform. The implication for this part of the Environment Bill is that it is important to ensure that the form and arrangements for publishing reports by a regulated person should be informed by public consultation so that lessons such as those from the Modern Slavery Act can be properly factored in. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The final amendment in my name, Amendment 265AA, aims to strengthen the enforcement of Part 1 requirements and Part 2 regulations through a civil sanctions regime. As drafted, Schedule 16 states the potential for civil sanctions to be issued for failures to comply with the Schedule’s requirements, except where a regulated person
“took all reasonable steps to implement a due diligence system”.
However, “reasonable steps” is not defined; it could mean any number of things. The exception to liability is too broad and potentially undermines the effectiveness of the due diligence obligations. Would it not be far clearer to instead mandate a regulated person to take the steps necessary to implement an effective due diligence system, as my amendments suggest? My final question to the Minister is: why do the Government not do that? It would be far more effective to state what they actually want rather than a woolly form of words that is an open invitation to those with, shall we say, creative minds.
I will end with this reflection: deforestation is the second largest contributor to global warming, second only to fossil fuels. What happens to rainforests matters to us all. The Government should seize with both hands the opportunity presented by this Bill to play their part in stopping the wanton destruction of all rainforests, especially in this seminal year, when they hold the presidency of COP 26.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I rise to introduce Amendment 265A in my name, for the support of which I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
Like other Peers, I welcome the inclusion of Schedule 16 and its introduction into law of an essential means of combating the deforestation associated with the consumption of forest risk commodities in the UK. Yet the trade in these commodities is only the final stage of the supply chain; their production must also be financed and, because the UK is such an important global source of capital, British banks and financial institutions currently supply a considerable proportion of this investment.
As Global Witness reported, in 2020, UK banks channelled over £900 million into over 300 major companies involved in forest risk commodities such as palm oil, soya and beef. Between 2013 and 2019, UK-based financial institutions were the single biggest source of international finance for six major agribusiness companies involved in deforestation in the climate-critical forests of Brazil, the Congo basin and Papua New Guinea, providing £5 billion over this period. I am not claiming that all this investment financed illegal activities, but, almost certainly, some of it did. As Forest Trends reported earlier this year, over the period of 2000-2012, 49% of tropical deforestation for agricultural commodities was thought to be illegal; between 2013 and 2019, the proportion rose to at least 69%. Illegal conversion of forests for agriculture is destroying an area of forest the size of Norway each year.
The point is that these banks do not have adequate systems in place to ensure they are not funding illegal deforestation. Extending the same requirements for the exercise of due diligence to banks as this Bill would impose on importers is a sensible move. This is not merely my view. That was the conclusion of the Global Resource Initiative Taskforce of sustainability leaders from finance, business and civil society, which was established by this Government in 2019. It was chaired by Sir Ian Cheshire, who was at that time chairman of Barclays UK. In its report last year, it concluded:
“Financial institutions provide enabling financial services across the commodity supply chain and so should be obligated to exercise due diligence with regard to their lending and investments.”
No other mechanism currently requires banks to carry out due diligence for illegal deforestation. The Government have argued, in their response to the Global Resource Initiative report, that the requirements for reporting on climate-related financial information that they intend to introduce will tackle the problem—but in reality they cannot. These reports will focus only on annual carbon emissions and are not suited to identifying the links between the provision of finance for agricultural crops growing on land cleared of forest several years before; they will also not require any assessment of the legality of the forest clearance.
The reports the importers of these commodities will be required to issue on the actions they have taken to establish their due diligence systems will provide helpful information but, again, they will relate to the final stages in the supply chain—the trade of the commodities. Far better, surely, to require banks to conduct due diligence on their lending and interventions at the start of the process when the initial finance is provided.
The financial sector is one of the British economy’s greatest strengths, but it will fail to remain so if it continues to fund activities which contribute to the climate and nature emergencies. I recognise and applaud the many steps that individual banks and financial institutions are already taking to green their activities. Requiring all of them to conduct due diligence to avoid their lending contributing to illegal deforestation is hardly a radical move. Indeed, it is the minimum we should expect.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to requiring businesses to ensure that the forest risk commodities they use to have been produced in compliance with local laws, but it is only a start, as other noble Lords have pointed out. I particularly support Amendment 293B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. What we have in the Bill does not deliver on the commitment in the 25-year environment plan to ensure that
“our consumption and impact on natural capital are sustainable, at home and overseas.”
The Environmental Audit Committee’s recent biodiversity report called for
“a target to reduce the UK’s global environmental footprint”,
as does the amendment, and I support that idea.
Commitment to a target would set an ambition to do more over the next few years and allow the Government to develop further measures covering issues such as illegal deforestation, as raised by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and financial issues, as raised by the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I know that the Minister has a personal commitment to this issue, and I hope he can respond positively.
On a particular case which the noble Lord, Lord Randall, raised just now and previously, every year, an area of forest and biodiversity bigger than the New Forest is sacrificed to feed biomass-based electricity generation in the UK. The replacement forests take decades to mature and cannot be regarded as equivalent in either carbon or biodiversity terms. The people of Britain pay through the nose for this: they pay more than £2 million per day to subsidise those large biomass power plants. In view of the damage to forests and biodiversity caused by the wood pellet industry in the USA and Estonia, can the Minister use the Bill to review the dubious sustainability claims made by Drax, end public subsidy and ensure that the performance of a large biomass power plant is not compared with hugely polluting coal but with other green technologies such as wind and solar?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and to express my support for nearly all the amendments in this group, except Amendments 263 and 265.
We should start by acknowledging that this is yet one more sign that campaigning works. Schedule 16 represents amendments brought by the Government in the other place which reflect the campaigning of a great many NGOs and other groups and, as other noble Lords have said, the conclusions of the independent Global Resource Initiative Taskforce. However, as multiple briefings that we have all received show, it still needs improvement to deliver on the recommendations of the GRIT and the expectations of UK consumers and businesses.
I shall not go through each amendment, but I shall start with Amendment 293B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, because it is in many ways the most far-reaching and crucial. This is the one that calls for a global footprint target. I shall start with the benefit for the UK, before looking more broadly. It would reduce the risk of future pandemics; I do not really need to say more than that. It would help safeguard against the economic costs of biodiversity decline and climate change. The WWF Global Futures report calculated that that will cost the world at least £368 billion a year, with the UK suffering annual damage to its economy of £16 billion a year by 2050. It would also support the resilience of UK and global businesses. It would help businesses to manage risk proactively. Coming back to the Government’s desire, of which we so often hear, to be world-leading, it would mean that the UK was the first country to embed the latest pledge for nature into its legislation. It is crucial.
It is worth noting that this amendment is another way of addressing the issue I addressed in the amendment I moved to Clause 1, many days ago, on reducing resource use rather than making it more efficient. We need to reduce our ecological footprint by around 75% to fit within ecological limits. The WWF global footprint report looked at some of the key issues: our material footprint needs to come down by 38%, biomass by 48%, nitrogen—for which I tabled a specific amendment earlier—by 89%, and phosphorous by 85%.
The most basic amendment that I would surely suggest the Minister has to adopt in some form is Amendment 264A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. She has already made many powerful arguments, in particular that if we do not introduce this amendment there will a perverse incentive to encourage the legalisation of deforestation. UK businesses could also benefit from this amendment. Currently, in many parts of the world laws relating to land use, forests and commodity production are numerous, uncertain, inconsistent and poorly implemented. It is very difficult to determine legality, and companies can be trapped in a regulatory, paperwork minefield from which the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, could free them. Of course, 2.1 million hectares of natural vegetation within the 133 Brazilian municipalities that currently supply the UK with soya could be legally deforested.
I come now to Amendment 264ZA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which calls for the recognition of customary land ownership and membership systems. Some 80% of indigenous and community lands are held without legally recognised tenure rights. We know that in indigenous and tribal territories, deforestation rates are significantly lower. Ensuring respect for customary tenure rights is an efficient, just and cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Noble Lords who have been reading The House magazine might know that I have some recommendations for summer reading in there. I would like to add an extra one: Imbolo Mbue’s second novel, How Beautiful We Were, which is set in a fictional African village and shows how it was depleted by centuries of the activities of fossil fuel companies, forest exploitation and rubber plantations, going back to slavery. We really cannot allow this kind of relationship with the world to continue.
I come now to Amendment 265A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. What we are doing here is the reverse of what your Lordships’ House achieved in the Financial Services Bill. After a lot of wrestling, we finally got a reference to climate—although, unfortunately, not biodiversity—into the Finance Bill. What we also need to do is to get recognition of the damage the financial sector does to the rest of the world, and we need to see finance addressed in all the other Bills. The UK is the single biggest source of international finance for six of the most harmful agribusiness companies involved in deforestation in Brazil, the Congo basin and Papua New Guinea, lending £5 billion between 2013 and 2019. These UK banks included HSBC, Barclays, and Standard Chartered. We simply cannot allow this to continue.
Noble Lords may not think so, but I am really trying to be brief, so I will turn to some very short concluding thoughts. If deforestation was a country, it would be the third largest emitter of carbon, behind China and the US. Some 80% of deforestation is associated with agricultural production, yet figures published this afternoon from five major UN agencies show that the number of people without access to healthy diets has grown by 320 million in the last year. They now number 2.37 billion in total. A fifth of all children under five are stunted because of lack of access to the most basic resource of all: food.
We have to stop wrecking other people’s countries. We have to ensure that our lives are lived within the limits of this fragile planet, and that everyone else has access to that same basic level of resources that is their human right.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. While I warmly welcome all the provisions that the Government have put into this Bill on this matter of due diligence, I also support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who moved them so powerfully, eloquently and rapidly. I pay tribute, too, to the passionate and excellent speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, which was a pleasure to listen to.
I will comment first on Amendment 265A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. It is a rather ingenious and clever approach, and I was appalled to hear that British institutions—if I heard the noble Baroness correctly—have raised about £5 billion of funding for the illegal destruction of rainforest. If British banks and financial institutions are involved, we have to find ways of putting a stop to them doing that sort of thing.
The current provisions in the Bill quite rightly impose obligations on regulated persons who are trading products from endangered rainforests. As in every other business, however, the normal rule is “Follow the money”: if you want to catch illegal or improper behaviour, look at the money flows. Putting an obligation on all financial institutions to exercise the same due diligence as the companies that import and export timber would plug a potentially big gap. How do we crack down on money laundering and terrorist financing? We do it by putting an obligation on all financial institutions to report transactions above £10,000. It works for illegal money transactions, and it can work for destructive timber transactions or the financing of palm oil, soya bean or ranching projects.
I rather like my noble friend’s Amendments 265B and 265D. Why should we try to save the rainforest? The rationale for saving the rainforest is infinitely greater than just reducing carbon emissions—important though that is—or saving indigenous people or preventing mahogany and other tree species from being extinguished. The rationale is that the rainforest is the “medicine cabinet” of the world, to steal another phrase from the Prince’s Rainforests Project.
As rainforest species disappear, so too do many possible cures for life-threatening diseases. Currently, 121 prescription drugs that are sold worldwide are derived from plant sources, and 25% of western pharmaceuticals are derived from rainforest ingredients. However, fewer than 1% of tropical trees and plants have been tested by scientists. So we have tested 1% and are burning the other 99%, yet we are getting 25% of our drugs from that small 1%. That is a very dangerous pyramid.
A single pond in Brazil can sustain a greater variety of fish than is found in all the rivers of Europe put together. A 25-acre area of rainforest in Borneo may contain more than 700 species of trees—a figure equal to the total tree diversity of North America. A single rainforest in Peru is home to more species of birds than are found in the entire United States, and the number of species of fish in the Amazon exceeds the number found in the entire Atlantic Ocean.
So I repeat my question: how can we in the West be so stupid as to permanently destroy, or fund the destruction of, a habitat when we have not looked at 99% of the species in it? Some scientists estimate that we are losing more than 130 species of plants and animals every single day through rainforest destruction. We just do not know, yet we are carrying on regardless. Estimates of the total number of species in the world vary from 2 million to 100 million, the best estimate being that there are about 10 million species of living things, ranging from nematode worms, slugs, molluscs, plant life and fungi to trees, birds and the cuddly animals that we worry about.
Biodiversity, however, is not just about saving the red squirrels, polar bears, orangutans, lemurs and tigers—as vital and close to my heart as some of those are. Of far greater importance to the planet are the plants and bugs that we never see and are not cuddly.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. In the light of what he has said, it is unnecessary for me to say anything other than to warmly endorse his words in respect of Amendment 265A in respect of the financial services industry and the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, on the longer-term plans.
I shall concentrate on one aspect only, in view of the lateness of the hour: the methods on which control over the use of forest risk commodities can most effectively be framed for enforcement in the United Kingdom. Three methods are under consideration. They can be cumulative and probably should be, and should operate together. What is essential is to examine each and see whether one can stand on its own or whether all three would work better together.
I take the first, which is the proposal in the Bill to allow the use of forest risk commodities only if local laws have been complied with. This is unlikely to be effective and indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, explained, it could be counterproductive. The reason why it is likely to be ineffective is that most of the localities with which we are concerned have legal and legislative systems that do not protect from deforestation because of political and economic pressure. Even if protection is initially given, there are numerous instances of retrospective validation of deforestation in contravention of local law. Such retrospective validation would make the use legal under the local law and would therefore render this method of halting deforestation nugatory. Furthermore, proof that the commodity was produced in contravention of local law is likely to cause significant difficulty and uncertainty and considerable expense if the matter comes for enforcement in the UK. Thus, in my view, the first method is unlikely to be effective.
The second method, as set out in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, is to add a further requirement in respect of the locality: the informed consent of indigenous people and local communities. I would welcome this as a vital addition and safeguard, if the first method is to be chosen. However, although I have no doubt that NGOs and other organisations would give every assistance in establishing whether informed consent was given, I would anticipate that establishing the factual position in a UK court would be far from easy—the difficulties are obvious. However, if the first method is to be used as set out in the Bill, this would be an essential part of having effective enforcement.
The third method is that set out in the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, which is to prohibit use if land has been deforested after the commencement of the schedule as further delineated in regulations made by the Secretary of State. In my view, this amendment would be wholly effective on its own and certainly buttress the other two methods. It would leave no room for dispute as to the status of the areas from which the commodity comes, as it is an objective standard not dependent on proof or either local law or the consent of the indigenous people or local communities.
If the third method were adopted, it would give great clarity, which is essential if this law is to operate as a deterrent to industries in the UK using forest risk commodities in breach of what everyone agrees ought to be prevented. I therefore warmly support the third of the methods—that is, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—but if that cannot be done, we must have the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to support Amendment 264ZA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 264A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. As we know, the rate of deforestation on our planet is a scandal and an increasing threat to both our climate and the extent of our biodiversity. In some parts of the world, it is also a threat to the indigenous population who live in the forests, a denial of their fundamental human rights. Their habitat, their lives and their livelihood are often endangered by deforestation.
Amendment 264ZA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, rightly seeks to ensure that if forest risk wood is imported, it has been felled only with the permission of the indigenous population. It is not enough just for local laws to be observed, which may be too permissive or open to manipulation by local interests; there must be safeguards for those most directly affected. Our laws cannot reach into those areas, but we can at least ensure that we do what is open to us to do in this country, which is to have appropriate checks in place for importers of forest risk material.
Amendment 264A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has a similar purpose: to do what we can in this country to prevent exploitive deforestation. It would ensure a total prohibition, except in relation to indigenous people, on importing forest risk products from agricultural land which should never have been cleared in the first place, as trees should still be standing. The noble Baroness put forward powerful arguments in favour of her amendment, strongly supported just now by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, with his important phrase about retrospective validation. A forest which should never have been felled in the first place might get some kind of legal retrospective validation, but we need to ensure that that wood should still not be imported. For those reasons, I strongly support both those amendments.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the advisory board of Weber Shandwick UK. As we have heard in this debate, deforestation poses a catastrophic threat to biodiversity and to the climate of our planet, but in addressing these issues we should show some humility and acknowledge up front that we have almost completely deforested our landscape in the UK and in much of Europe, and we need to be conscious of that in all our debates.
However, the fact remains that life on our planet will not be sustainable if the current rate of deforestation continues. We have heard a range of analogies and figures in this respect. The World Wide Fund for Nature estimates that the equivalent of 30 football pitches of forestry were lost every second in the tropics in 2019. That is a staggering rate of destruction and there are many worrying signs that it is accelerating.
I welcome the Government’s attempts to address the issue in the schedule, but they would be immeasurably strengthened by the majority of the amendments in this group. There seem to be a few main themes in the amendments. The first is around strengthening parliamentary procedures to ensure proper scrutiny of the delegated powers under this section of the Bill. Amendments 260B and 260C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to which he spoke so clearly, seek to tackle that. From these Benches, we certainly support him.
The second theme seeks to tackle the issue of legal deforestation and the rights of indigenous people. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is critical if the Bill is to have real effect. As we have heard, it is supported by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who, for technical reasons, was not able to be here but was very keen that his support was underlined.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, underlined, if we continue simply with the definition in the Bill as the Government have drafted it, the Bill could end up being counterproductive, either having little effect or incentivising countries to legalise further deforestation, as the noble Baroness said.
We know that there is a particular issue in certain jurisdictions, and we have heard about the situation in Brazil, where, sadly, the President seems to have little regard either for the need to protect forests or for the rights of indigenous people. Although I understand that there are a lot of complexities around WTO rules, their main focus is around non-discrimination; as long as one tackles that and provides a mechanism that is non-discriminatory but focused on actions, that should be possible.
Amendment 264ZA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which I have also signed, aims to ensure that forestry commodities cannot be used unless the consent of indigenous communities has been obtained prior to their production.
There are those who claim that measures to prevent deforestation are somehow a case of westerners seeking to impose their values on other countries, having hypocritically destroyed their own forests. However, the reality is that local indigenous people suffer most from deforestation, and it is very often unscrupulous multinational, often western, firms that are responsible for destroying forests and the livelihoods of indigenous people. My noble friend Lady Sheehan and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, also set out the importance of the human rights angle in relation to deforestation. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seeks to address this gap, and we on these Benches strongly support it.
The third theme in this group of amendments relates to the financing of forest destruction, which is a critical area. Amendment 265A, in the name of my noble friend Lady Parminter, which has support from across the Committee, seeks to address the financing of deforestation, and is highly significant. My noble friend explained the critical role of capital, including UK capital, in funding tropical deforestation, and the fact that banks do not have the mechanisms in place to ensure that they are operating proper due diligence and not funding illegal forest clearance. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, the watchword here is “follow the money”—that is critical. My noble friend also highlighted the need to protect the reputation of the City if we are to establish ourselves as a centre of green finance in the world. This amendment would help in all these regards.
The theme of global impact is enshrined in Amendment 293B of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, which would require the Government to set a target to reduce the UK’s global footprint. Again, this is a key amendment in tackling deforestation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said, it is perhaps the most crucial because it gets to the heart of the issue by targeting resource use, and we support this approach.
Finally, there were a number of other important amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Sheehan, including: Amendment 264B, on introducing an assessment of the level of risk; Amendment 265ZA, which, as my noble friend explained, would require the Secretary of State to consult with relevant persons before making regulations under the schedule; and Amendment 265AA, which would require a regulated person to take all steps necessary to implement an effective due diligence system, rather than the lower bar of “reasonable” steps. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also had a number of amendments which are interesting, but we would want to understand a little more about their operation before supporting them.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this is a really important group of amendments and I am pleased that, despite the late hour, we have managed to have a good debate around them. I will speak to Amendment 264ZA, in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, but we also support other amendments in this group and thank noble Lords for tabling them. There are some very important points that need to be addressed.
In his introduction to his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, talked about the Government’s 25-year environment plan and their commitment to ensuring that
“our consumption and impact on natural capital are sustainable, at home and overseas.”
It is therefore a bit disappointing that the Environment Bill does not currently reflect this commitment adequately.
The Global Resource Initiative task force recommended back in March 2020 that the Government
“urgently introduces a mandatory due diligence obligation on companies that place commodities and derived products that contribute to deforestation”,
whether legal or illegal under local laws, on the UK market. It also recommended that, since not all businesses have begun to commit to and implement sustainable supply chains, a legally binding target to end deforestation —as we have heard from other noble Lords—would provide the “necessary signal” for a shift in industry behaviour. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, did, we welcome the Government’s amendment that was tabled in the other place following campaigning, and the fact that Schedule 16 now includes a new prohibition on the use of certain commodities associated with illegal deforestation and requirements for large companies to undertake due diligence and reporting. However, as we heard in the debate, the provisions simply do not go far enough in progressing either the GRI recommendations or the level of action that is demanded.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, mentioned the lack of attention to human rights in Schedule 16. NGOs such as Global Witness and Forest Peoples Programme have highlighted that there is currently no mention of human rights or of indigenous peoples and others who live in forests and rely on them for their livelihoods and survival. The Bill must be strengthened to tackle the growing problems caused by deforestation and to drive action to significantly reduce our global footprint. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, talked about the appalling impact of this country’s role in deforestation. This really does need to be better recognised. Due diligence legislation is only part of the comprehensive approach that will be needed to deliver deforestation-free supply chains and to significantly reduce global footprint impacts more broadly.
Land conversion for agricultural purposes is often associated with negative human rights impacts. Beyond local laws, it is therefore critical to ensure that the UK requires businesses to have evidence that the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples and forest communities was obtained in relation to the production of forest risk commodities on their land and in the local area. Our amendment does this, although I am aware that some indigenous communities see this as just the starting point. We thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich—as others have done—for his support; he was unable to speak in the debate today.
We offer our support to Amendments 260B and 260C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. Schedule 16 introduces an important requirement that regulated businesses must not use certain forest risk commodities in their UK commercial activities unless relevant local laws are complied with in relation to that commodity. This is an important first step, but it does not go far enough since 30% of tropical forest destruction is defined as legal under local country laws. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, expressed her concerns that this could create a loophole, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, also mentioned this. This loophole could risk limiting the effectiveness of the legislation and, as the noble Baroness said, could even incentivise Governments in countries such as Brazil to roll back forest protections in order to access UK markets. As deforestation is more prevalent where local laws are not enforced or upheld, this also poses challenges as to how the UK will interpret exactly what is meant by “legal”. So, we support the very important Amendment 264A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, which addresses this. This amendment also provides for an exception for forest risk commodities produced by indigenous peoples, as the noble Baroness spelled out so clearly.
We also support Amendment 265A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, on finance. Schedule 16 does not address the financing behind deforestation. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, talked about the huge amount of financing that comes from the UK and the lack of due diligence. I have to say, I learned an enormous amount from her introduction to the amendment, and I thank her for it. In March 2020, the Global Resource Initiative task force recommended that the UK should require companies to undertake checks on deforestation risk in their supply chains and that similar measures should apply to finance. But the Government chose to cover supply chains only, responding that UK finance institutions can use the new information gained from companies undertaking due diligence reports to inform their decisions. However, experience has shown that this is likely to fail and that they are likely not to do so unless required to by law. This is very important as broad-based measures on finance, such as the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, or similar efforts on nature or biodiversity, are really not suited to the specific issues around deforestation and are unlikely to curb financing. The Bill needs to specify that UK finance institutions must not provide financial services to commercial enterprises linked to deforestation and human rights abuses, so we strongly support the noble Baroness’s amendment.
We also support Amendments 265B to 265D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, which seek to introduce a requirement that the Secretary of State must take the steps identified through a review to improve the effectiveness of Schedule 16. Amendment 293B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, would require the Secretary of State to set a target to significantly reduce the global footprint, and we support this amendment as well. In his introduction to this amendment, the noble Lord referred to the Biodiversity in the UK: Bloom or Bust? report that was published in June by the Environmental Audit Committee, which recommended that the Government should set such a target.
We also welcome Amendment 263, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, talked passionately about global biodiversity, but it is important that we are all very aware of our own impacts on this. The production of forest risk commodities is linked to the conversion and degradation of natural ecosystems other than forests; noble Lords have mentioned savannahs, wetlands, peatlands, grasslands, and mangroves. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked specifically about the production of palm oil, and other noble Lords have mentioned soya as well. There is no policy justification for limiting provisions to forests when other natural ecosystems are under the same pressures from commodity production and provide the same or even greater biodiversity and climate benefits.
A large number of amendments have been discussed in this group, and it has been an important debate on an important issue. I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the many amendments that have been debated. It is clear that noble Lords have some very serious concerns and believe that it would not take a lot to improve the Bill quite significantly on this aspect. I await the Minister’s response with interest.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I have a number of amendments to address, but before I do, I will take a step back and emphasise what these measures are designed to achieve. Worldwide agricultural expansion drives almost 80% of deforestation. A significant proportion of deforestation is illegal—in some of the world’s most important places, it is closer to 90%. Decades of voluntary action have failed to end our contribution to deforestation through the products that we buy. Our measures will change that. Businesses will be required to ensure that the forest risk commodities that they use are not produced on illegally deforested land. We will consult on the commodities to be included soon, but these could include beef, cocoa, leather, palm oil, rubber, soya and so on.
It has been said in a number of contributions today that we are lagging behind and need to catch up, but it is worth reiterating that we are not only the first country in the world to introduce anything like this legislation but the only country to do so. Of course, we must do much more, but we are doing much more. No one would pretend that this is our sole, single answer to deforestation, but it is an extraordinarily important part of our answer to tackling global deforestation.
To address one further point before I go into the details of the amendment, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Hayman, suggested that we reluctantly accepted this amendment on the back of campaigning. It was the Government who initiated and commissioned the GRI report which made this recommendation, and we have been working for many months to get this right. It is not something that just popped in as a last-minute concession in Committee in the other place.
I shall start by speaking to Amendments 264, 264A and 264ZA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Given the fundamental role of producer countries in protecting their forests and ecosystems, and the huge proportion of illegal deforestation, our due diligence requirements are based on legality, and I want to explain why. Our experience has shown that we get the best results for both people and the environment when we work as closely as we can with producer country Governments and communities —something which is crucial in this year of COP 26 and COP 15 on biodiversity. Working in partnership with timber-producing countries on implementing the timber regulation and the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade action plan has contributed to increased natural resource governance in those countries. We want to replicate this approach for forest risk commodities.
In response to comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Sheehan, adopting these amendments would be a departure from the Government’s approach and would come at a cost. The UK is a big market in global terms, but on our own we are not big enough to cause the shift globally that we need in the way that commodities are grown. We can have an impact but not a huge impact. To have that kind of shift, we need other countries to join us, and we know from the extensive diplomatic outreach that we have already done, and which I have been involved in, that we can only build that coalition using the approach that we have adopted, based on legality. That has been very clear in the discussions that we have had.
We are working hard right now to build a global movement of consumer and producer countries committed to working with us to tackle this problem, and we are making enormous headway. If other countries are beginning to consider doing something similar, that is because of UK leadership. Incidentally, the EU has not yet decided what it is going to do; it has announced an intention to tackle due diligence but has not committed to any particular form. But if Japan, New Zealand and even the USA—we heard—are looking favourably at doing something on due diligence, that is because of the work that the United Kingdom has done. I do not believe it would be happening without the leadership that the UK has shown. There is a tendency to self-flagellate and always see the worst in our country, but there are certain areas—and this is one of them—where I think we can be proud of the leadership that we have shown.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, before I start I should make two apologies. One is for the rapid introduction of my amendments at the beginning of this group; I wanted to ensure that everybody in this debate got a fair chance and that we were able to finish at a reasonable time—if you can call this a reasonable time. I am grateful to all those who supported them; I am also grateful to those who tabled their own amendments. We have had a very important debate.
My second apology is to my noble friend the Minister. I am trying to squeeze a little more out of the Government, but he personally and the Government deserve a huge amount of praise for these pioneering measures. We should be incredibly proud of them and, as he said, we cannot do it on our own. To be at the forefront of this is tremendously exciting. Of course, we always want a bit more, but I could recognise, even though I am not there in person, the passion my noble friend has for this issue—as do other noble Lords in the Chamber and elsewhere. I hope we will see further things perhaps happen over the summer, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment for now.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to Amendment 262A. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 262A
Lord Teverson
“Collection of marine data
(1) The Secretary of State must—(a) by regulations provide that all vessels over 10 metres in length, and of whatever nationality, fishing within territorial waters and the UK Exclusive Economic Zone must be fitted with remote electronic monitoring systems and cameras for the purposes of—(i) full and accurate documentation and data collection of fish activities, and bycatch, so far as these affect biodiversity and sustainability; and(ii) monitoring compliance with fish activities, bycatch and other marine management regulations so far as it affects biodiversity and sustainability;(b) by regulations provide that all British vessels fishing outside the UK Exclusive Economic Zone must be fitted with remote electronic monitoring systems and cameras for the purposes of—(i) full and accurate documentation and data collection of fish activities and bycatch, so far as these affect biodiversity and sustainability; and(ii) monitoring compliance with fish activities, bycatch and other marine management regulations so far as it affects biodiversity and sustainability; (c) publish a timetable for the phased introduction of the provisions under paragraphs (a) and (b), the final phase of which must be implemented within three years from the day on which this Act is passed;(d) publish plans, within two years from the day on which this Act is passed, following a consultation, to extend remote electronic monitoring systems with cameras to all motorised vessels of whatever nationality fishing within territorial waters and the UK Exclusive Economic Zone.(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.(3) In this section, “fish activities” has the meaning given by section 52 of the Fisheries Act 2020.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment mandates the use of remote electronic monitoring (REM) on all fishing vessels above 10 metres in length that fish in UK waters in order to accurately monitor marine environmental data and requires plans to be published to extend REM to all vessels.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I owe the Committee an apology, as I tried to change this amendment from one group to another—the first group we did today—but then I managed to de-group it totally, so it is my fault that noble Lords are all still here. I apologise for that.
This is a serious issue. It is often said that we know less about our oceans than we do about the surface of Mars. I do not know whether that is completely true, but there is certainly a strong element of truth about it. We lack information about the ecology, biodiversity, quantity and types of species there are in our waters. Yet, unlike Mars, which I think has at least three rovers trundling slowly over its surface at the moment, we have thousands of fishing vessels sampling the ecology of our oceans every day.
I was very interested to receive communications from the Shetland Fishermen’s Association a few days ago. I know that Shetland is clearly in Scotland, although it sometimes sees itself as independent of it, and that this is an English Bill, but I will take this as an example because one of the things it is complaining about is the data on fish coming from ICES—the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. We all know ICES; it is the key data provider for us and the European Union in setting quotas, TACs and that whole area. To quote Simon Collins, executive officer of the Shetland Fishermen’s Association, on the ICES recommendations about changes of TACs in the North Sea and off the west coast:
“These numbers bear no relation to what our members are seeing out on the fishing grounds every day … With such wild swings in both directions a regular occurrence in recent years, it is clear that ICES needs to take a good hard look at the process and consider whether its modelling is still relevant.”
I have really good news for the Shetland fishermen: using remote electronic monitoring with the help of artificial intelligence and machine learning, and very cheap technology, we can have live data of what is in the ocean, what is being caught and what is discarded. We can really firm up on the data on our marine environment. It has probably escaped the Minister’s notice that I put down a similar amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to the Fisheries Bill—or he has perhaps forgotten. One of the things which we emphasised there was not the control aspect of fisheries regulation, but the fact that this provided plentiful hard data about fisheries, the marine environment and everything that happens to be caught. That is why I brought this amendment back into this Bill, because it is equally—if not more—an environmental issue as much as a fisheries management one. That is why this amendment is important.
Following Royal Assent to the Fisheries Act, I was delighted that Defra went out and undertook two consultations around remote electronic monitoring. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister what the responses were, and when the Government are going to move those forward. I congratulate them on moving this process further forward. It is the way to sustain fisheries stocks, and it is the way, more importantly, to be clear and have hard data rather than the opaque and fuzzy data which we have on our fisheries at the moment, and our marine biodiversity and ecology more broadly. Again, here we can actually lead, and in such a way that all those nations that want to enter with their fishing vessels into our EEZ and our waters can be told, “You must do the same thing”. For those foreign vessels, most of them from the European Union, but also Norway and other Nordic islands, we can actually start the process, and have others start it as well.
This is a truly important way of moving forward. I welcome the fact that the Government took on these consultations. It would be a huge shame if they got no further. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister what the Government’s plans are for remote electronic monitoring. With this technology, we can really understand what is going on in our oceans. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for tabling this amendment, which I have signed. It is the latest move in his long and valuable campaign for the adoption of remote electronic monitoring of fishing vessels. I do not blame him at all for our being here late at night; I blame the Government. If they had written a better Bill, it would not have attracted 300 amendments and we would not still be here after seven days, with an eighth day in prospect.
We discussed remote electronic monitoring when considering the Fisheries Bill, and your Lordships were able to get the Minister to put a firm commitment in support of it on the record. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, stated:
“The Government are clear that we will be consulting on increasing the use of REM in the first half of 2021, with implementation following that. I am not in a position to give a precise date today for when this will be implemented, but I can absolutely say—and I want to put this on the record—that the Government are absolutely seized of the importance of REM.”—[Official Report, 12/11/20; col. 1174.]
That is great, isn’t it? We could all be confident that this would go in the Bill.
Unfortunately, things do not seem to be progressing particularly quickly. The latest update I could find on the GOV.UK website, from 7 May, says:
“We’ve considered all the submissions and will continue to use the evidence provided to inform further thinking on the use of remote electronic monitoring in England. We’ll engage more with stakeholders in the near future around the topics that were highlighted in this call for evidence.”
This language does not reflect the previous enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, so can the Minister here today please confirm that the Government remain
“absolutely seized of the importance of REM”?
Can he please give details of the Government’s thinking that has been informed by the consultation? It would be wonderful to know how long it will be before this thinking turns into action. Given the long lead-in times for retrofitting all the existing fishing vessels, the sooner the Government can move forward on this and articulate a specific monitoring scheme, the better. We need to embrace this technology as a matter of urgency. If the Government continue to drag their feet, it would seem that the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, has been left hanging out to dry.
Environment Bill
Wednesday 14th July 2021
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-VIII(Rev) Revised eighth marshalled list for Committee - (12 Jul 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request.
The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments.
When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will not detain noble Lords for long. Suffice it to say that I supported a similar amendment in the Fisheries Act that was also tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Krebs. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said in his speech on Monday, this is just as much in the interests of monitoring what species are caught, not just fish but by-catch such as cetaceans and sea-birds. I will be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the consultation. I do not share the gloomy aspect of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on this issue; I know these things take time and I am sure the Government want to move forward with this. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I commend the amendment and thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for having moved it so eloquently. I endorse everything he said. I have visited ICES in Copenhagen a couple of times and have been hugely impressed. It has had a lot of footfall over the years from visitors such as the Scottish fishermen, and I think its research is first class. I am delighted that, having left the European Union, we continue to rely on ICES for the excellent research it produces.
I would like to ask my noble friend one question for when he comes to sum up the debate. I know that in the fullness of time, if maybe not in the context of this Bill, remote electronic monitoring will be used on all vessels in British waters. Can he confirm that it will be an essential criterion for the issuing of licences to fish in British waters that the vessel will be fitted with remote electronic monitoring equipment?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 262A, which was so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. They were both still going strong when we finally halted the debate on Monday, just before midnight. As noble Lords have made clear, this is an issue left over from consideration of the Fisheries Bill, which we thought was being resolved. However, as with other amendments dealing with the marine environment, the consequences are ongoing and equally valid for this Bill.
Without REM, we will not have the full and verifiable real-time documentation of catch on which all other calculations are based. This solid evidence should form the backdrop to a truly sustainable fisheries management plan. It will enable us to be more responsive to the movement of different fish stocks around our warming waters. It could also provide new economic opportunities where fishing opportunities are aligned with the real-time scientific evidence. For example, the evidence could potentially allow more species to achieve Marine Stewardship Council sustainability certification, which would boost sales in the retail sector.
In the past, the Government argued that this policy would be a distraction from vessel monitoring systems and aerial surveillance. These have their place but do not provide the detail that cameras on board the vessels would, particularly on the types of species caught and to ensure that discarding is not taking place. We argue that we need to embrace all the opportunities of improving data that new technology can bring, and that REM is one of these. It is also the case that many boats already use REM on a voluntary basis, so all this amendment would do is to raise the standard to the best and create a level playing field based on a true system of sustainable fishing.
During consideration of the Fisheries Bill, we were told that Ministers were thinking about introducing compulsory REM. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, quoted a helpful contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, which talked of consulting on the use of REM in the first half of 2021 with implementation following thereafter. Can the Minister say what the result of these consultations was?
Meanwhile, the Secretary of State told us in a separate meeting around that time that he was also sympathetic to the proposal but needed time to consult others, including the devolved nations, to ensure there was common consent about implementation. A year has gone by since the Secretary of State said that, so perhaps the Minister can update us on the status of the consultations and those negotiations. We believe the case for the introduction of REM is compelling, so I hope we can be assured that is imminent. In the meantime, we support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for raising this important issue and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her contribution in the last session. The Environment Bill, when combined with the Fisheries Act, will place the Government’s 25-year environment plan—including its goal of securing clean, healthy, productive and biologically diverse seas and oceans—on a statutory footing. The Bill enshrines environmental principles through a policy statement in law for the first time. Ministers must have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement when making policy. This includes making fisheries policy and will complement the eight objectives found in the Fisheries Act 2020, six of which, as the noble Lord will certainly know, are purely environmental in focus.
The policy statement required under the Environment Bill will be supplemented by the joint fisheries statement. The office for environmental protection, established by the Bill, will have a scrutiny function to report publicly on the action that government is taking to improve the environment. It will be able to consider fisheries legislation relating to the environment. As we have already discussed, the inclusion of “marine” within the meaning of the natural environment in the Bill ensures that it is fully included within each element of the environmental governance framework.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, notes, the Government support the principle behind Amendment 262A and, although we cannot support the amendment, I can assure him and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that we are taking action in this area. We remain committed to increasing the use of remote electronic monitoring, but we need some flexibility to work through how best we can increase its use. The amendment proposes powers to mandate remote electronic monitoring. The Government do not believe these powers are necessary, as Section 36(4) of the Fisheries Act 2020 provided the Government with the necessary powers to mandate the use of REM.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also noted, last year we launched a call for evidence, which my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble spoke about during the passage of the Fisheries Bill, now an Act. The call for evidence has given us much food for thought. We published our response in May 2021. The responses received were predictably mixed, some wanting pace and broad coverage and others more cautious. A number of responses described global best practice, which will, of course, be enormously helpful in getting our own approach absolutely right.
For example, New Zealand, Australia and Denmark were cited as having good experience which we intend to learn from and build on. Their schemes, as well as existing and previous schemes in England and Scotland, were commendable because they had clear objectives. They considered the scale of the programme and included government support. It is important that the global best practice quoted in the call for evidence noted that it is vital to work with the industry. We want to work collaboratively with the industry, scientists and other stakeholders to make the best use of it. We have begun engagement with the industry and stakeholders, following the call for evidence, and will ramp up further now that we have boosted the resources in Defra looking at remote electronic monitoring.
Remote electronic monitoring could be so much more than a mere enforcement tool, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also noted. However, a wide range of questions still need to be answered, for example on cost and data protection. This amendment would make it harder to consider all the options available to us as well as new approaches in future. Do we want cameras recording the catch or monitoring the gear underwater? Do we want strain gauges to show how heavy nets are or soak timers that show how long gear has been in the water? Do we want temperature gauges, or all these things? How will we process and store the vast amount of information that we would be collecting? Artificial intelligence may well play a role here, but we need to develop our ability to handle and use the data in step with rolling it out on boats. These are important issues that we will be working with the industry and stakeholders on over the next few months.
Another reason why this amendment does not work for us is that we want to move at pace, as we have said, but we are not convinced that extending REM to all vessels of over than 10 metres is necessary or proportionate or, indeed, better than a more risk-based or nuanced approach. Some fisheries, the pelagic fisheries, for example, tend to be very clean: they catch only what they specifically target, even though the vessels are sometimes very large, so the data provided and the harms recorded would be low. So it is too for a 15-metre vessel potting for crabs, which is unlikely to catch anything other than crabs. It may well be that some vessels under 10 metres would benefit from a form of remote monitoring as well.
We are pressing ahead with plans to ensure that vessels under 12 metres have electronic vessel monitoring systems on board, as it is vital to gain a better understanding of where they fish and their fishing patterns. Getting these basic fisheries management tools in place is vital. There is much more we need to do in this space, as well as focusing on remote electronic monitoring which, while helpful, is nevertheless just one tool. Some important calls for evidence and consultations on wider fisheries management are being published in the next few weeks and months that I hope the noble Lord will find useful. They will demonstrate that we are making good our intention to manage our fisheries more sustainably, using all the tools at our disposal.
The noble Lord mentioned advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—ICES. The letter he quoted raises some complex issues that Defra, alongside colleagues in the devolved Administrations, is considering carefully, but it is clear that North Sea cod stocks remain in a poor state. As he explained, the use of remote electronic monitoring will, among many other benefits, help improve our scientific understanding, including of stocks.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who wants to ask a question before proceeding.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for that good reply. I will sum up in just a second but I have a specific question. He said, and I take some encouragement from this, that he wanted to “move at pace”. When will we next hear back from the Government about what they are going to do specifically on REM and, hopefully, how they are going to apply the method of data collection?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. We have a number of consultations and calls for evidence coming up over the next few weeks and stretching out over the next few months. I will set out the exact choreography to him in a letter, but obviously that work needs to happen before any firm dates can be set. I hope that provides a clear agenda of what we are doing and that the next steps will go some way towards answering his question.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and actually quite encouraging reply. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who has been very supportive in this area, as has the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. This is one way that we can start to make progress on what we understand about the marine environment, by catching that data and, hopefully, encouraging much better management of that environment. I look forward to the Minister’s letter and to the fisheries management plans that we were promised being concluded. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 266. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 110: Conservation covenant agreements
Amendment 266
The Earl of Devon
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with others to this Clause, is intended to add formal requirements for an agreement to qualify as a conservation covenant.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I shall also be speaking to my Amendments 267, 268, 269, 274 and 276. These are amendments to Part 7 of the Bill, which introduces into English law for the first time the important and radical concept of conservation covenants. Following in part the Law Commission’s 2014 report on conservation covenants, the provisions of Part 7 are a hugely significant change to long-standing principles of English property law—a radical departure, in the words of the Bar Council, from the centuries-old rule that only restrictive covenants benefiting neighbouring property can run with the land and bind successors in title.
The Law Commission proposed a stand-alone Bill to introduce these significant changes, as would be appropriate. It is therefore regrettable that such radical new property provisions, including significant departures from those proposed by the Law Commission, find themselves tucked away in Part 7 of the Environment Bill and are afforded only a short slot for debate on the eighth and last day of this Committee.
I am grateful to all noble Lords willing to consider these provisions and to the NFU, the CLA, the Bar Council and many others for their support and insights. Having started my career as a junior property barrister, the intricacies and implications of the significant change to the law of real property are clear to me, but they may not be to noble Lords who do not keep a copy of Megarry & Wade to hand, so excuse me for providing some context.
Conservation covenants are central to this legislation. They are the principal vehicle by which the private finance will be brought into the brave new world of biodiversity net gain—the means by which developers will be able to ensure that the biodiversity lost to their development will be off-set, plus 10%, on someone else’s land. If successful, they will be a key tool in turning the environmental tide and an important alternative source of funding for farmers, whose basic payments are rapidly diminishing. They are an exciting development on which the Government are to be congratulated and which many in the farming community, including me, strongly support.
However, as the Minister described on day six of the Committee, the Bill creates an entirely new market in biodiversity net gain, the likely size and extent of which the Government are unwilling or unable to specify—despite repeated requests. It is described by some as the wild west of ecosystem services. It is a new frontier, and I am aware that a number of major financial institutions are prospecting with keen interest.
I am therefore surprised that the Government cannot estimate the likely size of the market. It must be a simple calculation to estimate how much biodiversity will be lost over the next decade, given the Government’s proud housing and development aspirations and the recent publication of the updated biodiversity metric. An impact assessment should be possible, and it seems a mistake to launch such a radical new land use and property law scheme without at least trying to understand what its impact will be. You do not venture west without a telescope to see where you are going. Can the Minister please say whether the Government will be able to provide an impact assessment of biodiversity net gain by Report?
Given this background of considerable uncertainty, the aim of my amendments is to ensure that this new market actually works, that trust and good practice in conservation covenants are established at the outset and, most particularly, that we are able to protect our natural environment and those who work it from the disastrous impacts of poorly conceived covenants entered into by cash-strapped farmers dealing with sophisticated for-profit commercial operators.
This is a complex area of law, and the covenants entered into will have long-standing—potentially perpetual—implications for generations. If they are wrong at conception, both farmers and their land will suffer and the market will not succeed. If they are right, well drafted and clear in their terms, they will be a vital tool to achieve the biodiversity net gains we all aspire to.
In legislating for conservation covenants, the Government have departed significantly from the Law Commission’s cautious recommendations by introducing for-profit companies as responsible bodies capable of entering into, registering and enforcing conservation covenants. The Law Commission proposed that only public bodies, registered charities and local authorities be able to enter into such covenants but, in their efforts to inject the energy of private markets and finance into this sector, the Government have opened it to any private body that the Secretary of State designates, so long as at least some of the body’s main activities relate to conservation.
In response to this proposal, the Bar Council stated:
“We do not see that there is any case for this. A for-profit company does not appear to us to be an appropriate body to hold the benefit of such covenants.”
It noted the danger of a private, for-profit entity being able to recover exemplary damages and the potential for abuse of a system that may allow for-profit companies to enter covenants for tax management purposes—that is, to adjust land values.
Conservation covenants bind successors in title and are able to be registered as local land charges on the land charges register. In the Land Registry’s own words,
“land charges are generally financial charges or restrictions on the use of land which are governmental in character and imposed by public authorities under statutory powers”.
It is therefore a major departure from standard Land Registry practice to permit for-profit enterprises to wield such quasi-governmental functions, particularly as the Minister has admitted that we simply do not know how they would work in practice.
There are multiple other significant and potentially dangerous implications to entering into a conservation covenant. I have already noted the right to claim exemplary damages from a landowner who unwittingly breaches the covenant—an extraordinary remedy in the hands of a for-profit company—plus the fact that the covenant binds successors in title, thereby banishing once and for all English property law’s long-held aversion to the perpetual control of land by the dead hand of one’s predecessor. Beware the zombie habitat banks—and here I am not being facetious. Conservation covenants will bind land to a particular use by default in perpetuity, and the land management prescriptions that may be agreed in writing now between a farmer and a developer might well fail the test of time, particularly given that this has never been done before. As the Minister so clearly explained last Wednesday, there are simply not ecologists and consultants currently in the market who know how to make this happen. It has never been done before, and we are entering wholly uncharted territory.
I ask noble Lords to consider the intervention of the RSPB on Exminster Marshes, which I have mentioned previously, which showed that even the most well-funded and well-intentioned land management prescriptions can have disastrous implications for the flora and fauna they aim to protect. In that case, on taking over the marches from traditional pasture farmers, the RSPB set about 20 years of intervention, removing livestock, minimising pest control and flooding fields to create an artificial wetland. When ground-nesting birds all but disappeared and Canada geese took over, the RSPB abandoned those practises, restored ditches and reintroduced pest control and grazing cattle. Ground-nesting bird numbers are now increasing again, but all those steps towards recovery would be likely to be in breach of a conservation covenant had one been put in place 20 years ago.
Part 7 offers only limited statutory defences to a breach of covenant, and it is no defence to a claim for breach that the farmer’s other property would otherwise have been damaged. Thus, if a farmer is faced with an imminent flood, caused perhaps by a beaver damming the local river upstream, which will wipe out his stored grain after harvest, it would be no defence to a breach of covenant if the farmer redirects that flood to a field subject to a conservation covenant prohibiting standing water. Assuming that he damages a nest site for a pair of cirl buntings, he will be facing a claim for damages in excess of £70,000 plus exemplary damages.
Equally of concern is that, in absence of provision to the contrary, the responsible body is free to transfer its interests to any other responsible body unilaterally. Thus, the local farmer may negotiate and agree the outline terms of a conservation covenant with a local developer’s ecologist who he knows and trusts, leaving the complicated details to be worked out as the habitat bank is developed, only to find that the local developer transfers its interests to the ecosystems services department of an international banking conglomerate with no local presence and a for-profit obligation to maximise shareholder returns.
I know that I am presenting a parade of horribles here, identifying all the things that can and might go wrong. However, that is the job of a lawyer being asked to advise a client entering a new and radical agreement.
This brings me to my principal amendment, Amendment 267, which seeks to ensure that conservation covenants are executed by deed and not merely by signed writing. As any law school graduate knows, signed writing in this modern day can be achieved simply by an exchange of email evidencing sufficient intent to be bound to an agreement and no legal advice needs to be given on their execution. Therefore, a conservation covenant tying land to perpetual obligations could conceivably be created by no more than an exchange of messages, which do not even need to state that they are intended to amount to a conservation covenant so long as it appears from the language that a covenant was intended. Amendment 266 addresses that anomaly.
Defra’s draft fact sheet on conservation covenants released last week recognises the danger of entering into agreements without legal advice and states that the Government’s forthcoming advice will recommend that those entering conservation covenants take advice. Will busy farmers even read that guidance? Amendment 267 will ensure that legal advice is sought such that all conservation covenants that are entered into are properly drafted to achieve the effects required.
In conclusion, consider a hypothetical because lawyers love a hypothetical. The typical English farmer is in his late 60s. He is seeing his BPS payments decrease year on year and the margins on which he subsists are rapidly decreasing. He disagrees with his children about to the future of the farm, and he cannot understand the myriad government strategies being trialled elsewhere. However, the farm having been in his family for generations, he does not wish to take the Government’s money to retire.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Devon and his forensic legal approach to these issues. In this case, I am highly persuaded by his arguments. Fifteen minutes ago, I had relatively few doubts about this chapter on conservation covenants, but now I seem to have loads of them. I should also say that this is my first appearance in this Chamber since March 2020, and it is good to be back.
I shall speak to my Amendment 276A in this group. I should say at the outset that it is very much a probing amendment. There is no doubt that overgrazing on many of our hills and commons has been a problem for several decades. One of the best things that we could do for biodiversity in these areas is to find a way of reducing the number of grazing mammals or changing the variety of them or possibly, in some cases, removing them altogether. That is what the amendment seeks to do. I hope it would enable the peat and blanket bog to rebuild itself to help the climate change agenda and to improve the biodiversity of the common in question.
It appears that ever since the Commons Act 2006 it has been difficult to buy grazing stints without having also to buy the land to which the stints are attached. As I understand it, this linkage was made under the previous CAP regime in an effort to limit grazing numbers, as linkage to the dominant tenement restricted the number of stints that the tenement could tolerate for overwintering on its own land. This regime also meant that the stint holders tended to farm adjacent to the common, which helped to keep the link between the stint holders and the management of the commons.
Now, of course, we are entering a completely new land management regime, ELMS, so it seems that it would be in the interest of conservationists and conservation organisations, such as Natural England, for them to be able to buy stints without having to buy the farm to which they are attached. I know Natural England is supportive. It also seems that such a regime would also be in the interests of the farmer and the commoner. He or she would be able to sell some of their stints, even to the extent of selling all of them, without having to sell their farm and/or their home. Life under ELMS is going to be very different and maybe even difficult for some of these farmers, so the more flexibility that we can grant them, the better.
If the right to buy that I am proposing were limited to “responsible bodies” as defined under this chapter, I believe there would be no chance of other farmers, landowners or even shooting tenants moving in and buying these stints for their own purposes. I hope that these stints are either going to disappear altogether or at least be managed for the benefit of the environment.
I am aware that the law and history surrounding commons are immensely complicated, and I am certainly no expert—unlike some noble Lords, I am sure—but I know enough to realise that tabling an amendment such as this is the equivalent of sticking my hand into a wasps’ nest. That is the reason why I felt that consultation, although hopefully not for too long, would be a good idea, and why in this instance I put “may” rather than “must” at the beginning of the amendment. I know that Natural England approves of my intentions, and I hope the Government will support the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is my pleasure to welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. I had not actually realised that he was not here because I have seen him so often on screen. It is good to see him.
I have a slight confession to make. When I first looked at these amendments, all my working class instincts—which have served me quite well over the past 70 years—started coming out about supporting something that seemed sensible but was from a landowner, and then another landowner came in with another amendment. However, I fought down those suspicions and in fact I welcome the concept of new conservation covenants in the Bill.
I would probably benefit from some more explanation. I know the noble Earl, Lord Devon, gave an extremely comprehensive introduction to this topic, but I still have a few small queries. However, I want to put on record the Green group’s support for these amendments. They appear to be an essential tool for modifying the law of land ownership towards a greener system that understands that land is the primary source of all real wealth, which is held in trust by humans on behalf of all species and future generations.
Regarding the noble Earl’s introductory speech, the minute that anyone uses words like “offsetting” and “market”, all my green instincts come out. I have a slight problem with those words because both those things normally mean a complete scam as far as environmental issues are concerned.
This would be a landmark change to the law because it expands on some traditions in English land law—common land, public rights of way and other traditional rights and obligations arising under various circumstances—but the amendments in this group also highlight some of the real difficulties of the law of the land. So much of land law is focused on formalities, and if the necessary formalities are not met then everything can unravel.
Amendments 266, 267 and 268 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, focus on the formalities needed for a valid conservation covenant. This is where I would like a little more explanation, particularly if the noble Earl is going to push them through to the next stage.
Amendment 276 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, probes another issue, one that I find quite perplexing, the question of why Clause 125(8) explicitly states that
“the Secretary of State has no liability with respect to performance of any obligation … under the covenant”
during any time that the Secretary of State is custodian of the covenant. Why have the Government chosen that approach? If they are not responsible during this time, who is? Will these important natural sites go untended, unmanaged and uncared-for into abandonment? Unless the Government can give some convincing reason, it seems that Amendment 276 would be an important change to the Bill—in fact, to law—to ensure that these covenants are upheld and natural sites protected.
I once again commend the inclusion of these covenants in the Bill, and I hope noble Lords can iron out these few small queries so that the covenants work as effectively as possible.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I share all the reservations expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. In dealing with perpetuity in this section of the Bill, the Government seem quite laid back about it, whereas my suggestion of perpetuity earlier on in the Bill caused an attack of the heebie-jeebies. I find this strange because here we are dealing with individual farmers, who, as the noble Earl pointed out, may often be vulnerable, while in the case of biodiversity gain we are dealing, by and large, with professional builders, who are in a completely different position when it comes to understanding the law and in the state of their finances. In both cases, I support perpetuity but when it comes to dealing with individual farmers, we must have something which is much more cautious and much safer.
I agree with the noble Earl that there really is no place in this system for commercial enterprise. Nature changes. What happens in the course of perpetuity—what the right action is—is going to move; it is never static. If there is a conservation obligation—say, to keep a certain number of ground-nesting birds in a particular space—and 10 years later a big badger sett is established next door and it is no longer a place where ground-nesting birds can survive, we need to be able to alter the covenant and adapt it to the changed circumstances. If we have a commercial entity in place, which perhaps is only after gain at that stage—it may not be looking to do more or to continue in the business—the poor farmer is going to be in a very poor place indeed.
The holders of these covenants ought to be organisations which are likely to continue, and to value their reputation. for a very long time and which are likely to want to continue to enter into new covenants on the basis of their reputation. There are quite a number of big conservation-oriented organisations that that would apply to. It should not be a matter for commerce.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests, as stated in the register. It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Lucas, who always speaks with great knowledge and experience on these subjects. I listened to the interesting speech of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, at Second Reading and again today, on conservation covenants. Unlike the noble Earl, I am not a lawyer, but I could understand his argument that, under English property law, it is not possible to bind a successor in title.
These provisions amount to a significant change in English property law, and I wonder whether they would work in practice. I understand that a number of estates are already operating similar schemes, but, rather than a covenant, they have a lease in place, with a restrictive user clause. In the majority of cases, a lease will usually work. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that, in the case of a covenant, as introduced by the Bill, you need a dominant and a servient tenement? In other words, the covenant restricts something on one piece of land in favour of another.
In the case of conservation covenants covering isolated plots of land, with no adjacent retained land, will there not be difficulties in enforcing such covenants? I would like to hear from the Minister what the Government’s view is on this question and the others raised by the noble Earl and other noble Lords. Certainly, I agree with the noble Earl that covenants of this nature should not be entered into lightly. His amendments generally make it clearer that to encumber land with such obligations is a weighty matter and that requiring such covenants to be signed as deeds probably makes a great deal of sense.
It is a great pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, back in his place after a long time. In his Amendment 276A, he seeks to extend this structure to common land, which is a very interesting idea, but it is complicated, as he said. I am not quite sure how this will work, and I look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lady Bloomfield thinks about that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the House owes the noble Earl, Lord Devon, a great debt of gratitude for bringing to our attention some of the shortcomings of the existing proposals in the Bill, with regard to this whole new concept of property law, as it relates to the land. My initial reading of it was not clear, and I obviously received a brief from the NFU and others. I am grateful to the noble Earl; his amendments are eminently sensible, and I urge the Government to support them.
I will speak at greater length. I welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, to his place—it is good to see him back in person. However, I caution my noble friend the Minister most strongly against accepting this amendment for a number of reasons. I was closely involved with some issues relating to common land, particularly grazing rights on it in the part of North Yorkshire that I represented between 2010 and 2015. The role of graziers there is very important. They are granted rights, again, in perpetuity and have existed for many generations.
There are sometimes tensions with others in the hierarchy of interests, we might say, on common land, particularly with those involved in grouse shooting. I happen to have been brought up very close to two of the best grouse-shooting moors in the country, in Teesdale in County Durham, and I believe that, for the most part, the overgrazing problems, where they exist, have been managed extremely well through voluntary arrangements via stewardship schemes.
The main issue that I have is a potential hidden agenda here that it is very important to put in the public domain, appealing to the best instincts of my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in this regard. However, we need to see a balance in the countryside, and, among the hierarchy of interests, I place on record my particular concern about the plight of the small family farm. I would place that at the very top of the hierarchy, with grouse shooting and other interests perhaps towards the middle—or, in my case, the lower end. It has become of far greater economic importance than it had 20, 30 or 40 years ago. I pay particular tribute to the work of the NFU and the Tenant Farmers Association in regard to the rights of graziers to graze in perpetuity on common land. I was struck today by, and pay tribute to, the work of the Prince of Wales in this regard. He said today, on the BBC Radio 4 “Today” programme, that we lose them at our peril, and I echo that.
I hope that my noble friend Lady Bloomfield will confirm that there is a role for graziers going forward and that their rights will be protected in perpetuity and will not be at the expense of other, perhaps larger, farming—or, dare I say, shooting—interests in this regard. We should have respect for existing property rights, as defined in relation to land under the Law of Property Act 1925 and other legislation. We should recognise that these rights of commoners go back as far as the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Charter of the Forest of 1217.
I welcome the opportunity that my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington— I call him my noble friend because we served together on the EU Environment Sub-Committee—has given us in this regard, but I urge my noble friend to approach this cautiously, particularly as it would potentially shift the balance in the countryside, without even meaning to do so.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will be extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for tabling these important amendments. I confess that I have not given them the attention that I should have done, and it is clear that a lot of attention needs to be given to this part of the Bill between now and Report. The fact that we are on the eighth day does not mean that these amendments are any less important than the first amendment on day 1—they need careful scrutiny.
To my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I say that I am not a landowner, but I was a land agent, and the implications of what the noble Earl said in moving his amendment fill me with some trepidation. He made a perfectly plausible case—it was not extreme—about a situation where a farmer hurriedly enters into a conservation covenant to boost his income at a time of stress, when his basic farm payments system is collapsing and he needs the money. That is not an unlikely scenario in the future, but the consequences of what he does are terrifying for the future because they are in perpetuity and binding on his successors. This could go disastrously wrong for the Government. This is the way that we will improve biodiversity, but, should it get off to a bad start and should some notorious cases hit the press, that will stop any chance of this becoming the full-blown operation that it should.
I have a number of questions for my noble friend on the Front Bench. If this a covenant in perpetuity, a farmer may enter into one on what is at the moment an outlying field but then ceases to be so, given the proposed massive housing development in this country, with the local authority wishing to develop it or use it for amenity purposes, as part of the increased use of that area. As I understand it, it will not be able to do so—but, when it has built houses all around that field, there is absolutely no way that the covenant will be able to be maintained. Is there a way in which this could be changed so that there is more flexibility?
When the noble Earl was talking, I wondered about the case of landlords and tenants. I presume it will be the landlord who enters into the covenant, and with the agreement of the tenant, but that could have serious consequences for the future letting of that land and keeping it in a tenancy. If for any reason the covenant was unable to be fulfilled, no tenant farmer would wish to take on that bit of land again in the future.
It would also affect the price and balance of farmland, because if it goes wrong and the land becomes of little value, it will upset the whole biodiversity and nature balance in that area. If one is talking of a landscape issue—for instance, a valley in the south-west or north-west where the whole area is properly managed but there is a conservation covenant in the middle of it that goes wrong—that could be utterly detrimental. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reflect on this so that he is absolutely confident that the balance is right for the future.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak principally about Amendment 276A, which relates to common land and which I have discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. The reason for that is that there is a very large amount of common land in the bit of north-west England where I come from, currently known as the county of Cumbria. I should declare that I am president of the Uplands Alliance and I own on my own account a few common rights and a very small area of registered common. I am also a farmer in his late 60s looking into the future.
I begin by reassuring the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that one of the advantages of speaking remotely is that I can, and do, have a copy of Megarry & Wade to hand. I urge your Lordships to take seriously the points that he has raised, because he is talking not merely as somebody who understands the way land works in the real world but as a property lawyer. His indictment of the implications of what is currently in the Bill is significant. There are massive potential problems here, starting with the definition of “responsible body” and going through the saga of how disaster can strike. It is not merely a matter of disaster hitting the particular owners or successors in title of owners of bits of land; it is potentially a disaster for the countryside and the environment as well. For what it is worth, my advice to the Government would be to tear these proposals up, start again and, if necessary, bring them back in another place and we can vote on them again at a later time after a period of reflection. It is not the aspirations behind what is contained in the Bill which are flawed; it is the mechanisms that they put in place to try to bring them about.
As has already been said, common land is a very complicated legal and administrative matter, as the discussions on the most recent Bill to pass through your Lordships’ House, in 2005, show. In that Bill, a balance was struck between a range of interests which do not always see eye to eye. Common land is as legitimate a form of land tenure as the more usual form found across much of lowland England and Wales. While it was at one time more widespread than it is now, it is still an entirely appropriate basis for farming and land management in a number of upland and lowland, particularly wetland, areas of England and Wales. It is not a hangover from feudal England, although its ancestry lies there, nor is it an anachronism in the 21st century. The various rights which exist under it are in legal terms qualitatively no different from those that exist elsewhere in land law. Furthermore—and this is important—it is a cultural phenomenon which is part of the basis of the rationale for the Lake District National Park having been designated as a world heritage site.
I can see what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is trying to do, and I have no criticism of it. However, I feel that he has oversimplified some things in a number of ways. Issues relating to conservation and the environment are not the only part of the story; there are other aspects—for example, grazed habitats; cultural landscape, which I have already mentioned; traditional farming systems; rural communities and so on. Furthermore, one thing we can learn from the history of commons is that the interests of the owner of the soil and those of the owner of the common rights are not necessarily the same. Indeed, the interests of different owners of rights, which are not all the same, are in turn not necessarily the same. I must confess that I am not happy that the owner of the soil could gain a kind of advantage over all the other legitimate legal rights involved in it in the way that has been described, particularly in respect of the long-established rights of commons, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It seems to me that if someone involved in common land wants to buy up some other land or rights or soil, they should do so in the ordinary way in the open market.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, back to his place in this House. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I must admit that, due to the diligence of his attendance on-screen, I too had not been aware that he had not been present. I understand the arguments made by the noble Lord for his Amendment 276A and recognise that he has proposed it very much as a probing amendment, but it seems a complex concept to introduce at this stage and it would need quite a lot of consideration.
I want to concentrate mainly on the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I am neither farmer, landowner nor lawyer, but, like many others in this Committee, I found his arguments compelling. As he said, conservation covenant agreements offer a potentially exciting and positive development, but, as he also told us, there are significant complexities. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that they are just minor wrinkles to be smoothed out, because they seem pretty fundamental. Like the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I feel that introducing for-profit organisations into this area does not seem sensible, particularly at such an early stage in their development.
Likewise, the ability to bind successors in perpetuity is clearly very significant, as is the ability to seek exemplary damages on the basis of those agreements. Whatever one thinks, the idea that a landowner could find themselves bound in perpetuity to a commercial interest and subject to exemplary damages simply by the exchange of messages, as the noble Earl explained, just cannot be right. While I am instinctively suspicious of a proposal from a lawyer, even one as articulate as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, to provide more work for lawyers, nevertheless on this occasion I accept fully the argument that he makes. Any agreement of such enduring significance must surely first be explicitly recognised as a covenant agreement, not just something that seems to be one—and surely no one should enter into such agreements without professional advice, given their significance.
As the noble Earl said, covenant agreements offer an important new approach that could be extremely significant. However, given that they also trespass on very complex areas of law, they should be treated and proceeded with cautiously. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take very seriously the arguments put forward by the noble Earl and look at how the Government can address this important part of the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority. I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for tabling these amendments and introducing them with such clarity. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, he was very persuasive. On that subject, we welcome the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, back to his seat—he made his own very persuasive and silver-tongued contribution. I listened very carefully to what he was saying, but I am afraid that, like other noble Lords, I was not totally persuaded. Perhaps it is just because we have not had enough time to consider what seemed, the more we talked about it, to be a more and more complex issue. Forgive me if I do not dwell on that, because I feel I am out of my comfort zone in understanding the implications for the use of common land. Perhaps we can return to that issue at some point when we have more time to debate it in detail.
I return to the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. We welcome the essential principle of the conservation covenants in the Bill, which the noble Earl said was a result of the Law Commission’s recommendations. As a number of noble Lords have said, there are real concerns as to how these covenants will be applied in practice. The noble Earl said that it was particularly important that smaller farmers understood the full implications of entering into these covenants and are protected from exploitation. He has given some examples of the perverse consequences of historic covenants in the past, and I suspect that they will become more common in future. Already we are hearing in the south downs about farmers being approached by public bodies that want agreements to provide a home for their carbon offset obligations. I have no doubt that those sorts of pressures are only going to increase.
As the noble Earl says, it is in danger of becoming a bit of a wild west situation. It is likely that biodiversity net gain will create a new swathe of developers, public and private, looking to do deals with farmers to offset the damage that they are doing to the environment elsewhere. Already we are hearing talk of environmental stacking, whereby farmers have multiple obligations to different bodies to deliver environmental benefits, with all the legal complexities that would ensue if that became commonplace. Incidentally, this once more underlines the case of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone that we need a land-use strategy so that growing food, carbon offsetting and enhancing biodiversity all develop into a coherent policy whole, and we know where the priorities lie.
Of course, these developments could be an advantage to farmers and the environment if they were managed properly, but these agreements need to be managed with care to ensure that farmers are not exploited by big corporate players and their lawyers. That is why the noble Earl, despite being a lawyer, is quite right to pursue these amendments. They would make it clear that the covenant was a formal legal document, signed as a deed, which one hopes would ensure that the farmer received appropriate legal advice.
The noble Earl is also right to probe, in Amendment 274, what organisations that are not public bodies or charities can be defined as responsible bodies for the purpose of this clause. We agree that there are real concerns about for-profit organisations entering this market, with the potential lack of responsibility and knowledge that many of these organisations will have. We need to be assured that all the organisations described as responsible bodies have expertise in conservation. Since many of these agreements will be for the long term, we need to be clear about what happens if a responsible body holding a covenant subsequently becomes insolvent or ceases to exist, or simply sells that covenant on. A number of noble Lords have probed the consequences that could occur from applying those covenants in perpetuity, and the impact that that could have on the individual.
It seems to me that we need answers to this, and the noble Earl’s amendments go a considerable way to addressing it. I also agree with the amendments laying greater duties on the Secretary of State to manage the covenants in those circumstances, particularly in the longer term. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, what is the point of having the stopgap of the Secretary of State if he is not required to do anything, as is the case under the current provisions?
In conclusion, I very much believe that the noble Earl has made a powerful case for these amendments. Alarm bells are ringing about the actions we need to take to get this right. I hope that the Minister has heard the concerns from around the Chamber. It would be helpful if, as a matter of urgency, she was able to meet the noble Earl—and I hope that we will be able to find a solution and a revised wording of the Bill.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration of this part of the Bill. I also take this opportunity to thank the Law Commission, as this part of the Bill is based on its work and the draft Bill that it prepared. Its ongoing support as the Bill has moved through the various parliamentary stages has also proved invaluable.
Conservation covenants are an important and flexible tool for the environment’s conservation and improvement—and I know that there is some frustration that this was not drafted as a specific Bill, but it is right that we legislate for them now rather than waiting. They complement other measures in the Bill, such as biodiversity net gain. Conservation covenants are private agreements entered into voluntarily to deliver long-term conservation outcomes for the natural and heritage features of the land—and I welcome the broad support of noble Lords from around the House, particularly that of the Green Party. Importantly, the legislation allows for covenants to bind successor landowners, which ensures that they can deliver lasting conservation for future generations; the legislation also allows for them to be modified or discharged to cater for changing circumstances.
Amendments 266, 267 and 268, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, seek to ensure greater formality in the process for creating these covenants. Before I get into the detail, I emphasise again that these agreements are voluntary, and a covenant needs to be exercised as a deed to be entered as a land charge, which I hope goes some way to reassuring noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Conservation covenants cannot be imposed—rather, the parties will need to work together to set them up in line with the requirements set out in the Bill. As these are legally binding agreements, there needs to be a degree of formality, and the Bill’s provisions ensure that there is.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am comforted, to some extent, by what my noble friend has said, but I very much hope that I might be included in the meeting that she proposes between officials and the noble Earl.
It is extremely important to get the practical application of this system right. In particular, I remain extremely cautious about broadening the ambit of responsible bodies to include organisations which are fundamentally commercial. What is needed here are bodies that are fundamentally ecological—that have an established long-term interest in getting the ecology of an area right. National parks obviously come within that—that is not a problem, as far as I can see—but something with a more commercial bent, however ecologically expert it is, seems a very questionable road to go down and likely to result in a great deal of heartache.
When it comes to my own meeting with officials, I will certainly be interested in the way in which perpetuity is so comfortable to them here but is such a problem when it comes to biodiversity gain. I cannot see the logic that goes through here. Biodiversity gain is, by and large, negotiated with people who are well informed, well set up and, in particular, stand to make a large amount of money from a transaction where the costs of the biodiversity gain are not going to be substantial. Here, we are dealing with people who are in a very different relationship with the responsible body.
Perpetuity seems to me to be right, because we are trying to do something for the very long term—but it has to be perpetuity with flexibility. To have perpetuity without flexibility, as we have here, or flexibility without perpetuity, as we have with biodiversity gain, seems the wrong road to go down. I very much hope that we will make some progress on that between now and Report.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I believe that the Government and my noble friend are in agreement on the criteria for selecting a responsible body, whose main purpose or function must relate to conservation. I would be delighted to include him in a future meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and officials and perhaps we could address some other concerns at that meeting.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated and voiced, in general, considerable support for the amendments that I have proposed. It is particularly pleasing to hear support from the Green Party—despite the aristocratic proposer of these amendments—and from other Benches; it is much appreciated. I am pleased to hear that the Government take these amendments seriously and are willing to meet me; I look forward to that meeting.
A number of points were raised. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, raised the issue regarding landlords and tenants. As I read the legislation, tenants will be able to enter into conservation covenants so long as they have at least seven years left on their tenancy. Of course, what happens on reversion of the tenancy once they have converted a farming field into a bog is yet another complexity that I did not have time to get to in my hypotheticals.
I also appreciate the support from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but, contrary to him, I think there is a role for for-profit companies within this marketplace. It is an exciting opportunity for environmental land management to bring in private finance but, if we are to do that, we absolutely must control and manage it, which is what these amendments are designed to do.
I thank the noble Baroness for the Government’s reply; she suggested that covenants can be easily modified or discharged in sites in application to the lands tribunal. In response to the Law Commission’s inquiry, the Bar Council pointed out that even the most modest application to the lands tribunal costs at least £50,000, and I am not sure that a small farmer would be willing to spend that to modify a covenant. She says that, to be registered as land charges, they must be executed by deed. I do not see that in the legislation and, as I understand it, they have effect as land charges even if they are not registered, so they still have this quasi-governmental function. As I understand it, they also continue to permit the responsible body to enforce exemplary damages, whether they are registered or not. Those are very significant impacts.
I am afraid that the noble Baroness may have misunderstood my Amendment 274, because it did change. The amendment is to the provision that applies to the for-profit, non-charitable, non-local authority entities. My aim is to ensure that any entities designated thereunder have conservation as their core function because, at present, the legislation does not permit for that. It is absolutely important that, if we are to have private enterprises involved, they need to be conservation enterprises; they cannot be banks that are just seeking to make a profit in developing an ecosystems services arm.
Finally, as to Amendment 276, while it is right that conservation covenants should be preserved, the reason why large payments will be made under them is because the landowner—the farmer—has to spend a lot of money maintaining the land in that way. If no payments can be made by the Secretary of State when that person takes responsibility for the covenant, there will be income for the land to be maintained in the way that it is meant to be. If payments are not made, the conservation purposes will necessarily fall away or the farmer will once more go bankrupt. There are a huge number of issues to be dealt with here. I do not think it is enough that this can just be packed in at the back end of Committee; we have a lot more work to do and I look forward to meeting the Minister and the Bill team. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Amendments of Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006
(1) Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (general restrictions on legislative competence of Senedd Cymru) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 9(8)(b) (exceptions to restrictions relating to reserved authorities)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (v);(b) after paragraph (vi) insert “; or—(vii) the Environment Act 2021.”(3) In paragraph 11(6)(b) (exceptions to restrictions relating to Ministers of the Crown)—(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (v);(b) after paragraph (vi) insert “; or—(vii) the Environment Act 2021.”Member’s explanatory statement
Several provisions of the Bill give both the Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State functions relating to Welsh devolved matters. The amendments made by this new Clause enable Senedd Cymru to remove the Secretary of State’s functions relating to Welsh devolved matters without the Secretary of State’s consent.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 280. Anyone wishing to press this or the other amendment in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 280
“Research into impact of offshore windfarms
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that before planning permission is granted, research must be undertaken by companies seeking to construct and operate offshore windfarms into the cumulative impact on—(a) the environment, (b) marine life, and(c) sea mammals,of the construction and operation phase of such windfarms.(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to debate Amendment 280 standing in my name. I am delighted to have to the support of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I also wish to speak briefly on Amendment 285 in this group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I would like to think that my noble friend the Minister will take the opportunity to confirm that there is currently a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing both on land and at sea in England which, in that case, would be extremely welcome. It is good, however, to debate the issue in the context of Amendment 285. I am mindful of how any proposal for fracking, particularly on land, causes great consternation among local people, as we saw in North Yorkshire.
To return to Amendment 280, may I ask the Minister for what reason there is currently no requirement for an undertaking to perform any form of research before planning permission is sought or granted in connection with offshore wind farms? My noble friend will be aware of what witnesses who appeared before the EU Environment Sub-Committee—so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, until it wound up earlier this year—told us about the increasing urbanisation of the sea by the introduction, increasingly, of turbines, and the sea-change, if noble Lords will pardon the phrase, and the stepping-up of wind farms that we are currently seeing. One witness in particular referred to how this changes the ecology and the whole ecosystem, in particular by introducing fixed structures, cables, armoury, turbines and so on. What assessment has been made of the cumulative impacts, not just at the construction phase but more especially at the operational phase? I know that the Minister is aware that I am concerned about the impact at the operation phase of wind farms on porpoises, dolphins and minke whales.
We should also be aware that offshore wind is a very new sector. Because it has expanded so incrementally and so quickly, having been around for only 10 years, we have never actually paused to consider what the repercussions will be on the seabed, marine life and mammals of extensive construction over such a short period of time. I understand that the focus to date has been largely on what the disbenefits might be to marine life of the construction phase, but my understanding is that no research has been undertaken to consider what the impact will be of the operation phase. I know that the Danes have done some work on this; at one stage, they stopped building wind farms on land because the farmers complained about the constant hum and the impact they were having on their animals.
I am equally aware that the Minister is aware—he has referred to this previously—of the tensions between offshore wind farms and other uses of the sea, in particular the North Sea, such as, for example, fishing and shipping. I am not yet convinced that the Government have set out how these tensions will be resolved. I also understand that, in relation to the North Sea, there is currently no government forum to facilitate international co-operation and, for example, the sharing of knowledge or, perhaps, the ability to undertake joint research in this regard. As the hosts of COP, which I am sure we are all immensely proud of, will the Government use that as an opportunity to show leadership and set out how the UK will deliver their offshore wind ambition in a sustainable way, and with international partners as well?
I will end with a couple of questions; perhaps we can carry on the discussion, now that we are planning to meet, which I warmly welcome. I felt very much left out, so my heart is severely warmed by this. How will the Government resolve the tension between competing interests such as wind farms, fishing and shipping, particularly in the context of the North Sea but also in other areas where this takes place? Will they take the opportunity to commission research on the potential cumulative impacts before further construction, or planning permission is given for the siting, of wind farms? Will the Minister commit to a more strategic and precautionary approach and set out exactly how marine life and mammals operating within the North Sea will be protected going forward?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend opposite, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I sort of see the point in her amendment; I had better not say that I support it, because I would probably get rude emails from the Green Party saying it has not been party policy, but obviously I would be happy to discuss it. On the issue of not being invited to meet the Minister, the Greens still have not been invited to meet him, and I cannot decide whether that is because we completely trust the Minister to understand everything that we are saying; I cannot think of any other option. We obviously trust the Minister completely to take our point of view back to Defra.
My amendment is on something that I care about very deeply, namely fracking. I have tabled it with a view to banning it once and for all. In doing so, I want to celebrate all the hard work of campaigners and activists across the country who delivered massive opposition against this dirty and dangerous polluting industry, often in the face of poor policy decisions by the Government and the fracking industry’s might-is-right attempts to quash them. In particular, I applaud the Preston New Road campaign in Lancashire. It was a thousand days of protest by the anti-fracking Nanas, a bunch of mainly older women led by Tina Rothery. They fought so hard in the face of well-financed and rather nasty, threatening behaviour by Cuadrilla.
In the 2019 general election, it was announced that we had won on this particular issue. The Conservatives, along with every other political party in Parliament, declared themselves to be against fracking. However, we in the UK are still supporting fracking in Argentina, which means we are offshoring the horrid stuff, so we do not have to count all the carbon emissions and so on, and Namibia is being exploited by a Canadian company. Ireland called for an international ban this year, and calls are now growing for an Irish-led global ban on fracking. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether that is something that the Government might support.
Here in the UK, there are still legal loopholes that could allow fracking to be forced on communities. I am most worried that, even if the Secretary of State did reject planning permission for fracking, this could be overturned in a judicial review. The Government may have changed their policy to be against fracking but, if this conflicts with the law in a judicial review, their policy will be ruled unlawful. For this reason, we must change the law to reflect what is now common agreement: that fracking is banned in the UK. I hope that the Minister will agree.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and her strong advocacy, which I very much respect. I am going to speak to Amendment 280, to which I was very pleased to put my name, alongside that of its proponent, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As the noble Baroness said, this is an area that the EU Environment Sub-Committee looked at. When we started looking into the areas of research, planning and the various impacts of wind farms, we found far more questions than answers. I look forward to the Minister coming back in this area.
I clearly welcome the renewable energy programme that we have. Obviously, offshore wind—whether it be floating or on the seabed—is going to be a very major part of that. However, it is important to make sure that that programme has the least negative impact on the environment, whether it be all the marine areas that the noble Baroness talked about, or birdlife—seabirds and migratory birds as well. There is not enough research in this area; there ought to be research for the future shared among all the countries around both the North Sea and the Celtic Sea, so that we can make sure that we locate turbines in the most favourable way to protect—and, in some areas, to encourage—environmental life at marine level. As the noble Baroness said, there might be positives in this area as well.
I want to ask the Minister about the fora that we deal with now on energy in the North Sea. We have been excluded—I think unreasonably—from one of the main European ones, which was not an EU institution, and included us in the past. However, I understand that there is a new forum that we might be involved in where these discussions are taking place. This is important because, clearly, the locations of wind farms in the North Sea and, in future, the Celtic Sea should be co-ordinated, if for no other reason than to make sure that as much infrastructure as possible is shared. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how we will ensure, as we start to develop the Celtic Sea as well, that we do not have multiple landing points and multiple cables put down, as has happened in the North Sea. We should have some co-ordination there to minimise damage.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am here to speak against Amendment 285. It seems to me that making fracking effectively illegal is an extreme reaction. That seems short-sighted. It closes down any possibility of looking at the issue again or objectively, and potentially feeds into an atmosphere in which we cannot have a sensible debate on energy policy because we start criminalising innovations every time they come along. We have heard that the Government have a moratorium on fracking. I feel that is overcautious and potentially unhelpful but, regardless of that, to make it illegal feels completely over the top.
I understand that fracking is controversial as a method of drawing shale gas from the ground. Certainly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, explained, environmental activists have been hyperactive in ensuring that there is a popular image of fracking as dangerous and dirty, but I do not know that that should pass for science or evidence. I am not for or against fracking, but I am against moralising on the issue and, right from the start, I have been shocked by the venomous demonisation of what, after all, is just an energy source. There has been a lot of misinformation and scare stories around the issue.
I call, rather, for a calm discussion about the kind of tremors caused—they would be caused by any mineral extraction, whether quarry blasting or any major civil engineering project. I worry about a tendency to portray the worst-case scenario, with scary stories of earthquakes, water contamination and poisoned water tables. I feel that is a distinctly evidence-free approach and I do not feel the Bill should be associated with something quite so ideological in that way. I am calling for a more neutral and nuanced cost-benefit analysis approach.
I remember when the former Labour MP and fracking tsar, Natascha Engel, said that government policy was being driven by environmental lobbying rather than science, evidence and a desire to see the UK industry flourish. Indeed, I was shocked by how many rejoiced at what Ms Engel described as a “perfectly viable” industry being wasted, regardless of that industry’s massive potential for jobs and local prosperity in places such as the north-west, North Yorkshire and north Derbyshire. It promised to bring energy prices down. If it did not work out, fine, but to celebrate that as a big gain seemed to me inappropriate.
I also worry about the billions being spent on importing gas, which could be better spent. I have plenty of ideas, particularly in health and social care and in rebuilding post-Covid society. I am not keen on dependence on Russian gas, but even beyond the question of energy security, it seems to me that, even within the terms set by net zero—even though that is not a target I am particularly obsessive about, as others are—shale gas production could have had few carbon emissions, far fewer than hydrocarbons. It always surprises me, when we talk about reaching carbon emission targets, that we would rule out getting gas out of the ground in the UK, rather than importing it. It feels, with nuclear power as well, that every time a new energy solution is proposed that is not wind or solar, we get a kind of moral panic led by activism.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talked about the problem of finding any energy source that will not disrupt the environment and nature. I was involved in an argument some years ago after Lancashire County Council rejected an application for exploratory drilling—not in relation to the safety of fracking per se, but based on the negative visual impact, increased traffic on rural roads and that kind of environmental disruption. Would not such concerns condemn industrialisation in general? How can there be economic development without traffic, or some changes to the skyline or, indeed, to the environment? I think we need that.
My priorities are to generate wealth—not personally; I have never been able to do that—to see that society is able to generate wealth and, in the process, make people’s lives more comfortable and open opportunities for humanity. We need industrialisation in general, and more energy production in particular, and that will involve infrastructural environmental disruption. Shale gas might not be the energy we need, but we should note that the wider ideological rejection of economic growth and progress sometimes afflicts this discussion and we should avoid it. We definitely do not need an amendment to the Bill that would make fracking, or any energy source, illegal. I would even urge the Government to look again at the moratorium.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 280 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. This is a very interesting area and it is important that we continue to carefully research the impact of individual wind farms, as well as—perhaps more importantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned—their cumulative effect on many species, from benthic invertebrates through sand eels and fish to birds and the larger sea mammals. I shall start by highlighting the approach taken on this subject by the National Audubon Society, the equivalent of the RSPB in the USA. It says, and I gather that many scientists here agree, that climate change is the biggest enemy of our avian population. As wind farms are one of the best weapons in our arsenal to fight climate change, we must be careful about putting too many barriers in the way of their development, albeit with a clear understanding of their effects and what mitigation could be put in place.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is right that research on the effect of offshore wind farms on marine mammals and cetaceans is still, shall we say, in its infancy. However, the research on wind farms and their effects on birds is reasonably well advanced, so I shall focus on that. The Scottish Government, through their all-encompassing research programme on marine energy, ScotMER, have taken a very good strategic approach to this issue, working with research institutions, notably the UK’s CEH, which I happen to chair, alongside some important private-sector players; the Swedish company Vattenfall and the Danish company Ørsted being two good examples.
On the question of where offshore windfarms should be situated, we are pretty well aware of their effects during the seabird breeding season. By putting GPS tags on birds during the breeding season, we now know precisely where wind farms should not go, which is a very good start. The winter season is more difficult, however. GPS tags are not yet light enough or durable enough to provide reliable long-term information during this highly sensitive period. I call it a sensitive period because most seabird mortality happens during winter, and winter deaths are the critical factor in the survival of their colonies—more so, it seems, than their breeding success.
The main problem encountered during winter by our seabirds is the lack of food. The main food they eat are sand eels, which, as their name indicates, live in the underwater sands of the North Sea, let us say, where most wind farms are. Maybe the abundance of sand eels is affected by the sands themselves being disturbed by the building of wind farms and, more importantly perhaps, by the submersion of miles and miles of cable. But we do not yet have the data on that.
However, I should point out at this stage that, where you have wind farms, you will probably not get fishing boats, because of the likelihood of drift and getting the nets entangled in turbine towers. In the long term—we do not yet know—by building wind farms, we might well be creating the equivalent of what should be happening in our marine protected areas in terms of no-go fishing areas, where many species, including sand eels, could be given a real chance to flourish. Wind farms could be the best thing for both our abundance of fish and our birds. Who knows?
Coming back to the existence of offshore wind farms and their effect on birds, it is notable that the worst effects are on high-flying birds such as gannets and kittiwakes, whereas low-flying birds such as razorbills, guillemots and shearwaters tend not to be too troubled by them. Kittiwakes seem to be the worst affected species, and it is good that Ørsted, for instance, is building artificial kittiwake nesting sites at the Hornsea Three development off the Yorkshire coast by way of mitigation.
Returning to the amendment, I am not sure that its emphasis is right. Private companies already have to carry out basic environmental monitoring exercises both before and after their developments. As I have said, some of them go very much further, with Vattenfall actually paying for a PhD student to assist in the ScotMER research project I mentioned just now.
In many ways, having private companies judge the environmental viability of their own project is not as good as getting them to contribute to more strategic research into the overall cumulative effects of offshore wind farms and the best ways of mitigating their effects. The current view is that having lots of small turbines placed close to each other is more damaging than having modern large turbines placed a kilometre or so apart, but we do not yet really know. Is it best to leave 2-kilometre-wide corridors through wind farms or does this only confuse the situation? Further research has found that if you paint one blade of each turbine all black, the birds seem to keep away—but again, more data is needed on this.
Coming back to the kittiwake issue, and on the subject of strategic planning, there is a big question as to whether we should be thinking of the kittiwake population as a local problem or, as they do in the United States, thinking of the kittiwake population as a whole. In other words, if a colony on the Yorkshire coast is threatened, maybe it would be better to encourage more kittiwake growth in Wales or Cornwall, and not in Yorkshire. We might have more overall success that way. Again, more research is going on in those fields. If overwintering is the main problem, as I said, we should definitely combine our research strategies, not only with all the UK nations involved but also, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, with other countries such as Iceland, Norway, Denmark, et cetera.
In conclusion, the problem is a very good one to raise in the context of this Bill. It is an important issue and I thank the noble Baroness for raising it, but I am not sure that the amendment as it stands quite puts its finger on the right solution.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 280 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and Amendment 285 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. It is great to see him in person, although we also appreciate seeing him virtually and hearing his expertise.
Amendment 280 would allow the Secretary of State to gain a stronger understanding of the impact of offshore wind farms on the environment, marine life and sea mammals. The UK is a global leader in offshore wind—Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said that we are the Saudi Arabia of wind power—but, with the energy source powering millions of homes across the country, it is also an area that the Government have identified for growth, with the world’s largest wind farm under construction off the north-east coast. To allow such expansion, Ministers have been uncharacteristically generous in extending the work visa waiver scheme for relevant workers.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has said, there has not been enough research in this area; the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that we must look at the most favourable way to ensure that the decisions are right. The noble Baroness looked in particular at the impact of wind farms not just operationally but from a construction point of view on the ecosystem, looking at the fixed structures and turbines themselves.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Although energy production is not directly covered by the scope of the Bill, its impact on the environment clearly is hugely important. The urgent need to decarbonise our economy means that we need to greatly increase our deployment of renewable energy projects in the coming years.
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for Amendment 280. She is right that the development of offshore wind farms needs to be achieved in a way that protects fragile marine environments and, as she said, the many mammals and other forms of marine life that live there. It is all too common when pursuing a solution to one problem to simply brush aside the creation of other problems in the excitement. I pay tribute to her for raising these important issues, as she has done on many occasions in this House. I reassure her that applications for development consent for offshore wind farms made under the Planning Act 2008 are required to undertake an environmental assessment that includes consideration of the impact of development on marine life and sea mammals. This process can be used to secure mitigation to minimise any adverse effects of development.
I can confirm to my noble friend that Schedule 4 to the 2017 infrastructure planning regulations sets out the environmental information that developers have to provide in the environmental statements that accompany applications. This includes information on the cumulative impact. However, I am very happy to have that discussion with her when we meet shortly.
Both the examining authority and the Secretary of State are able to request further information during the application process if they consider that the information supplied by the applicant is insufficient. The information provided allows the Secretary of State to decide what level of mitigation or compensation should be required if there are adverse impacts on the marine environment. The Secretary of State must take into account both the benefits and the impacts of the project and any proposed mitigation or compensation in deciding whether to grant or refuse development consent.
More widely, the Secretary of State may set out in the relevant national policy statement any particular information applicants need to provide as part of their application for development consent for specific technologies. As my noble friend knows, the Government are in the process of updating the national policy statements for energy, and intend to publish the revised plans by the end of this year. There will be a full public consultation, as well as an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, before the updated statements are designated.
Supported by an investment from the Treasury’s shared outcomes fund, Defra is also leading work to improve the understanding of environmental impacts from construction, as well as looking at how we can reduce the impacts of underwater noise. We are also developing a mechanism for introducing net gain through offshore wind deployment and improving the accessibility and provision of data to improve consenting and monitoring. Defra is working very closely with BEIS, environmental NGOs and the offshore wind sector to make sure that any such mitigation or compensation is both effective and deliverable. The Government are also considering how future developments can be planned and delivered in such a way that any adverse environmental impact is significantly reduced.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh, the offshore transmission networks review, which is led by BEIS and Ofgem, is currently working to increase co-ordination of offshore transmission to reduce, we hope, the overall amount of new offshore investment that is going to be needed to achieve targets. I hope this reassures my noble friend and that she feels able to withdraw her amendment.
I move on to Amendment 285, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. It is not possible to have too many meetings with the noble Baroness, and so I would be delighted to have more. The Government have always been clear that the development of domestic energy sources, including shale gas, must be safe, both for communities and for the environment. The Minister, Rebecca Pow, offered numerous assurances on this in the other place, and I am very happy to repeat them now.
In November 2019, the Government set out their position in a Written Statement to the House, in which they stated:
“The Government will take a presumption against issuing any further hydraulic fracturing consent.”
As the noble Baroness has explained, the experience of fracking so far has been costly. There are undoubtedly numerous questions about safety and environmental impacts. In respect of fracking and shale gas development, the Government have taken a science-led approach to exploring the potential of the industry, underpinned by strong environmental and safety standards. Following the events during fracking operations in 2019, which the noble Baroness referenced, the Government subsequently introduced the moratorium.
I add that the latest joint annual Statutory Security of Supply Report from BEIS and Ofgem, published on 18 December last year, does not use hydraulically fractured shale gas in any of the security of supply assessments. The Government have no plans to review the moratorium on fracking, nor will we support shale gas exploration unless and until the science demonstrates categorically that it can be done safely for both people and the environment.
I end by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I hope I have been able to reassure your Lordships’ sufficiently, so that my noble friend feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to all noble Lord who have spoken, and give special thanks to the Minister for his full reply. I am delighted to hear of all the work that is currently ongoing. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his support and confirmation of the issues that we heard during the evidence session in the sub-committee on the environment.
I listened very carefully to all the research that my noble friend—if I may call him so—Lord Cameron of Dillington set out on birds. It showed how much need there is for marine life and mammals to be considered. He mentioned Ørsted doing the research into birds. I do not know why, if it is good for private companies to look into birds, it is not good for them also to do research into mammals. I hope that is something that the Government will explore.
I hope also that my noble friend will be able to tell us what the procedure will be for reducing tensions between fishing, shipping and wind farms. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned, if we go down the path of floating structures, I imagine that this could be more of a problem to fishing and shipping as well. I obviously pay tribute to the energy that we are harvesting from the seas, but I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the mitigation measures that the Government have put in place.
I have one final word on fracking, in connection with Amendment 285. There are absolutely no economic grounds for fracking; I think that has been proven in this country and elsewhere. It causes distress to local communities, and there are other means of energy. Look at Denmark as an example. It had a torrid time during the 1973 energy crisis, because it had no energy reserves of any note. It has made a comeback, and now it is in a very strong position, because of renewables. There are other forms of energy.
I think the Government’s position is quite sound, although I am not saying that I would not like to see a permanent ban on fracking—I am well signed up to that. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We come now to the group beginning with Amendment 286. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 286
“Strategy for new economic goals to deliver environmental protection and societal wellbeing
(1) Her Majesty’s Government must prepare a strategy for the adoption of new economic goals to deliver environmental protection and societal wellbeing.(2) “Environmental protection” in subsection (1) means the protection of humans and the natural environment from the impacts of human activity as defined in section 44.(3) The new economic goals must address—(a) the environmental targets in this Act,(b) the Climate Change Act 2008,(c) the United Kingdom’s commitments under international environmental agreements, laws and treaties,(d) the wellbeing of future generations,(e) the overseas environmental impacts of UK consumption and economic activity, and(f) the contribution of the UK’s consumption and production to the state of the global environment, in relation to nine planetary boundaries—(i) stratospheric ozone depletion,(ii) loss of biosphere integrity (biodiversity loss and extinctions),(iii) chemical pollution and the release of novel entities,(iv) climate change,(v) ocean acidification,(vi) freshwater consumption and the global hydrological cycle,(vii) land system change, (viii) nitrogen and phosphorus flows to the biosphere and oceans, and(ix) atmospheric aerosol loading.(4) The strategy must—(a) set out how the new economic goals will replace growth in gross domestic product as the principal measure of national economic progress,(b) set out a vision for how the economy can be designed to serve the wellbeing of humans and protect the natural environment,(c) include a set of indicators for each new economic goal, and(d) set out plans for the application of new economic goals and indicators to central and local government decision-making processes including but not limited to Central Government Guidance on Appraisal and Evaluation produced by HM Treasury (the Green Book).(5) In drawing up the strategy, Her Majesty’s Government must obtain, publish and take into account the advice of—(a) experts in the field of ecological economics,(b) a nationally representative citizens assembly,(c) trades unions,(d) businesses,(e) statutory agencies,(f) representatives of local and regional government, and(g) any persons the Secretary of State considers to be independent and to have relevant expertise.(6) The strategy must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the passing of this Act.(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report on progress towards meeting the new economic goals and their efficacy in delivering environmental protection and societal wellbeing.(8) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than one month after the report has been laid before Parliament, move a motion in the House of Commons in relation to that report.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Government to prepare a strategy for the adoption of new economic goals that are designed to deliver environmental protection and societal wellbeing and to report annually on these goals.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I will be speaking to Amendment 286 in my name in this two-amendment group. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who is following me, will speak to Amendment 288. You can take it as read that I am entirely behind that amendment as well.
I make no apologies for referring again to the New Zealand living standards framework which guides every decision of that nation’s Treasury. That is truly world-leading, and this amendment seeks to take us a long way towards catching up. The amendment might be taken as a continuation of my efforts to help the Minister convince the Treasury that it is operating on flawed assumptions. The Treasury currently acts as though it is there in the interests of that entirely artificial, thoroughly discriminatory and deeply flawed construct, the economy, rather than operating for the well-being and security of people and planet. This amendment would provide a legal framework for change. It is essentially the same amendment that was tabled in the other place by Green MP Caroline Lucas, where it attracted cross-party backing.
This morning I was at an international event talking about how the people are leading on climate and biodiversity crises, with businesses and Governments trailing behind. Our long slog on the Environment Bill—a reflection, as my noble friend said in our last session, of the way the Government have failed to provide the necessary steel in its contents fit for this desperately late year of 2021—means its timing is fortuitous, for today a report was released by the Institute for Public Policy Research, drawing on the views of citizen panels in the South Wales valleys, Essex, Aberdeenshire, Tees Valley and County Durham. All of them offered their views on how the country should reach net zero by 2050 via a series of panels held over 18 months.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I would like to thank the Chief Whip for giving us our very own Green group grouping; I think that is very forward-thinking of him. It is probably about time that we had our own space on the Order Paper as well and, of course, Green group debates in the new Session. I really feel we are moving on here.
My amendment touches on the same philosophical question as my noble friend’s. Mine is predominantly about clean air, because this is getting very urgent, but it also mentions net-zero emissions. The question is: what is government for and how should it act? If our 20th-century nation state is to develop into a 21st-century sustainable society, the purpose of government should be to preserve and enhance human health, life and the environment, both for current and future generations. Nations and states are less important than clean air, clean water and a liveable planet.
We need public authorities to have legal duties and the funding to improve the health of people and the environment—particularly air quality, as that impacts on so many other parts of society, including placing a burden on the NHS now and reaching into the far future because of the damage being done to the lungs of children. Whether you are a parish councillor, a Secretary of State, a governor or the Secretary-General of the UN, people at every level of government and governance need to be racing to clean up our planet, to cut our air pollution and to cut back to net zero as soon as possible. I would argue that a liveable planet is actually a human right, and every single person on this earth, now and in perpetuity, deserves it.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support these amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Jones, and will refer to three aspects.
The first is how the pursuit of new economic goals, as here indicated, can be consistent with or complementary to the pursuit of previous and different economic goals.
The second is the need for greater clarity about what they actually are, not least as communicated between government and local authorities.
Thirdly, promoting the joint interest of humans and the natural environment together is not a vague aspiration but instead a concrete aim which deserves to be represented by very specific plans and particular called-for action dates—such as, in the second amendment, net-zero emissions by 2030, an achievement which, of course, benefits not just the environment but, in the context of the first amendment, humans and the environment together.
In the latter terms, these useful and coherent amendments thus assist the Bill’s purposes, including initiatives for producing our own food, fuel and housing, and with restoring biodiversity and capturing carbon, while at the same time avoiding negative international impacts, whether in general or from our own exports to others overseas.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very pleased to see the relationship with the economy being brought to the fore here for two reasons: one is its inherent importance; the second is the query lurking around somewhere about whether the Bill should have anything to do with the economy. Before Glasgow, that query will be blown out of the water. We cannot just go on saying that we are doing things about greenhouse gases, and about what we might call the coefficient between the growth of greenhouse gases relative to the growth of GDP, and thinking everything in the garden is lovely. It is not; the opposite, I am afraid, is true. We have until Glasgow to make sure we are not blown out of the water when it comes to our credentials.
I have raised both in Grand Committee and here, in different contexts, how we are going to make sure that we have a relevant metric—that is what the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, called it—to measure the development of greenhouse gases, the growth of the economy and, above all, the desired change in the coefficient so that greenhouse gases are going downwards, relative to the growth of the economy, rather than upwards.
Whitehall government is falling between some stools here, and I would like the Minister to take on board the fact that we need to get our act together with some statistical compatibility between the things we think we are talking about. There is no point repeating mantras such as “net zero” and looking at many decades if we cannot even get our quarterly data to make sense. We need to have quarterly data that puts together the recent change in the gross national product on the one hand and the greenhouse gas data on the other. The work done by the Committee on Climate Change leaves open to discussion an alarming divergence, in the wrong direction, of these two metrics.
I am not coming from the same place, politically, as Members from the Green Party. However, some clarity about how our economy, in the short to medium term, should be developing in terms of greenhouse gases, and how this can be made into a more credible picture before Glasgow, is—for the Labour Party and others taking a serious interest in this matter, I am sure—a hugely important requirement. We hear very little about it, and it is partly because of the environment being in a different silo in Whitehall from the economic silos in the department of business and the Treasury. We have some experience of those sorts of arguments; I recognise one when I see one.
I will table an amendment on Report on precisely these questions. This is a good moment, I hope, to flag up the importance of getting something into the Bill which will be an opportunity to make some progress before Glasgow, so that we do not look like the emperor with no clothes.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I support the green grouping, as it has been classed; as we are in coalition with a Green group in my local borough of Waverley, I am keen to do some cross-party supporting of this. It goes slightly broader than the Bill, but there is nothing wrong with that to me. I would not wish to suggest what was in the minds of the two noble Baronesses, but I have a strong sense of the frustration that we are facing this ecological crisis and getting to the end of the Bill, but are we using every single tool in the toolbox to make sure that we address this issue? I commend the ambition, and I am grateful to them for bringing this forward.
The noble Baronesses are right that the first amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, focuses on economics. As we all know, it is always a case of “follow the money,” and it is right that we should put on more pressure to ensure that the Treasury embeds the climate and environmental goals into our future national accounting structures. It would be fantastic if we were standing here today and by now had seen the net-zero strategy and had an idea of the Government’s thinking on this.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling these amendments and allowing us to have this broader and important debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about reprogramming the economy fundamentally, and she set out a compelling case for linking our economic goals with biodiversity, health and well-being goals, which we know are all needed to protect our planet for the longer term.
This clearly needs a rethink at the highest level but so far it seems that the Treasury, which commissioned the Dasgupta report, has had the least to say about its conclusions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, it is not just the Dasgupta review; a wealth of accumulated expertise is pointing in the same direction and saying that we need new and different economic goals. I thought she made that case very well. Sadly, change on that scale will come only if there is leadership from the top and all Governments commit to play their part. As she illustrated, this is simply not happening at the moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about rights and duties, and I agree with that concept, but if we are to adopt that approach, I would be a bit bolder than the public sector duty to ensure everyone can breathe clean air—important though that is. I would include, for example, the right to access parks and green spaces within walking distance; the right to swim in unpolluted rivers; the right to plant trees and vegetables on unused public-sector land; the right to a service that recycles all unusable waste, underpinned by a vibrant circular economy; the right of every child to access to fresh fruit and vegetables every day; the right to social prescribing in the health service and to locally sourced food in hospitals and care homes; the right for every child to spend a night under the stars, and for nature to be back on the curriculum. I could go on.
The point is that if we are going to take forward all the discussions we have had over the past few weeks, let us think big about the kind of country we want to live in, so that the Bill becomes just the first step on a much bigger journey.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I welcome Amendment 286 and the thoughtful and interesting speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The challenge is that GDP has been used by Governments pretty much everywhere as a proxy for well-being ever since it was developed half a century ago, but GDP was never designed to be an all-encompassing measure of welfare. In basic terms, it simply measures economic activity, indiscriminately—it cannot distinguish between growth that is or is not sustainable, or even good. GDP measures what we produce, but it ignores the cost of what we destroy to make it. It can add, but it cannot subtract.
It is possible to imagine that you could empty the oceans of all fish, chop down every last tree, fill our rivers with poison, pollute every last breath of air that we take, and all the time, GDP could still be rising and the economy still be growing. Ironically, the man who helped develop the concept of GDP in the first place, Nobel Prize economist Simon Kuznets, never anticipated its use as a comprehensive measure of progress. In 1934, he wrote:
“The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income.”
Robert Kennedy said something similar: that GDP
“does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”
The problem is that numerous organisations have over the years attempted to develop alternative indicators. I worked for one myself—it feels like many decades ago. The results of their work have often been overly complicated metrics that Governments would struggle to use in a practical way, but we need to find additional ways to measure the health of our economies. It is surely madness that the Amazon rainforest, on which the world fundamentally depends—each and every one of us—and without which the world would be thrown into chaos and turmoil, has no real recognised value until it is cashed in for commodities and throwaway goods. That just does not make sense.
That is something that the Government understand and are grappling with. For example, we are aligning our economic objectives and decision-making processes with our net-zero commitments; we are moving towards nature-proofing our decisions as well, and this Bill is a part of that.
The Treasury’s Green Book, which the noble Baroness mentioned, requires that all impacts on society as a whole, including environmental impacts, are assessed when policy is developed, and that includes monetised and non-monetised climate environmental impacts. The Treasury is currently conducting a review into the application of the discount rate for future environmental impacts, to try to ensure that decision-making probably accounts for the value of the environment. In their response to the Treasury-commissioned Dasgupta review, the Government have committed to ensuring that their economic and financial decision-making and the systems and institutions that underpin it support the delivery of a nature-positive future.
As all speakers so far in this debate have acknowledged, we have a very long way to go. It is not easy, but it needs to be done. Without that, we will fail to reconcile lives and the economy, nature and the economy, in the way that we will need to if we want a sustainable future.
Moving on to Amendment 288, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that, as the Environment Secretary set out in his response to her Private Member’s Bill on this subject, the Government take their air quality obligations extremely seriously. In this Bill, we have committed to setting ambitious, legally binding targets on air quality, to drive further emissions reductions, which will deliver significant benefits to the environment and human health. Specifically, the Secretary of State, will be required to set a new target on PM 2.5 to act as a minimum standard across the country, and an additional long-term exposure-reduction target to drive continuous improvement, including in areas that meet the new minimum standard for PM 2.5. This novel, dual-target approach is strongly supported by the experts and will deliver significant public health benefits by reducing our exposure to this pollutant in all areas of the country.
The Bill also includes measures to require regular refreshers of the national air quality strategy. The first review will be published in 2023, and we will be looking to develop a stronger support and capability-building framework, so that local authorities have the necessary tools to take the action needed locally to reduce people’s exposure to air pollutants.
Alongside that, the Bill changes the local authority air quality management framework to promote co-operation at all tiers of local government and with relevant public authorities. This will ensure that central and local government and public authorities work together towards achieving cleaner air and a healthier environment for us all. The Government continue to work closely with the Department for Health and Social Care, the Department for Transport, the Air Quality Expert Group, the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants and a wide range of other sector experts to drive concerted action to improve air quality.
However, not all air pollution is under the control of government, either nationally or locally. Significant contributions to UK air pollution can come from other countries, depending on the weather. For example, up to a third of the UK’s current levels of particulate matter pollution comes from other European countries. UK air quality can be affected by distant volcanoes and dust flowing in from as far away as the Sahara. The transboundary and transnational nature of air pollution therefore makes it ill-suited to be a general or formalised human right.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions on these important matters, and hope that they will not press their amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate and all their expressions of support for the amendments—perhaps even, in intent, at least, from the Minister; and I thank him for his detailed answer. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb asked, “What is the Government for?” Surely, one of the purposes is to ensure we have clean air to breathe and to ensure that we have a healthy life for future generations —something that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, is trying to do by other means.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, offered welcome support and said very clearly that we need goals to be identified and made concrete, acknowledging that we must consider the global impact of our environment. The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, said that we cannot go on just generating greenhouse gases—how could it be better summed up?—particularly highlighting our position of COP chair, and stressed the need for statistical compatibility and credibility in Glasgow. I think perhaps we may just park the emperor with no clothes metaphor, but it is certainly apt.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, stressed the need for the Treasury to engage in this debate, with which I can only very much agree, and spoke about the need for all departments to be engaged in environmental issues, with which I of course agree. My amendment is focused on the narrow issue of economic measurement, moving away from the failed, damaging emphasis on GDP.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, focused on reprogramming the economy, something we clearly need to do, and said that it needs a rethink at the highest level. As she was speaking, I thought that perhaps the highest level in the Government should be Defra, because that is the place where it all starts. She also stressed the need for leadership from the top.
I particularly have to welcome the Minister’s comments, many of which reflect speeches that I give regularly about the total misalignment of using GDP as a welfare measure. I just wish that we could hear that from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, or Rishi Sunak in the other place, instead of only from the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. He referred to the Dasgupta report, which is useful and important. At least by using pound values it puts all the issues into terms that the Treasury can understand.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 287. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 287
“International crime of ecocide
(1) It is an objective of Her Majesty’s Government to support the negotiation of an amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to establish a crime of ecocide.(2) In pursuance of subsection (1), a relevant Minister of the Crown must propose, either independently or jointly with other sovereign states, an amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court within 12 months of the passing of this Act.(3) In this section “ecocide” refers to harm to nature which is severe and widespread or long-term.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, this group of amendments is simple and coherent. Both the amendments address the proposed international offence of ecocide. Noble Lords will see that the amendments have cross-party and non-party support. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Whitaker and Lady Boycott, for supporting them.
Amendment 293D sets out the definition of ecocide, which means,
“unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts”.
The treatment that the planet and many of its people have received is criminal, and it is time that the crime was acknowledged and prevented. We are killing the ecosystems on which we rely and gravely depleting the natural world, putting at risk the many wondrous and beautiful natural systems of which we have so little understanding.
In acknowledgement of that, for more than a decade lawyers have been working on a new international law to protect this fragile planet—a law of ecocide. It is proposed that it becomes part of the Rome statute, which contains the international crime of genocide. Many people will associate this campaign with the late, great barrister and campaigner Polly Higgins. The crime of ecocide has been a topic of debate since the Vietnam War when Agent Orange was used by the US Army to defoliate vast areas of jungle. Since then, incidents of irreversible destruction to ecosystems and the ocean have led to further and ongoing proposals for this crime to be adjudicated by the International Criminal Court.
I first encountered this proposal at a one-day seminar at the British Library in 2008. Work then was already well advanced but, in the decade since, it has advanced much further. The French have already written the crime into their climate law. The Belgians and Dutch are considering doing likewise and nearly a dozen national constitutions include a recognition of ecocide. Research by the European Law Institute seeks to draw up a model law for the EU. In May, the European Parliament encouraged the EU and its members,
“to pave the way within the International Criminal Court (ICC) towards new negotiations between the parties with a view to recognising ‘ecocide’ as an international crime”.
Three of the countries that already recognise this crime are signatories to the Rome statute. Therefore, if, as I suggest, the UK successfully proposed an ecocide amendment, a total of 130 countries would recognise it as a crime, 123 of which could then take a case to the ICC for adjudication. I note, however, that the US, China and India are not state parties. There has also been publicly recorded interest from Bangladesh, Canada, Finland, Luxembourg, the Maldives, Spain and Vanuatu.
Noble Lords will note that Amendment 293D arrived rather late to this Committee. That is because it uses a new, further-developed definition of the law of ecocide that has only just been released by a distinguished expert international panel of jurists. The definition in the amendment, however, differs from the international definition by excluding a reference to outer space. The Public Bill Office declared that that was out of scope of the Bill, and while there is an argument for outer space being part of our environment, I decided to leave that discussion to another day. I note for noble Lords’ interest that the maximum penalty of 30 years’ imprisonment reflects that which applies to genocide under UK law.
When—and I am sure that it is when—the crime is incorporated into the Rome statute, it will eventually make its way into UK law. Surely not even the current Government’s carelessness as regards international law would prevent that. But the world and our nature-depleted, plastic and pollution-choked islands cannot wait, which is why I put forward Amendment 293D.
It is worth noting that, astonishingly, the Bill as it currently stands makes no mention of ecosystems and, therefore, there can be no protection of ecosystems. Amendments contain at least five references to ecosystems, which shows that there is a desire across the House to introduce this, and introducing a crime of ecocide would be a comprehensive way in which to do that.
The lead amendment, Amendment 287, offers the international perspective and calls for the Government to commit to supporting the international Stop Ecocide campaign and within 12 months of the Act coming into force to present—alone or, I expect, with others—a proposal to amend the Rome statute.
I should love to think that the Government will embrace both these amendments but I am a realist. I am aware also that creating a whole new legal offence is something our legal eagles and those across the country are likely to want to chew over for some time. I am very much looking forward to the thoughts of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, on Amendment 293D, which I am sure will help inform future thinking on the UK offence. There is a definite opportunity for a stand-alone Private Member’s Bill here. So I am unlikely to pursue that amendment to Report but regard it as a start to the UK debate.
However, that is not the case with Amendment 287. As countries, campaign groups and lawyers across the globe line up behind the call to amend the Rome statute, the UK needs to be on board. As the chair of the COP 26 climate talks, how could we be anywhere else?
I am almost finished, but I have one final question for the Minister. Will he agree to meet with the ecocide campaign and have his officials look at the outputs from the Independent Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide? I thank other noble Lords who are taking part in this debate and those who have already offered their support. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
It is a great delight to support the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in the amendment. I, like her, believe that ecocide will be introduced as a crime on an international basis and will join the Rome statute alongside the more familiar crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity.
The point about ecocide is that it has to be wanton and deliberate. Here are just a few examples that might be able to have that label attached to them. In Jack Harries’s new powerful film “The Breakdown”, he shows us a closed-door meeting with Exxon executives in 1977. Their scientist James Black delivers a presentation called “The Greenhouse Effect” in which he warns that carbon dioxide from the world’s use of fossil fuels is warming the planet and will eventually endanger humanity. He is quoted as saying:
“Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”
Exxon in 1977 took his report seriously and over subsequent years invested millions upon millions of dollars into cutting-edge climate change science and hired the world’s top scientists and engineers to help to get to the bottom of the inconvenient truth. Therefore, weirdly, a lot of early science was done by the fossil fuel companies, in part to understand the impact of their work but in part to understand where their new drilling opportunities might be. It was, strangely, the first golden age of climate research.
However, quite quickly—by 1982—the research had piled up, and it did not look so good. The impact of fossil fuels on climate change was now unquestionable. In a leaked document addressed to “Exxon personnel only”, environmental affairs manager MB Glaser wrote:
“Mitigation of the ‘greenhouse effect’ would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion.”
He suggested that if this was not done—again, this was in 1982—there could be “potentially catastrophic events” such as the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, which would cause a sea level rise in the order of five metres.
The men in charge did not like what they were hearing—it was too big and too bothersome and it was going to threaten their livelihoods—so, in 1983, a year later, they decided to stop listening to the scientists and listen to their accountants instead. Overnight, the troublesome little hitch called climate change effectively ceased to exist in the annals of the coal industry. Overnight, Exxon cut the funding for climate research from $900,000 a year to $150,000 a year—out of a total research budget that stood then at $600 million—and those pessimistic sponges in lab coats stopped being invited to meetings. A culture of denial was born, lifted straight from the tobacco industry—the one that said, “Cigarettes won’t give you lung cancer, keep buying them”. In this case, the industry said, “No, climate change isn’t real, so fill up your tank”.
I know that it is not within our remit—and never will be within anybody’s remit, I think—to prosecute ExxonMobil, which, as Channel 4 revealed a couple of weeks ago, is still at it. It has been pressurising President Biden over his green economy and new deal, to the extent that a lot of the investment in new green jobs has been taken away. As the lobbyist on “Channel 4 News” said, “We’re really happy because he’s sticking to infrastructure and roads and highways as a way of creating new jobs”.
Coming back to our own climate disaster, after the death of young Ella Kissi-Debrah a couple of years ago, the law did find that her death had been made possible or enhanced by the fact that she was breathing bad air. The fact that the fossil fuel companies played a part in this starts to make two parts of the story come together.
As I say, the question of ecocide is a question of intent. The £90 million fine handed out to Southern Water last week is a great step; £90 million is a lot of money. Even so, the company’s profits that year were about £200 million. Its pollution has killed countless fish and destroyed habitats and wildlife, not to mention the sea creatures whose homes have been irreparably damaged by raw sewage. As the Guardian reported:
“Andrew Marshall, appearing at the sentencing hearing for the regulator, told Canterbury crown court that Southern Water, which is ultimately under the control of Greensands Holdings”—
a private company—
opened storm tanks to release raw sewage into coastal waters in north Kent and the Solent to increase its own financial benefits. The company also allowed storm tanks to be kept full and to turn septic, instead of putting millions of litres of raw sewage through the treatment process as required by law.”
This flagrant and wanton act was carried out with the full knowledge of the damage that could ensue. So, yes, £90 million is terrific from one point of view, but is it not also something more? Should not a crime that would send people to prison or really shame them, such as ecocide, be attached to Andrew Marshall, the boss of Southern Water? The threats to nature and wildlife that our current practices present are talked about a lot these days. Finding someone responsible is never easy; we have not even managed to hold anyone responsible for Grenfell yet. Yet here is a case where we are damaging and threatening our natural world every day.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, many countries in Europe are already debating whether to introduce an ecocide law into their home legislation. A number of countries already have their own ecocide laws. For instance, Article 358 of the Russian criminal code states:
“Massive destruction of the animal or plant kingdoms, contamination of the atmosphere or water resources, and also commission of other actions capable of causing an ecological catastrophe, shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of 12 to 20 years.”
Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Georgia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova and Armenia have also passed laws which mean that the country can send someone to prison for a wanton and knowing act of ecological disaster.
Frankly, it is uncertain how many people will die in the next few years because of climate change and nature depletion, or how many more millions of people will be forced to leave their homes, looking for sanctuary in the remaining kinder climates—but it will be a lot. It will dwarf previous acts of genocide and crimes against humanity. We must start to hold individuals accountable. Obviously, this law needs to be international —I urge the Government to work with others to make it so—but could we start by at least discussing it as a possible national offence, too? We cannot expect the world to adopt this if we do not apply it here. As we all know, on the eighth day of this long and wonderful environment debate, we have only one home; it is very precious and we need tougher laws to protect it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was actually disappointed—but perhaps not surprised—to see this amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. For some time, I have been following the way in which “ecocide” has become a fashionable term to hype up human engagement with nature in a wholly negative way. I am not as familiar as the noble Baroness is with the legal definitions that she explained, but I feel that “ecocide” is an especially emotive word cynically designed to invoke thoughts of evil genocide. It implies that our relationship with nature and the different ways in which we interact with the environment are as heinous, deliberate and destructive as the Holocaust—which, to be frank, I find distasteful.
The term I am more familiar with is on the level of cultural discussion and the way in which the term “ecocide” has been used to criminalise, even if metaphorically, a whole range of human activities that have an impact on the environment. There is an unpleasant misanthropic aspect, as well, in associating human impact with wanton ecological destruction—something that I raised in my remarks at Second Reading.
Reading the literature on ecocide over the years, I have seen humans described as “a cancer on the environment”, “a parasite species on the planet” and “a virus infecting the earth’s body”. This emphasises the negative aspects of human culpability and destruction, rather than seeing humanity and civilisation as a source of creative solutions, which is more helpful. Civilisation and development have allowed our species to use knowledge, reason, ingenuity and innovation to aspire to improve the conditions of life. I would rather we celebrated the huge gains of the progress, political change and technological innovation that have driven humanity from the Stone Age through to the 21st century, yet “ecocide” and the discussion around it focuses wholly on humanity as an agent of destruction.
I worry that the whole discourse on “ecocide” expresses a disillusion with those gains—the fruits of modernity and the economic growth that we have benefited from and witnessed, particularly in the West. It views the rapid development of the rest of the world in a wholly negative way, as though somehow the use of fossil fuels in order to grow is potentially akin to mass murder, as the comparison with genocide suggests. It flirts dangerously closely with romanticising Stone Age lack of development elsewhere. In debates on earlier groups of amendments, I heard a number of noble Lords criticise GDP and say that it does not represent very much. Well, in my view, we do not have enough GDP. I want more of it for the masses of the world. Certainly, without it, well-being is nigh on impossible, and I have worried throughout this discussion on the environment that a clash is being set up between GDP—that is, economic development and growth—and matters around the environment.
It certainly seems to me that charges of activities typically dubbed ecocide are too easily levelled at countries and people trying to develop to escape immiseration, poverty and hunger. China, India and Brazil are often discussed in these terms, and I wonder who will be charged with ecocide. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, listed a number of big bad companies—in her view. That anti-corporate “They should be held responsible and blamed for the people killed” is something we are familiar with.
But I worry that ordinary people in Brazil and other parts of the developing world are implicated and criminalised for felling forests and clearing land for agriculture, as we in the West have done before and benefited from, in industrial revolutions and modernisation. I get nervous, in this discussion of ecocide, of a rather arrogant neocolonial instinct about who will be accused of ecocide, who will police those accused of it and even whether it will become a justification for western intervention, with all these green-helmet lawyers going around the world saving nature from the destructive activity of ordinary people. I totally reject this amendment.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is interesting to hear the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, but I take a different line. As a member of Peers for the Planet, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on introducing the concept behind these amendments to your Lordships’ House and I am pleased to add my name to them.
I confess I was disappointed when my questions to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, about adding the crime of ecocide to the Rome statute received, first, the answer that there were no such plans. His next answer, which I have just received in time—for which I am grateful—adduced various traditional diplomatic reasons, but I still hope we can make a start. I think we should.
Of course, ecocide is an innovatory idea, and innovations are disturbing and disruptive. This one requires different thinking about human rights. The Rome statute and, for that matter, the United Nations human rights instruments have a specific human focus on what is needed to establish and maintain well-being. We in the UK have taken an even narrower view, in that we have not implemented the economic and social rights set out in the convention, only the civil and political ones. But the concept of ecocide is hardly dangerously revolutionary; it was mooted by Olof Palme in 1972 and, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Boycott, say, France and others are in the process of incorporating it into their laws.
Our environment is so critical to our well-being that we need to think in new ways about how to protect it from the damage being done to it. I think all your Lordships value our natural environment. That clearly emerges from the debates on this Bill and the answers of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. We should put that into practice by cherishing its biological and botanical elements and, therefore, ought to support efforts to get this into international law.
Already one of our most distinguished human rights lawyers, Philippe Sands QC, is working on how this value can be made justiciable at the International Criminal Court. The definition has now been agreed by all 12 of the eminent international lawyers in the group he chairs. For once, I hope our Government can be a bit ahead of the curve and support these amendments.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on tabling these two amendments, which give us the opportunity to consider these important issues. I broadly welcome the principles underlying them both and will take each in turn, first, that relating to international law. Before doing so, I briefly mention, as disclosed in the Members’ register, that I am a vice-president of the European Law Institute. Although I am not directly involved in its work, to which I will refer, I take a close interest in it.
It is important to appreciate that the development of international crimes has, over the centuries, reflected the desire of nations to ensure that international criminal law keeps pace with evolving standards. At present, the only international environment crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is environmental damage as a war crime, under Article 8(2)(b)(iv). It has a high threshold, as it requires:
“Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause … widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”.
That is a high standard and is set out in the context of war, but we have moved on. It is now necessary for us to examine what should be an international crime in the context of the environment outside war.
Progress has been made in a number of individual conventions directed at certain trades but, as was set out in the 2018 report of the UN Secretary-General, Gaps in International Environmental Law and Environment- related Instruments: Towards a Global Pact for the Environment, there is no single overarching framework. The law is piecemeal and reactive and, for the most part, conventions depend on national law for their enforcement.
In this context, the important steps of the last few years have seen developing impetus for the designation of a more general crime of ecocide triable before the international court. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned, the late Polly Higgins spent much of the latter part of her life moving this forward. Again, as has been mentioned, last month, a panel of international experts put forward a definition of ecocide. While this requires detailed consideration and, in my view, further work, it is a further important step in getting to grips with establishing an international crime.
It seems plain to me that transnational concern for the environment and evolving standards have now reached the stage where the international community can begin to move towards designating ecocide as an international crime. I therefore ask the Minister, given Britain’s new global role, where it is important that we show leadership, what steps are we taking as a nation to keep up with this evolving international standard, in accordance with the long traditions of the development of international criminal law?
In parallel to this work, as it may take some years to move international criminal law forward—one has to be realistic about this—the UK ought to consider moving forward its own criminal law to establish the crime of ecocide, or other similar crimes, as set out in Amendment 293D. As has been mentioned, the European Law Institute is looking at a number of matters: first, the definition put forward by the panel of experts; but, more importantly in the domestic context, devising a model law. This would primarily be for the use of the European Union but, as the institute is Europe-wide, for other nations as well. It will provide a definition and workable set of principles to criminalise this activity and, importantly, civil remedies in tort or delict. I therefore welcome Amendment 293D in principle, although it is clear that more work needs to be done in this area.
Therefore, my second question to the Minister is: what are Her Majesty’s Government intending to do in this respect? Have the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, which are the prime movers of legal thought in England, Wales and Scotland, been asked to consider this work and provide a crime of ecocide?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, when I saw that the speakers’ list said Baroness Khan, I was worried. I thought I might have to text my beloved Lady Khan in Burnley and ask her to come and represent the Front Bench.
The question of whether the UK should adopt and build on proposals currently being considered by members of the International Criminal Court is an interesting one, and we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling these amendments. Their message is clear; they are simple and coherent.
The first amendment asks the UK Government to play an active role in the international negotiations to establish a crime of ecocide. We hope that the UK, as a state party to the Rome statute, is indeed participating in those discussions and playing a constructive role. Can the Minister confirm what position we have been taking in such talks? I look forward to hearing from him on that. The second amendment seeks to establish a domestic criminal offence of ecocide. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, spoke with great expertise and knowledge when she talked about domestic laws coming in in Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, where people are causing ecological disaster.
The crime of ecocide has been a topic of debate since the Vietnam War, as has been mentioned, when the US army defoliated vast areas of jungle for military advantage. Since then, instances of irreversible damage or destruction to ecosystems—for example, to boreal forests, tropical forests and the oceans—have led to proposals to make ecocide an international crime on a par with genocide. The point that this is on a par with genocide and crimes against humanity has been made very eloquently by noble Lords.
In 2018, 94 UK academics urged those with power to defend life itself from an unprecedented disaster of our own making. The UK Parliament responded by becoming the first country to declare a climate emergency. Since 2019, 2,000 places across 34 countries have declared a climate and ecological emergency at local, regional, state or national level.
A suggested solution to the climate and ecological emergency has been gaining traction in legal, political and academic circles. The use of ecological law has been put forward as a solution, focusing on criminal damage to, or the destruction of, ecosystems, which has been mooted as the ecocide law. The question of whether to establish a criminal offence and, if so, how such a process should be undertaken is always complex. We have interpreted the amendment as a means of probing the Government’s intentions in this area. We hope the Minister can provide a detailed response, either from the Dispatch Box or in writing following the conclusion of the Committee.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for Amendments 287 and 293D on ecocide. I strongly agree with the premise of her argument. The appalling fact is that we are currently destroying life on earth. Each minute we lose around 30 football pitches-worth of tropical forest. We have seen a 70% decline in key species since 1970, which is a mere nanosecond in evolutionary terms. Nowhere is spared: a third of marine mammals are threatened with extinction; an estimated 35% of the world’s marine and coastal wetland areas were lost between 1970 and 2015, at three times the rate of forest loss; and half the world’s seabird species are already affected by ocean plastic. At the same time, we are destabilising the world’s climate. Although there is no computer model in the world sophisticated enough to fully predict the effects, we know that they will be dire.
It is of course a tragedy in and of itself, but it is also a human tragedy. A billion people depend on forests for their livelihoods. As those forests are destroyed, so too are their livelihoods. Around 200 million people depend on fish for their livelihoods. As we exhaust the oceans, those people and their families are often left destitute. When ecosystems fail, so too do the many free and hopelessly undervalued services that nature provides. Because it is the world’s poorest people who are likely to depend most directly on those free services, it is they who will suffer first and worst. I say that in response to comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
Ultimately, we all depend on the health of the planet, and its destruction has grave implications for us all. Indeed, as we sit in this Chamber, metres apart, it is worth reflecting that coronavirus itself is likely a symptom of our dysfunctional relationship with the natural world. Even if that is wrong and in this instance it is not, it is certainly the case that most pandemics are.
Objectively, it must be the case that killing ecosystems on which so many people depend has to be among the most serious of crimes. I recognise that not everyone will agree with that, but I ask those people to consider what their response might be to someone pouring poison into another person’s water supply, pumping toxic gas through someone’s window, or setting fire to a person’s farm. No one, I think, would doubt for a second the gravity of such crimes, so it should not be seen as any different when it is done by a multinational corporation in a foreign land, except, of course, at a bigger scale.
We have strong environmental laws in England, which carry fines and potential imprisonment for the most serious offences. There is a whole ecosystem of enforcement authorities: the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Forestry Commission, the Marine Management Organisation, Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, local authorities, the police and Defra itself. In particularly egregious cases, significant sanctions are sought. For example, as has been mentioned, only last week Southern Water was fined £90 million for pumping raw sewage into protected waters around the south-east coast. There were also convictions against several employees of Southern Water, who obstructed Environment Agency investigators. But there is no doubt that our regulatory framework can be improved. That is one of the things we are trying to do with this Bill, not least with the new OEP.
There is no doubt that, around the world, the true cost of serious environmental crime or ecocide is not reflected in our response to it. Sadly, ecocide is not yet a crime recognised under international law and there is currently no consensus on its legal definition. Indeed, before the ICC and the crimes it has jurisdiction over could be established by the Rome statute, which was adopted in 1998, ecocide had to be removed in the drafting stages due to a lack of agreement among the states party to the court. The Rome statute provides for some protections for the natural environment in armed conflict—it designates international attacks that knowingly and excessively cause
“widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”
as war crimes—but ecocide as a stand-alone crime is not yet recognised.
The UK’s current priority regarding the International Criminal Court is to try to reform it, so that it functions more efficiently and effectively and can deliver successful prosecutions of crimes in its jurisdiction and bring accountability for victims. I know that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee will share that ambition. Reform of the court is a long and complicated process, driven by the states party to the Rome statute. Their involvement is fundamental to success. A significant amendment such as that proposed by the noble Baroness is unlikely to achieve the support of two-thirds of the states party, which is necessary to amend the Rome statute to make ecocide an international crime. The view, therefore, is that pursuing it would require an enormous amount of heavy lifting diplomatically, with little prospect at this stage of succeeding. That would likely also detract from the goal of improving the court’s effectiveness, which, in any case, would be a prerequisite for any meaningful application of ecocide.
I will end there. We are unable to accept the noble Baroness’s proposals. I therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank everyone who has participated in this very informed and informative debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, stressed the basis of this crime as being wanton and deliberate action, using two very clear examples. The first is Exxon in 1977 in terms of its understanding of the climate emergency then. Secondly, flagrant breaches of the law are occurring on our own shores with the treatment of our water supplies and the spillages of sewage into them. Those are two useful examples of how we think an ecocide law would operate in practice.
Can we imagine, for a moment, being in a boardroom and hearing the chief legal officer saying to the chief executive officer, “If we took this action, the law of ecocide might just be used” and what a powerful force that would be? As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, says, it is a powerful word and a rightfully powerful word for destroying the natural world, on which we all depend. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, made a very important point by saying that we cannot expect the world to go forward if we are not prepared to adopt this law and take action ourselves.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, suggested that this was looking at human interaction with nature in a wholly negative way. I am not sure how she could regard the two examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, as anything but wholly negative. She also suggested that, at times, this term has been used metaphorically. But of course, that is not what we are talking about here; we are talking about law. The term “murder” is often used metaphorically but that does not stop it being an essential legal charge used in a legal way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, also referred to the needs of the global south. It is the global south that has suffered probably the largest amounts of environmental damage, human rights abuse, poverty and inequality from our extractive, exploitative approach to nature. All around us, we have the products of the global south’s land and, of course, the global south’s labour and ingenuity—most often insufficiently remunerated.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for her support and commend her on championing the issue of ecocide through Written Questions. She highlighted the international support for the creation of this crime and the fact that the Briton Philippe Sands QC is working very much in the leading role on this, reflecting the UK’s long-term position as a leader in international human rights law and legal protection.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his hugely informed and thoughtful contribution and expression of support for the principles. The historical perspectives that he provided were also particularly useful, acknowledging that international law has evolved with international standards and highlighting the developing impetus towards a crime of ecocide. He stressed the global role and the need for leadership and called for the UK to step forward and take a lead.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, called for a constructive role for the UK in negotiation. I appreciate that call, which very much reflects the content of my Amendment 287. He spoke very effectively, saying that the law of ecocide is defending the land itself and made the link to the many declarations of climate and nature emergencies.
The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, gave us a very full account of the sixth great extinction and the way ecological damage does not impact just on nature but on human health and life—as we have seen with Covid. He said that there was no consensus, but surely the UK could and should be providing that leadership. As a nation, global Britain aims to be world-leading. I acknowledge his concern about the reform of the International Criminal Court, but that is a separate issue from the nature of the Rome statute. The Minister suggested that there was little prospect of this international drive succeeding. That is clearly not the view taken by the EU.
Before we come to the conclusion of this group, the Minister was asked a couple of questions that were not answered. I would like to put them to him again. First, I asked if he would be prepared to meet Stop Ecocide campaigners and ask his officials to take a look at the proposed new international definition. Secondly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, asked whether the Government would ask the Law Commission to consider this issue. May I put those two questions to the Minister before we proceed?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am happy to agree to both requests.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
I thank the Minister for that one answer. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 293C. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make this clear in debate.
Lord Khan of Burnley
“Readiness of local authorities to deliver schemes enabled under this Act
(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must undertake a review of the readiness of local authorities to deliver environmental schemes established or otherwise enabled under this Act.(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the extent to which the current financial and staffing resource of local authorities is consistent with that required for such bodies to fulfil additional obligations as they arise.(3) If the review determines that current resourcing for local authorities is insufficient for them to meet relevant obligations, the Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable, make a statement confirming—(a) whether central government funding for local authorities will be increased accordingly, or(b) what mechanisms Her Majesty’s Government proposes to establish to enable local authorities to recover any additional costs.(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament and publish—(a) the review under subsection (1), and(b) any statement under subsection (3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause is intended to explore the extent to which local authorities are financially and otherwise prepared to deliver new schemes and responsibilities established under this legislation.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I move Amendment 293C, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. In doing so, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, for signing the text.
Local authorities have been underfunded for years, with the majority having a decreasing budget for waste and recycling services. This bleak picture will certainly present a challenge to implementation but, as we can see from other countries, recycling success can be achieved through targeted government investment.
Having served in local government for 15 years, including holding the cabinet position for finance at Burnley Borough Council, I have witnessed first-hand the effects of drastic cuts, with local councils barely able to deliver statutory services. My observations and experiences are backed up in terms of the environment by the Environmental Audit Committee’s recent report Biodiversity in the UK: Bloom or Bust?. It highlighted that funding shortfalls and a lack of “in-house ecologists” in local authorities means that they may not have the capacity to deliver some of their statutory duties under the Bill, specifically biodiversity net gain and local nature recovery strategies.
For the Government’s environmental ambitions to be realised, new duties on local authorities to help them deliver nature recovery must be costed and funded accordingly. Local authorities are essential to the successful implementation of many provisions in the Bill. For example, they will play an important role in co-ordinating and delivering nature recovery on the ground through the creation of local nature recovery strategies—as mentioned before. However, their effectiveness relies on the resources and expertise they have available to deploy these crucial tools. It is firmly believed that, due to recent funding cuts, only one in four local authorities in England currently has access to an in-house ecologist. Costs incurred by local authorities to implement new schemes resulting from the Bill should be covered by the Government’s new burdens obligation. It would be helpful if the Minister could make an unequivocal statement on this in the Chamber.
This proposed new clause is intended to explore the extent to which local authorities are financially prepared to deliver new schemes and responsibilities established under this legislation. This is day eight in Committee and many noble Lords at Second Reading and in Committee have talked about this being a landmark, historic Bill —something that will be working for generations for the future of our children. However, you need to give the relevant stakeholders—in particular, here, local authorities —the tools and support. This amendment gives us the opportunity to look at the cost and funding element of local authorities. I have been there as a local government member making those tough decisions. These tough decisions are for the benefit of our future.
If we do not support local authorities, it is like asking noble Lords to run across Westminster Bridge or a race of 100 metres without any trainers or adequate footwear. It is not fair; you need to give them the right tools to do the job. This is essential to ensure that we are not setting up local authorities to fail and letting them down again—as, unfortunately, this Government have a habit of doing.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 293C. I am sure we are all pleased to see the noble Lord in his place and that his wife was not called upon on this occasion. I am pleased to speak to this amendment because I am asking my noble friend the Minister to join me in applauding and valuing the work of local authorities in delivering schemes, particularly under this Bill, but also historically and to-date.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, spoke with great authority on waste disposal schemes and recycling. I will speak of my experience of the role that they play so effectively in flood-prevention schemes. Being closely associated with the Pickering Slowing the Flow pilot scheme, I think that this was exemplary because it included just about every level of local authority—Ryedale District Council, North Yorkshire County Council, Pickering Town Council, the Environment Agency and many others—which enthusiastically supported and contributed financially to it.
The weight of responsibility on local authorities will be eased in this regard if we could rope more private partners into these schemes, as I know that the Government are trying to do. I look forward to supporting anything that the Government can come up with in this regard.
However, upper-tier councils and unitary authorities play another role: an ongoing role of monitoring flood risk and identifying and mapping the areas most at risk. This is a crucial role that is often forgotten in times outside flood periods. Councils have come under huge pressure and have performed extremely well during the pandemic, which should be noted and celebrated.
However, if we value their work in this regard, as I do, will my noble friend seek to use his good offices to ensure that the work they do and the money that is allocated to it are ring-fenced and do not come under increasing pressure from the other work that they do, particularly caring for the vulnerable, such as the elderly, and providing education for the very young? I am grateful for the opportunity, in the context of this amendment, to make those few points and applaud the work of local authorities in this regard.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, whose work on the Bill has been so thorough and admired. I welcome the tabling of this new clause and agree very much with the points made by my noble friend Lord Khan in speaking to it. As we all know, the role of local authorities has been important—indeed, crucial—in the battle against Covid. These same local authorities will also play a key role in helping to deliver environmental and climate change targets.
I will supplement some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Khan, having taken some soundings from local authorities in my own area in the north-east, including one covering a large rural area, with Conservative control, and another in an urban area, with Labour control. It was interesting that, despite these obvious differences, the authorities were largely in agreement about the opportunities and challenges presented to them by the Bill.
The authorities concerned have a strong commitment to biodiversity and the principle of biodiversity net gain. Where I live in Northumberland, we are very much on the front line in the efforts to prevent the disappearance of the red squirrel, and, on this issue, there is not just local authority support but very strong public support. On Tyneside, the area that I used to represent in the other place, the importance of biodiversity was publicly understood by the presence of the farthest inland colony of kittiwakes and the establishment of the Kittiwake Tower local nature reserve around the Newcastle-Gateshead Quayside. For that reason, I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said about kittiwakes earlier.
The authorities that I have consulted are strongly committed to the principles of the Bill; they all supported biodiversity net gain, the importance of local nature recovery strategies and the importance of consistency, and the highest standards of recycling and waste collection. However, all were agreed on the following points. First, they were concerned about having the necessary resources. Secondly, they felt that, in many ways, the devil was in the detail, so clear guidance would be crucial and their continued involvement in such guidance would also be very important.
On resources, it was felt that, if not properly resourced, outcomes would be unsatisfactory and not properly meet the obligations that the Government and the local authorities want to enter into. My noble friend made the point about additional skilled resources, and I ask the Government what assessment they have made of the availability of trained ecologists? Do they have a clear strategy in terms of how we can boost training schemes in a timely manner so that any shortfalls in skills can be addressed? I think that some local authorities worry that organisations like Natural England, which have understandably seen their budget increase in recent years, might be in a better place to recruit trained staff than local authorities, many of which, as was eloquently described by my noble friend, have experienced deep cuts in recent years and have had to concentrate on core services such as social care and cut back on other areas.
While there was strong support for the principle of biodiversity net gain, some worries were expressed in the response to the government consultation. I recognise that the Government have shown willingness to address the issues that arose in the consultation, but I also note that in their response, they said they did not think that any particular type of development would be disproportionately affected by their proposals. This puzzled me because it seems to me that there are concerns in urban areas that the proposals could cause problems.
Ironically, brownfield sites in urban areas can often be more biodiverse than sites in farmed countryside in rural areas because many of them have, in effect, been rewilded in recent years. However, because of low property values and the desire to see affordable housing built there, quite rightly, such sites may face financial viability issues. Rather than going into the details about this, I would like the Minister to engage with urban authorities to discuss in more detail their valid concerns about biodiversity net gain in such areas, simply to reassure them that they will not, for financial reasons, find difficulty in meeting the goals have been set and which they fully support.
There is also concern about the detail on waste and recycling standards, and there is keenness to see that money is spent to bring about the best environmental outcome. There are some concerns that what might seem cost effective or simply tick the right box on food collection, for example, is not the best environmental way forward. There is also the issue of current contracts, which needs to be looked at, if local authorities are already locked into longish or long-term contracts. In delivering these proposals, councils need to be fully funded and ring-fenced. They need to know how the funding will be sourced, calculated and allocated, and whether this will have implications for other areas of the local government settlement. In short, this needs to be resourced for the best outcome.
On the detail of what local authorities are being asked to do, the point has been made to me that we need to reflect in detail on some of the difficult trade-offs that may arise. For example, local authorities might be asked to achieve the right diversity in the wrong place. I will give a local example: in Northumberland, we have Kielder Forest, which used to be a huge and very densely planted forestry area. It has become a very valuable tourist resource these days, but felling is taking place, and there will be pressure to plant more trees. Yet planting trees in peat bogs is not environmentally sound, and new trees, particularly native trees and anything other than the dreaded Sitka spruce, about which the Minister knows my views, might be better situated in some of the arable farming areas. However, that also gives rise to questions.
There can also be complications about trade-offs between, for example, the habitats of particular birds that nest in open countryside. We have to set that against the need to plant more trees, which is also environmentally very important—so, to resolve these issues, it seems to me that there will be a need for good communication between local authorities and the Government to ensure that local decisions, taken perhaps for very good reasons, do none the less fit into the wider vital effort to save the planet and fulfil wider environmental obligations.
I am sure that it would help the Government on many issues to deal with groups of local authorities, particularly in the context of nature recovery strategies. In the case of my own part of the world, I express the personal hope that the maximum amount of local authority joint working can be agreed, from Berwick in the north to the south of County Durham on the other hand, rather than a divide between north and south of Tyne, which makes no economic or environmental sense and ignores the increasing willingness of the authorities to work together. On the environment, my understanding is that there is already a good network of officer engagement, driven by practical considerations.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support this amendment. Clearly, it is unsatisfactory if local authorities cannot deploy this Bill’s prescriptions.
As is here implied, such failure might simply reflect lack of local government staff and financial resources. If so, it is up to the Government to redress that deficiency.
Yet at every given and relevant moment, central funding might well not be considered to be affordable at all, even if the Government might equally lament that their own legislation could not be deployed as a result.
However, that anomaly is prevented by this proposed new clause, which would make it obligatory for a future Government to provide funds so their own laws and prescriptions are properly carried out at local levels.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and to offer the Green group’s strong support for Amendment 293C. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, for his clear introduction and explanation. I also declare my position as vice-chair of the Local Government Association.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, referred to the waste recycling problem, which gives me an irresistible chance to plug the need to reduce costs by promoting reusable nappies, an issue already discussed and which we will come back to. On the broader issue, it is worth noting that the National Audit Office, in its 2018 report on the financial sustainability of local authorities, found that recent government approaches had been
“characterised by one-off and short-term funding fixes”
and a
“crisis-driven approach to managing local authority finances”.
Earlier this year, the NAO said that at least 25 councils were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, which is hardly surprising when in the past decade the spending power of local government has been cut by one-third, while demands in many areas, notably adult social care, have grown.
If we are to give local authorities additional roles and responsibilities, this direction comes from Westminster, and the money has to come from Westminster too. I note that last December the Blueprint Coalition, formed from local government organisations, environmental NGOs and academics and supported by around 100 councils, warned that our 2050 net-zero target could be achieved only with the
“full participation of, and support for, local authorities”.
That report was specifically focused on the climate side of the environmental equation but, of course, as this entire debate has acknowledged, these two issues are interlinked. I note that that Blueprint Coalition report stressed what the Minister might like to call nature-based solutions—the need to accelerate tree planting,
“peatland restoration, green spaces and other green infrastructure”.
Those are all things that the Government say that they plan to support, but the delivery vehicle that is most effective and cost effective will very often need to be local authorities.
This is also happening in the context of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. The Green Alliance highlighted the need for training to ensure that, in local government, climate skills are embedded in all roles and there is widespread access to specialist skills, as the Committee on Climate Change recommended. That Green Alliance report found that many local authority representatives were terribly concerned that this was not available and that instead they were forced to rely on consultants—which, again, was a far more expensive option. This amendment is not only essential but could save money. How could the Government possibly oppose that?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I rise to speak to this amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. This is because I agree with them that it is important that local authorities are prepared to deliver the many new duties provided for in this Bill; they will, of course, be key to its success. I am always pleased to follow the energetic noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but more particularly to have my first opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, who is adding a great deal to our proceedings, especially in his knowledge of how things actually work in local government.
The proposers of this amendment appear to want to see a review, three months after the Bill’s passage, of the funding and staffing required and of how additional costs should be covered. I am afraid that I am more impatient; I would like to hear now from my noble friend the Minister how the burdens on local authorities will be dealt with. Will it be through the rate support grant? Will special funding be provided from the Defra budget, and will it be ring-fenced, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked? Does he have a feel for the total likely to be needed, in terms of hundreds of millions of pounds?
Improving skills is probably more important to productivity growth than any other investment we can make. There is already a skills and staffing gap in local government, partly because of the needs of environmental measures in planning and building, at which the Built Environment Committee, on which I sit, is already looking. The Bill will make that gap a great deal bigger.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, mentioned ecologists and recycling but there is, of course, a broader challenge. Competition for talent, from Natural England and others, as the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, said, is also likely to cause problems. What is the plan for gearing up the skills we need in local government in preparation for their new duties? Also to return to an earlier theme of mine, how will this be communicated?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.
Whether local authorities were likely to be prepared for the implications of this Bill for their operations was discussed briefly on Monday evening, when the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, opened a long debate which featured mainly the need for more trees. Although the debate was long and extensive, I fear that the issue of whether local authorities were likely to be properly resourced to carry out their functions as described in the Bill was somewhat lost in the debate about trees and tree planting, vital though that was. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and co-signed by the noble Lord, now stands alone and we have an opportunity to debate to what extent local authorities can fulfil the expectations that the Bill places on them. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked exactly how the money will be provided and just how much will be required. These are vital questions.
The last 16 months have not been great for local authorities. Their councillors have been meeting for the most part remotely, and this has meant that the public have not had the same access to their decision-making as previously. Their staff have been redeployed to other tasks: in some cases, it was making up food parcels for families and children; in others, it was helping to staff vaccination centres and adjoining car parks. Others were ensuring that the homeless were removed from the streets to places where there was shelter and they were safe from Covid. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, congratulated local authorities on the excellent work they do. I echo that.
Now that councils are beginning to return to some form of “normal” working, whatever normal is for each council, the Environment Bill, long trailed and expected, is about to pass into law with requirements for local authorities to step up to the mark. They are, of course, willing to do this, as reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. It is their ethos that public service should come first. However, a lot is expected of them.
Local authorities are expected to create local nature strategies. Due to previous funding cuts, it is estimated that only one in four currently has access to an in-house ecologist, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Khan. If those ecologists are spread evenly around the country, those without may be able to buy into the expertise of their neighbours. But such even distribution is rare, and it is likely that some areas of the country will have no access to an in-house ecologist. I can see a burgeoning market here for budding ecology entrepreneurs.
The Environmental Audit Committee’s recent report, Biodiversity in the UK: Bloom or Bust?, indicated that a lack of funding along with a shortage of ecologists meant that some authorities would struggle to produce their biodiversity net gain and local nature recovery strategies, as the noble Lord, Lord Khan, indicated. Similarly, on the changing rules around waste measures, many authorities do not currently have separated recyclable waste collections. Others may have it in place but are seeking to widen the variety of items collected, and this will place added burdens on already stretched budgets. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, raised the issue of long-term waste collection contracts.
As the Minister will know, the minimisation of waste is very dear to my heart. Local authorities which collect all their recyclables together are likely to be those that bundle all their plastics together and despatch them to what they believe are licensed disposal plants. As debated earlier, this is often not the case. I have spoken at waste conferences on the need to have a single-pass vehicle that collects the majority of recyclables—plastic, glass, paper, cardboard, aluminium cans—which the householder will have separated and put out in different containers for collection. This has not always been welcome, as the cost of changing collection vehicles is often prohibitive. The public want to play their part and local authorities want to play their part, but adequate funding for them to be able to make the change is vital for success. Those authorities which have been collecting separated waste for some years are in a much better position to ensure that each item of waste is recycled appropriately or disposed of safely and to maximum benefit.
All this requires funding, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made clear, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised possible local authority bankruptcies. The noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, has given an excellent exposé of just what the impact could be for hard-pressed local authorities. I fully support his bid to ensure that the Government properly assess the effect of the measures in the Bill on both the staffing and the financial resources of local authorities at this critical moment. We all want the measures in the Bill to succeed, but this will not happen unless sufficient funding is provided. I know the Minister is keen for the Bill to be a success, and I look forward to his positive response to this amendment, which supports local authorities to play their part.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her Amendment 293C and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, for introducing it. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are proactively involving local authorities in preparations for implementing the measures in the Environment Bill. Local authorities are key partners for delivering the Bill, from introducing consistent recycling collections and delivering biodiversity net gain to improving air quality. We have worked closely with local authorities in designing the Bill’s provisions and are committed to engaging with them as we implement it, seeking to maximise effective delivery and minimise unnecessary burdens. We have held over 15 public consultations, which provided a critical perspective on the Bill’s measures and received extensive contributions from stakeholders across all parts of society, including local authorities. These were on key measures such as consistency in household and business recycling in England, updating planning requirements with biodiversity net gain and introduction of a deposit return scheme in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The responses to those consultations have been used to develop the Bill’s measures as well as informing upcoming secondary legislation, with further detailed consultation on measures to come.
Noble Lords will know that the Government have committed to funding in full all new burdens on local authorities arising from the Bill. We are working closely with MHCLG to ensure that funding for local authorities is delivered sensibly. We have to be conscious of the established process for funding local authorities through the local government finance settlement. The settlement is unring-fenced to ensure that local areas can prioritise based on their own understanding of the needs of their local communities. However, as I said, we have committed to fully fund all new burdens on local authorities through the Bill. This is in addition to making sure that the costs of protecting the environment, which currently fall on many local authorities and consumers, are shifted to those who may damage it, including through extended producer responsibility or biodiversity net gain. When we look at the global figure, there is of course increased expenditure, which we will cover, but there are also various sources of income.
We have also built in appropriate transition periods. For example, the Government have built in a two-year transition period post Royal Assent for local authorities on biodiversity net gain. The Government are also providing training to local authorities on biodiversity net gain and are in close dialogue on how local nature recovery strategies will be delivered, including through recent pilots. In answer to a number of questions raised, including by the noble Lord, Lord Khan, I say that the Government have committed to providing training and guidance to local authorities on, for example, biodiversity net gain. We have been working closely with local government organisations on implementation matters. Furthermore, we have funded a multi-year project delivered by the Planning Advisory Service for a suite of training and guidance resources for local authorities to ensure that they have access to the right skills and knowledge to implement biodiversity net gain.
I hope I have reassured the noble Baroness who tabled the amendment and others of how we have already worked closely with local authorities on these measures and how we will work going forward. We believe that setting an arbitrary date for reviewing the preparedness of local government to deliver on the Bill, which would not reflect the different timelines for the respective measures, is unnecessary, but this is an important issue and the noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise it. I hope I have reassured her and that I can persuade her to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the mover, the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this very informative debate and for the many thoughtful contributions across the House.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that the amendment will allow the weight on a local authority to be eased. She talked about councils coming under huge pressure, as they have done during the pandemic. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, also mentioned how brilliantly local authorities performed in providing support to communities during the difficult, challenging times of the pandemic.
In her excellent, detailed and comprehensive contribution, my noble friend Lady Quin talked about having consultations with various councils and through them finding out the important shortfalls in skills that must be addressed, and about local authorities being concerned about not having the necessary resources and wanting clear guidance. Goals must be set that are deliverable and financially possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was very succinct in saying that the amendment would help laws to be carried out properly at local level. As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, talked about the difficulties and challenges of 25 councils that are looking at bankruptcy. Funding is a huge concern and the point was made very eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I thank the Minister for his reply to that, but there was a lack of discussion about the different funding streams that the noble Baroness talked about, in particular looking at whether this would be a local government settlement grant increase or whether Defra would have a funding stream. I thank the Minister also for his reassuring commitment to work closely with and consult local authorities and not to overburden them, as well to training and guidance—but there was no detail on funding streams to local government.
I welcome the very important points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, in relation to stepping up to the mark. From her contribution I took away the fact that there are huge expectations on local authorities to deliver on the important outcomes of this Bill. We expect the Government to ensure that they recognise the challenge that lies ahead. The noble Baroness mentioned the great work of local authorities during the pandemic. When I was a local council cabinet member for finance and introduced iPads, getting rid of papers and documents in meetings, people looked at me in a very bizarre manner, as if to say, “What is he talking about? Why are we doing this?” I got a lot of distress, but after the pandemic and 16 months of being Teamsed out and Zoomed out, they were very appreciative of innovation. We would like local authorities to continue being innovative but also for it to be recognised that to be innovative and creative they need support and guidance.
For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I am sure that these arguments will come up again.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 293E. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Schedule 20: Amendment of REACH legislation
Amendment 293E
Lord Whitty
“(1A) Regulations made under this paragraph must not reduce the protections or standards of any Article or Annex of the REACH Regulation.(1B) Subject to sub-paragraph (1A), the Secretary of State may by regulations seek to maintain or exceed regulatory parity with any new or amended regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the regulation of chemicals. (1C) The Secretary of State must prepare an annual report explaining each decision not to align with new EU restrictions and authorisations on chemicals, and Candidate List Substances of Very High Concern.(1D) The annual report must include an assessment of the environmental, economic and public health impact of any such decisions.(1E) An annual report must be laid before Parliament before the end of the 3 month period beginning immediately after the last day of the period to which the report relates.(1F) The Secretary of State must publish annual reports laid before Parliament under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the possibility that a Secretary of State might lower standards that are in place currently while enabling them to easily meet or exceed new EU chemical protections and standards. It would also place an obligation on the Government to transparently justify any decision to deviate from EU control on chemicals.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this amendment amends the rather confusing Schedule 20 and would clearly and unambiguously provide that UK standards for the production and use of chemicals would not regress or fall below European standards without a clear and transparent justification from Ministers for so doing being presented to Parliament and reported on annually.
At present, the default position is that, if the European regulatory position on chemicals changes or, even more importantly, deals with new chemicals which have not previously been covered, the UK would remain where we are—in practice, at the end of the transition period. This is going back a bit. Those with long memories might cast their minds back to the immediate post-Brexit vote period and the 2016 EU withdrawal Bill. Some noble Lords might remember that, during the lengthy proceedings on that Bill, I took a particular interest in the future relationship between this country and the executive agencies of the European Union, of which there were about 40, one of them being the European Chemicals Agency.
That was one of the most important of them, for a number of reasons. The chemicals industry was and is the most integrated of all European industries, in its production of chemicals across borders, in its trading of those chemicals, which many downstream industries and firms use, and because thousands more businesses and consumers use the products of this integrated pan-European and international process. Those thousands of chemicals have a potentially dangerous impact on humans, animals, nature and the environment, and all of them were subject to registration, authorisation, testing for toxicity and other potential harms, and restrictions on use by the European Chemicals Agency—a process that was respected by the industry, by scientists and intellectual property lawyers and, in the main, by campaigning environmental and medical groups across Europe.
We could have negotiated a special arrangement with ECHA, as Norway did. Indeed, the then Prime Minister, Mrs May, in what was at that time seen as her definitive Mansion House speech, singled out the European Chemicals Agency as one of only three EU agencies with which her Government considered that we needed to maintain an involvement. The rationale for retaining that involvement was clear to much of the industry: for chemical registration and authorisation, to do anything else would mean duplication for industry and user businesses.
However, when his regime took over, the present Prime Minister apparently decided that duplication was just what we wanted, so instead we established a parallel REACH process, put under the control of the HSE. Producers of chemicals, and also importers, exporters and manufacturers of downstream products, and retailers and users of those products, have to check registration with UK REACH administration, even if it has already been cleared by REACH in Europe. Complications abound—of paperwork, legal access, and intellectual property rights—and so does the possibility, debated earlier in Committee, of duplication of testing, on animals in particular.
At the time of the withdrawal Bill, I and others sought assurances that the HSE would have the expertise, the staffing levels, the money, and the resources, to conduct this duplicate REACH process. Ministers gave those assurances nonchalantly, but in the few months of operation since the end of the transition period, those assurances have appeared to be hollow. We have not been able to match the European Chemicals Agency system. The UK has already fallen behind on new registrations and restrictions of substances of very high concern: those chemical products which have intrinsic hazards—carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic et cetera—to humans.
Since the end of transition, ECHA has dealt with eight new substances of very high concern, whereas the UK parallel system has dealt with only two. Therefore, the UK has not added conditions for six of those substances, which may well have significant conditions on their use. These include three flame retardants and a toxic endocrine disrupter. Thus, we have ended up in a position where we have de facto divergence through institutional slowness, which in practice means that UK standards already not only diverge from but are lower than EU standards.
I recognise that it will take time for the new UK system to get fully into gear. Hopefully, the HSE process will speed up, but the key issue—and the basis for this amendment—is not the rights and wrongs of duplication, but divergence, and of the UK adopting or failing to adopt standards that, in practice, means lower standards in the UK; whereas we were constantly assured during the passage of the withdrawal Bill that our standards would be at least as good as EU standards. At present, as I say, we are seeing some divergence by default. Now I accept that, in future, there may well be good reasons for divergence, but if the protection and conditions are less in the UK than in Europe, divergence needs to be clearly justified publicly and scientifically to Parliament and beyond.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for it guards against lowered standards while still enabling the United Kingdom to do much better. It also requires transparency on any change from EU standards on the control of chemicals.
No one would argue in favour of slippage of standards. However, many of us believe that, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has just outlined, for technical and other reasons such standards can slip very easily all the same.
This amendment prevents that. Yet its expedients should not wrongly be viewed as a restrictive measure of conformity to the EU, of which we are no longer a member, but instead as an opportunity for the United Kingdom to take a lead internationally by setting even higher standards of our own.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, with another message on the need for environmental protection. I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 293E and thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for moving it and for his long-term concentration on the issue.
We are yet again in a non-regression cause—I feel something like a broken record. We were promised non-regression; we heard it again and again through the whole Brexit debate and subsequently. We need to consider this amendment in the light of the debate that was conducted publicly in February and March, when the industry initially proposed a light-touch registration of chemicals that were already on the EU REACH registration at the end of the transition period, effectively allowing a rubber stamp on those already in use. In response to that, environmental groups warned that this would contravene the principles that are apparently contained in the Environment Bill, which commits to maintaining the “no data, no market access” principle on which REACH is based.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made some very important points about how the EU is progressing with investigations of the impacts of cocktails of chemicals—something that is highly relevant to Amendment 152, which we debated some weeks ago, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, about the impact of pesticide applications near homes.
If we do not have full data on each and every chemical, the Health and Safety Executive will simply not be able to do its job and will be at risk of legal challenge. The data being out there somewhere is not enough. Regulation is an ongoing and continuous process that requires access to high-quality, up-to-date data. I note the response in March from Breast Cancer UK, which said that such an action would weaken the Health and Safety Executive’s ability to protect public health.
This is my final contribution to this very long Committee, and indeed the final contribution of the Green group. So, if the Committee will allow me a couple more sentences, I will say that it has been a long and fruitful haul, at least in the airing of issues and the identification of many flaws in the Bill. That is not surprising, perhaps, as this is such a fast-moving area and we have been dealing with a Bill so long in gestation. We have given the noble Lord the Minister a busy Recess in terms of meetings and, we hope, the drafting of government amendments reflecting our debates. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, back at Second Reading, said that this was the Green Party’s Bill. We have done our best to make a positive, constructive contribution to this Bill, and we hope that we will see some results. I will see all noble Lords in September.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is about the REACH directive, which brings us back to the vexed issue of Brexit and how we take things forward independently. This is a part of the Bill—especially the wide enabling provisions for regulation tucked away in Schedule 20—that really shocked me. On this occasion, I do not agree with most of the noble Lord’s amendment.
My criticism is not to do with animal welfare and testing, which was dealt with at an earlier sitting. My concern is that the REACH directive—short for the grand-sounding registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—has had a damaging effect on our industrial base since its implementation in June 2007. The directive has had a burdensome impact on most companies, including the most responsible. It applies to all chemical substances, not only those used in industrial processes, but also to those used in our day-to-day lives, such as cleaning products, paints, clothes, furniture and electrical appliances. If you handle any chemicals in your industrial or professional capacity, you may have responsibilities. REACH is compliance heavy and has made many UK companies operate in very different way. Again, the Roman system of law prevails over a more objective-based common-law approach. We have apparently had that in spades with the dual system that has been adopted since Brexit, described by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
I remember visiting an excellent small paint company in the Midlands, serving the advanced engineering industry, when I was a Minister. They were tearing their hair out over rules that were slowly bankrupting them, partly because of the heavy-handed way in which the big multinationals they supplied were loading all these new EU costs and responsibilities on to them. I raised their concerns with Defra, but to no avail. The attitude that the environment must take precedence over every other concern lives on, and that is unbalanced. Companies established outside the EU have not been bound by the obligations of REACH, even when exporting to the EU. Registration and everything else is the responsibility of the importer, and that makes life easier for third-country competitors. That sort of unfair, burdensome regulation helped to fuel Brexit.
What amazes me is that, now that we have left the EU, I have heard nothing about steps to help our industrial sector on this sort of detailed regulation; indeed, very much the reverse, as today’s debate suggests. Will the Government agree to a business-led review of REACH with a view to using the new powers to improve productivity and competitiveness without, of course, undermining essential environmental safeguards? Although we come at this from a different direction, this might actually appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, because it could be a constructive way of getting rid of the problem that we have. The grace-period provisions in REACH that the Minister alluded to on 28 June are not enough and are probably no good to the innovators and new entrants that we need in our engineering industries. The Minister might become very popular with small businesses in the Midlands and, indeed, in the red-wall industrial areas, if she agreed to a new post-Brexit review of this burdensome regime and how we can make it better.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be taking part in this debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on his knowledgeable introduction to this amendment, which seeks to provide safeguards for the vital REACH section of the Environment Bill. Many of his comments will be reinforced by my contribution.
During the run-up to Brexit, my noble friend Lord Fox and I had a meeting down at Marsham Street with the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, and Defra officials on the implications for the UK of not transferring the REACH regulations from EU to UK law. We were assured by officials that a better regime covering Great Britain—excluding Northern Ireland, which would remain within EU REACH—would be established. I regret to say that we were not convinced, and I am still not convinced. This landmark Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to alter the UK REACH system. This could cause deregulation and instability. Despite reassurances that the UK would not diverge from EU protections just for the sake of it, divergence looks set to widen over time.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has already referred to that fact. During the debate on the use of pesticides, reference was made to the mixture of different chemicals and the cumulative effect that these have, which far outweighs the damage that the individual chemicals do on their own. The EU chemicals strategy has powers to restrict the cocktail effect, in order to reduce the exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Can the Minister assure us that the Secretary of State is not likely to relax the UK REACH standards, which could enable exposure to this risk?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I offer our strong support to Amendment 293E in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. I thank my noble friend for his detailed and knowledgeable introduction, explaining why it is so important we do not have non-regression in chemicals industry regulation. Plans as to how the Government intend to regulate the UK chemicals sector following Brexit and our departure from EU REACH have been of significant concern for the UK chemicals industry for some time. This amendment would remove the possibility that a Secretary of State might lower current standards, while enabling them to easily meet or exceed new EU protections and standards. It would also oblige the Government to transparently justify any decision to deviate from EU control on chemicals—noble Lords have talked about the importance of transparency.
Concerns were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that provisions in the Bill give the Secretary of State the power to alter the UK REACH system, including through deregulation, which is causing instability. Concerns have also been raised about the potential for a reduction in protections and standards. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, also talked about the potential for a toxic mix of chemicals, as we have heard in other debates during the progress of the Bill. The UK is already falling behind EU protections. Divergence is set to widen over time, despite assurances that the UK would not diverge for the sake of it, and this brings with it considerable associated economic and political costs. I would be interested to hear from the Minister the Government’s perspective on this divergence and how they will manage it. The current regulatory processes for GB controls lack transparency and do not match the pace of EU action. They also do not appear to consider or attempt to mitigate the effects of divergence. My noble friend Lord Whitty mentioned the issue of new chemicals in particular, and how that is being managed.
Going back to our negotiations on Brexit, it was hugely disappointing that the Government ruled out what we believe would have been the best outcome for both the environment and human health, as well as for industry: for the UK to remain within the world’s most advanced system for regulating hazardous chemicals, the EU REACH system. The decision instead to set up UK REACH will substantially increase costs and bureaucracy for UK companies, while bringing real danger through the reduction in protection for the public, workers and the environment from hazardous chemicals. But we are where we are, and the priority now has to be for UK REACH to be the best it can possibly be.
The provisions in the Bill present an opportunity to ensure that UK REACH reflects available scientific evidence and allows for a regulatory environment which is fit for purpose. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said we now have an opportunity for higher standards, and I agree with him. Schedule 20 gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to amend the UK REACH regulation and the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008. Such amendments would have to be in line with Article 1 of REACH, which outlines its aim and scope. Several provisions are protected from modification by SI under these powers. However, we are concerned about granting the Secretary of State such a sweeping power to amend the main UK REACH text, which could then be used to reduce the level of protection for the public and the environment from hazardous chemicals. My noble friend Lord Whitty talked about the potential for huge damage if we do not manage our chemicals industry correctly.
There are many concerns from industry about access to data and divergent sources of data: different data can mean different decisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, talked about a lack of data undermining HSE’s ability to do its job properly. Now that we have left the EU, the UK does not have access to the same EU databases and the 98,000-plus dossiers of commercially sensitive safety and technical data for more than 22,000 substances. I have spoken many times in this House and the other place about my concerns about the risk of duplicate animal testing, and I know other noble Lords are concerned about this. We have had assurances from the Government, but no real explanation about how it is going to be prevented. When scientists and technical review panels cannot see the same scientific data and cannot discuss this data with scientific counterparts in the EU, inevitably we could find that different decisions are being drawn.
My noble friend Lord Whitty talked about his concerns around divergence by default. In a divergent regulatory system, the Government must be careful to avoid any lowering of our current high standard of environmental protections and increasing risk to public health, solely for the purpose of quick, short-term economic international trade wins or rapidly rolled-out innovations. I ask the Minister for her reassurance that this will not happen. Furthermore, a divergent chemicals regulatory system in the UK will bring additional cost burdens to business and, if standards are lowered or untrusted, will bring consequences to the ability to trade products with the EU. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, talked about the burdens on business if we do not get this right. We have to put safety first and consider the impact on the environment.
Significant divergence giving the UK a competitive advantage risks triggering rebalancing measures by the EU, such as retaliatory tariffs, under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. Remaining closely aligned with EU REACH would ensure that UK consumers and the environment continue to benefit from the EU’s relatively high protections as they continue to improve, and would also avoid unscrupulous manufacturers dumping products in the UK that fail to meet EU standards. The amendment we have been debating would provide important benefits and protections from damaging divergence that could lower standards. I urge the Minister to consider the benefits of supporting it.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his Amendment 293E. As I have outlined in previous groups, the Bill will enable the Government to update our REACH regulation to ensure it keeps pace with the latest scientific developments and to prevent our chemicals regulation becoming frozen. I start by reassuring the noble Lord that there are already several safeguards included in the Bill. Changes to the REACH regulation have to be consistent with Article 1 of that regulation, including ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. The Secretary of State must publish an explanation of why he considers that to be the case before making any changes.
I know the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was particularly concerned about the powers that the Secretary of State is taking to amend this. An ability to make supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provisions is a standard provision in legislation. The aim is to make sure that we avoid inconsistencies, discrepancies or overlaps developing in the statute book, but it would not enable us to make wholesale changes to the protected provisions. To take an example, Article 35 of the REACH regulation is a protected provision which gives workers the right to access information that their employer receives under other provisions of the REACH regulation, Articles 31 and 32, concerning a chemical substance or mixture they use or may be exposed to. If we were to extend the scope of those other REACH provisions to also cover information about substances in articles, we would want to amend Article 35 to reflect these changes.
I should say at the outset that both the UK and the EU recognise that EU REACH is part of the single market. Access to EU REACH or associate membership of the European Chemicals Agency are tied to the single market, and the EU insisted on this. The Government have already made it clear that we would not accept being subject to the European Court of Justice, and associate membership would mean just that. However, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement still provides for co-operation between the EU and UK chemicals agencies.
I should also stay at this juncture that, while I take the point about the larger resources that EU REACH has, Defra has asked HSE to work on two restrictions to date. I know that, normally, the EU would probably do five or six a year, but we have a significant time advantage: even with the Secretary of State asking the devolved authorities’ consent, we still have a speed advantage because we do not have to get agreement from 27 countries, which, in chemicals terms, can actually take many years.
We have also provided over 20 provisions relating to the fundamental principles of REACH, listed in the table in paragraph 6 of Schedule 20. They include: the “no data, no market” principle; the last resort principle on animal testing; the aim of progressively replacing substances of very high concern through the authorisation process; the effect of restrictions; the importance of communicating information to the public on the risks of substances; and various provisions to ensure that UK REACH will be properly transparent.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I rise to ask two questions, which I think have been answered. One is about microplastics and how they are covered by REACH; in writing to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, it would be extremely helpful if the Minister could copy me in too. They are a genuine area of concern. Secondly, I want to pursue the idea of a business-led review of REACH, not to undermine environmental standards but to make sure that the nonsenses of this area are tackled. I would be very happy to talk to my noble friend about that.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am very happy to take both issues back to the department.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which attempted to reassure me—I am not sure it did entirely. I also record my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, and my noble friend Lady Hayman for their support for this amendment.
The Minister attempted to be reassuring, but the wording of Schedule 20, introduced by Clause 133, does not give the cast-iron guarantee that she appeared to be giving. I appreciate that there are other developments in this Bill and elsewhere which would restrict her or any future Minister’s freedom of manoeuvre in this area, but an explicit requirement to report to Parliament if they intend not to follow the EU level of protection is important. I do not think that the combination of Schedule 20 and the text of the Bill delivers that. I ask the Minister to get her officials to have another look at it, but if she were forthcoming with an alternative amendment herself I would certainly have a look at that.
Chemicals have been a great boon to mankind. The chemicals industry is one of our great successes in industrial life, but it has also been shown to be quite damaging in a number of serious respects. The misuse of chemicals, the wrong disposal of chemicals, the wrong combination of chemicals and the wrong application of chemicals to humans, products, the landscape and the environment have caused a large number of problems. It was therefore important that Europe, when we were members, developed an effective system of regulating chemicals; effectively, if there was no data indicating their safe use, they would not be given access to the market. That is the basis of REACH.
I was interested in the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and I know that she reflects serious concerns from parts of industry. On this one, I think she is slightly out of date. It was certainly true when REACH started to be established, from 2007 roughly, that there was considerable concern throughout the chemicals industry that the regulations and the data required would be too burdensome, prevent innovation and cause difficulties for the sector. That concern continued for a number of years, but two things have happened since.
First, public concern about the impact of chemicals on human health and the environment has seriously grown, and so likewise has the industry’s recognition that it needs a robust system of regulation to which it can be party. Secondly, the REACH system has bedded in across Europe. As I said in my speech, we must recognise that the European chemicals industry is pretty pan-national, in terms of both large companies and small companies with which they have a supply chain or a contractual arrangement, as well as importers and exporters. There is a lot that the industry has had to get used to, some of which it did not initially like, but it has now proved a rather more effective system of regulation than some others in the armoury of the European Commission, I would argue, and certainly much more accepted, both scientifically and by those who are concerned, and by the industry itself. It was therefore a bit of a surprise to hear the noble Baroness express such concerns—there may be some companies still upset by it, but in general it has been accepted.
I also think that the decision to duplicate on the same basis, in effect, as the European system has caused some frustration to industry but it is that duplication, rather than the essence of the European regulatory structure and regulatory process, that is causing any irritation now. That may also settle down. What I hope for in terms of those who are looking for protection from the impact of chemicals is that the HSE, Defra, the Environment Agency and everybody else who is involved in this area develop a speed of reaction that matches that of Europe. If they do that, then duplication ceases to be quite so important.
At the moment, that is not the case and we therefore potentially have three different sorts of divergence. We have a divergence because Europe has moved on but we have not got round to doing it—I call that divergence by default. We have divergence because the UK has decided explicitly that it wants a rather different system that would be less restrictive than Europe. We have divergence because the UK has decided that it wants better regulation. Both of those are possible under my amendment but they have to be explained to Parliament and justifiable in the terms of the original REACH proceeding. I do not think that the wording of Schedule 20 gives that degree of certainty. We need more clarity, not less. We need more understanding of what we are trying to protect in the chemicals regulation in terms of its impact on human health, animal health and welfare, wildlife and everything else this Bill is concerned with before we try to change the system significantly.
Therefore, this is an attempt to ensure that there is no regression, that any divergence is beneficial and that it is clearly explained to Parliament. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and others who might oppose this amendment recognise the importance of that. However, I take comfort from the support around the rest of the Committee for at least the principle of this amendment. In the meantime, I will withdraw it and we will, no doubt, come back to something like this on Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 297A. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 135: Regulations
Amendment 297A
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(10) Except for regulations under this section, regulations under this Act expire after the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations substitute a later date for the purposes of subsection (10).(12) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different purposes or areas. (13) Before exercising the power under subsection (11), the Secretary of State must review the effectiveness of the regulations to which the power relates and conduct an assessment of the costs of the policy or provision relative to the benefits, having regard to a broad range of factors, including—(a) effect on economic growth;(b) costs to industry, in particular small and medium-sized businesses;(c) social impact.(14) Regulations under subsection (11) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets a sunset provision after five years for regulations made under the Bill, including those relating to targets. If the Government wishes to renew regulations, it must conduct a cost-benefit analysis first.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be introducing this final group and to have the support of my noble friends Lord Ridley and Lady Noakes. It is fair to say that we have been troubled by the sheer scale of this Bill and the new duties and responsibilities within it. It is clear that we are not going to be able to get all the provisions right and that the regulations made under the Bill are in many cases still being developed.
There is generous use of the affirmative procedure in the making of these regulations, for which the Government have been praised by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. However, the fact is that Parliament almost never secures changes to an affirmative resolution SI, so it is mainly a debating trigger. It is no substitute for knowing what will be in subordinate legislation and knowing it at the time that powers are granted in an enabling Bill. The power grab by bureaucrats is exactly what critics used to blame the European Union for when it brought in directives, but ironically it was more transparent about its plans and there was a well-understood process of both public consultation and scrutiny of detail in the European Parliament.
I should add that when I used to be responsible for Bills, parliamentary counsel wanted details of what the powers would be used for. They do not seem to be as firm as they used to be, which is a loss of democracy.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness in this grouping. I am not sure why we have been grouped together but I think it will work well and I am sure that her advice on some of the things I am going to say will be welcome, if not during the debate, maybe later on.
This is a probing amendment. I first need to tell the House that I am not opposing the clause but this is the only way I could find, with the help of the excellent clerks, of coming up with something that enabled me to start a debate on something that I think is quite important in a Bill that is as wide as this and, of course, includes issues, as the noble Baroness said, about the Prince of Wales’s support for small farmers. I certainly welcome that. He is right.
When it comes to the Crown, however, it gets a bit more complicated. I think noble Lords will know that the Crown normally comprises four elements: the Crown itself and its public element; the Duchy of Lancaster; the Government, or various government departments; and the Duchy of Cornwall. It is clear to me that the Duchy of Cornwall is different, as it claims to be in the private sector, which means that one ought to look at the role of the Duchy of Cornwall and the benefits that it gets rather separately from the other three parts of the Crown. As the noble Baroness said, of course, one issue is the Crown exemption clauses, which sometimes avoid the Crown needing to comply with legislation. I shall come back to that. I therefore have a number of questions for the Minister, which I suspect he will not be able to answer today, but I would be very pleased if he could write to me on them.
As I said, there are three categories of Act in relation to the Crown. I am very grateful to a good friend of mine, Dr John Kirkhope, who is a real expert on this. He has helped me with what I am about to say, because it is quite complicated. First, there are Acts in which the Crown enjoys Crown immunity, which includes leasehold reform Acts, income tax Acts, et cetera. Secondly, there are Acts which bind the Crown, but if an Act does not say that it binds the Crown, it does not. Then there is a third category: those Acts that bind the Crown but where there is no criminal sanction if the Crown is in breach; these have what are called Crown exemption clauses. Of course, this brings me back to the Duchy.
Therefore, I have a number of questions on parts of the Bill and the effect it may have on the different parts of the Crown—be they the Duchy of Cornwall or the other parts—which I want to pose to the Minister. I start with Clause 30(3), which relates to the OEP and defines “public authority”. It appears that the definition does not include the Crown, as defined in Schedule 18. Does that mean that the power of the OEP does not extend to the Crown? In particular, does it extend to the Duchy of Cornwall? Next, does Clause 49, in Part 3, apply to the Crown? In other words, if any Crown body is found to have dumped waste, would it be subject to the various sanctions outlined? Again, which Crown bodies are we referring to?
I note many references to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, but if noble Lords refer to Section 76 of that Act, in relation to the Isles of Scilly, or, more particularly, Section 159, it includes Crown exemption clauses. This means that there is no criminal sanction if the Crown—which includes the Duchy of Cornwall, where I live—is in breach.
I can go on. Another example is Schedule 21 to the Environment Act 1995, which includes a similar provision, to which reference is made in Clause 63 of this Bill. I also refer to Section 77 of the Water Industries Act 1991, Section 221 of which provides Crown exemption. I will not go through any more of these references in the Bill, but I am sure noble Lords have got the picture. Therefore, my question is: to what extent do all these references to other pieces of past legislation bind the Crown? Do they bind all parts of the Crown, or do they bind only the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and government departments, and not the Duchy of Cornwall?
Before putting down this question of whether the clause should stand part, I did think of trying to draft some amendments on this, but it is incredibly complicated. I would really welcome the opportunity to sit down with the Minister and his officials to see whether there could be some response which would clarify the Crown exemption clauses and where the Crown is and is not included. One suggestion would be to table an amendment which says that the Act binds the Duchy of Cornwall; that is another option. It is very complicated, but it is very important that the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall are recognised for what they are and whether they should be included or not, and whether there need to be even some changes to previous legislation to clarify this, otherwise there is a danger that the Bill—which has some really good parts; we have discussed much of it over the last eight sessions—could get even more complicated. I trust that is helpful to the Minister and look forward to his response in due course.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who always raises such interesting points. I agree with him that it is rather odd that his clause stand part debate has been grouped with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment. I will concentrate my remarks on my noble friend’s amendment, to which I have added my name. I have not hitherto taken part on this Bill, though I have sat in a few times and read quite a bit of the record of proceedings in Hansard, but my noble friend’s Amendment 297A has tempted me in from the sidelines.
Bills such as this one, which are full of good intent and focused on issues that some are passionate about, often get very little scrutiny of their costs and the consequences of actions taken under them. At Second Reading there was very little focus on that. There were just two shining exceptions. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, emphasised the need for government policies to be prioritised and to ensure that actions taken under the Bill did not, for example, harm economic growth policies. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, drew attention to the fact that actions taken in the interests of the environment involve trade-offs and that there was a lacuna in the Bill in respect of considering economic impacts when setting targets under it. I know that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has several times raised the issue of the costs and benefits of the Bill in Committee, and I am glad that she has tabled Amendment 297A to ensure that regulations made under the Bill’s powers are rigorously assessed.
My noble friend’s amendment gives the Government the benefit of the doubt for the first regulations laid under what will be an Act, and I know that my noble friend the Minister has said several times during Committee that full impact statements will be prepared for each of those regulations. The trouble is that impact statements are narrowly defined by the Cabinet Office and suffer from many defects. They commonly understate costs or do not cast the net wide enough to capture all of them. The analysis is typically based on identified persons or bodies, or groups of them, and hence fails to capture whole-system impacts, such as macroeconomic impacts. Impact statements often overstate the benefits or take a macro-level calculation of benefit and use that to frank all the micro-level actions, as the impact statement for this Bill does in respect of a global assessment of potential biodiversity gain. They are also generally optimistic about things such as new opportunities for businesses to innovate. The huge impact statement issued for this Bill suffers from most of these defects and is not decision-useful for assessing its impact.
I very much doubt that the final impact statements for individual regulations will be much better because of these structural deficiencies. The virtue of my noble friend’s amendment is that she allows a five-year period—capable of extension—to gain evidence of the impact of measures. In addition, the amendment calls for a broad evaluation, not a narrow Cabinet Office-style impact assessment, before any regulations are allowed to continue, and it includes the economic impact—on economic growth—and social impact. Concentrating on these would go a long way to remedy the usual deficiencies of impact statements.
My noble friend’s amendment is a modest and proportionate attempt to get some rigour into the parliamentary scrutiny of environmental policy-making, and I hope it will find favour with my noble friend the Minister.
Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Noakes, whose expertise on these matters is extraordinary, and to support the very important amendment of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. This is only the second time I have spoken in Committee, and I will try and keep it brief because I know we are at the end of eight long days.
At Second Reading, I paid particular attention to the issue that some environmental policies do not end up being effective—do not work. Others are worse; they actually produce counterproductive results in environmental and economic terms. This amendment is a way of making sure that this does not happen—at least, not for a long time—that we learn from mistakes, that we put things right and, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe put it, that we have a fail-safe.
I would like to give four short examples of policies that were brought in to help the environment and ended up hurting it in significant and expensive ways. The first was the policy of encouraging us all to buy diesel cars as opposed to petrol cars 20 or so years ago. There is no doubt, if you go back and look at the debates at the time, that this was pushed as an environmental measure, because diesel cars had lower carbon dioxide emissions per mile. It was pushed strongly by big German car manufacturers as a way of encouraging Governments to think they could get a quick win on the environment. Of course, the effect it had was to increase emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulates, which are much more harmful to human health, as well as to the environment.
The second example is the diversion into compact fluorescent light bulbs. Around 10 years ago, incandescent bulbs were banned, and we were all forced to buy compact fluorescent bulbs. This was pushed strongly as an environmental measure by the large manufacturers of compact fluorescent bulbs because they used less electricity to produce a given amount of light. But they were very unsatisfactory in all sorts of ways, including that they did not switch on very fast, gave a pallid light, were very expensive and were toxic for the environment if they broke. Along came a better technology, the LED bulb, which we have all willingly gone out and bought to replace them. It is even more efficient in terms of the environment, even more energy efficient; it is expensive, but not as expensive as compact fluorescent bulbs; and it has easily replaced both the preceding technologies. My point here is that we did not need the diversion into compact fluorescent bulbs. It probably delayed the arrival of LED bulbs. The evidence on that is quite good.
My third example is the fact that we are burning trees in Yorkshire in Drax power station to keep the lights on in Britain. The trees mostly come from North America; we are stealing the lunch of woodpeckers, beetles and other organisms to have electricity in this country. We are subsidising this. We are calling it renewable, because the trees regrow. But they regrow over decades and, even then, if we are continuing with this, we will presumably cut them down again. Doing this does not make any sense, because burning trees produces more carbon dioxide than coal in the production of electricity. About 7% of our electricity came from biomass burning this morning.
My fourth example is one I referred to in my Second Reading speech and is that some environmental policies have encouraged farmers to make peewit-friendly habitat, where lapwings will come and breed. That sounds good from an environmental point of view, but it has recently become clear that if you do that, but do not control crows, foxes and stoats in the area, you will draw in lapwings to what looks like an attractive place to breed, but they will never see any grandchildren, because the success rate of lapwings in these areas is about 0.1 chicks per pair, which is not sustainable. So you are draining the population of lapwings if you do only one part of the policy and not the other.
A similar point was made in an excellent speech by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who talked about the problem of making conservation covenants in perpetuity, then struggling with what to do when we find that we have made a mistake in a conservation covenant and have put in place a policy for a piece of land that is inappropriate and doing more harm than good. That is why it is vital that we apply sunset clauses and cost-benefit analysis to environmental policies. We need a chance to pause and say, “Sorry, chaps. I know you are making a ton of money out of this policy, but it is not helping the environment, so we are going to shunt your gravy train into a siding, because it has failed a cost-benefit analysis”. That is what we should be in the business of doing.
Those who support greater action on the environment ought to be especially welcoming of this amendment, because it is all about finding out what works, what delivers good value for money and what should be ditched because it does not work. If the Minister does not like this amendment, I would be grateful if he could set out how he plans to deal with it the next time we find that an environmental policy foisted on us by lobbyists turns out to be counterproductive for the environment.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Ridley, who gave a fascinating speech. I was much impressed by his four examples of policies that we thought were going to be very good but turned out to be mistakes and had to be changed. I am sure the same will happen with some of the current policies being proposed for the environment and other things that we think, today, are bound to give the right answer when, in 10 or 20 years, some are certain to be counterproductive.
I will not detain the Committee long, but I extend my support to the sensible Amendment 297A in the names of my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lord Ridley and Lady Noakes. The Bill takes no account of any negative impacts that the environmental targets set may inadvertently cause. As your Lordships are aware, we do not always get everything right. We should pay attention to the proportionality principle, as sensibly proposed by the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform, chaired by my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is the strongest advocate of impact assessments in your Lordships’ House. As was also pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, planting trees in areas that were not historically forests may assist climate change mitigation, but may also harm biodiversity. Similarly, some actions taken to advance environmental targets may have a negative impact on carbon emissions, such as the plastics tax, which is likely to cause a shift from plastic to glass and aluminium bottles—about which I spoke in an earlier debate. For these and other reasons so well explained by my noble friends, I hope the Minister agrees that it is right to include a sunset clause and that the Government should conduct a cost-benefit analysis if they wish to renew these regulations beyond five years after the passage of the Bill.
On the interesting subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, whose support on other aspects of the Bill I much appreciate, I am conscious of my oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and of everything His Royal Highness the Duke of Cornwall does for the environment. I would prefer to remain silent on this matter, but I look forward to hearing how the Crown replies to the noble Lord through my noble friend the Minister.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for this short but quite interesting and illuminating debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, the two matters we are talking about do not really sit happily together, so I will take them in turn.
As we have heard, Amendment 297A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, would set a sunset provision after five years for regulations made under the Bill, including those relating to targets, unless the Government conduct a cost-benefit analysis. She is certainly correct in her assessment of how extensive the Bill is, and of how much work it has been and will continue to be. We understand her concerns about costs and how difficult it can be to assess them accurately, and the fact that the impact assessments are now two years old, which I guess allows me to make the point that it is a shame this important Bill has dragged on for such a long time.
I was interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, had to say about why impact assessments are not always entirely accurate. She knows far more about financial assessments and economic impacts than many noble Lords.
It was quite interesting to hear the different examples from the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, of where policy made in good faith can turn out to be not what we expected and can often need rethinking. I agree that we always need to learn from mistakes.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for his contribution. I shall spend the next few weeks trying to encourage him to be more positive about efforts to try to improve our environment, while accepting that we do not always get everything right.
However, having said all that, much of the Bill will need to be enacted by secondary legislation, there are plenty of areas where there will have to be regular reports back to Parliament on progress, and we obviously also still have Report to look at how we can improve much of the Bill. We believe that there are many opportunities to revisit the Bill’s implementation and its ongoing outcomes, so presently we would not support a sunset clause, but it has been very interesting to look at and discuss it because it has raised interesting issues about how we assess environmental policy as it moves forward.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley has given notice of his intention to oppose Clause 136 standing part of the Bill. I listened carefully to his concerns about Crown exemption clauses. The possibility is not something I was aware of at all, as I am sure many noble Lords were not. I was interested to hear his question about whether the OEP’s powers would extend to the Crown, and would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that. If it does not, does that mean that if a Crown body dumps waste, for example—we have been hearing about Southern Water; I am sure that the Crown would never do something like that—it would not be subject to the sanctions outlined?
As my noble friend also asked, to what extent does the Bill bind the Crown? To what extent can sanctions be applied if the Crown acts in breach of any of its provisions? It is another interesting question. I agree with him that it also seems incredibly complicated, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response—or will we be looking at his reply in writing?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for tabling Amendment 297A and for her kind offer of help, which I will convey to colleagues in the department; I hope we will be able to take her up on it. The Government agree that it is imperative that legislation is subject to appropriate review to ensure it remains fit for purpose, and it is important to note that the entire Bill will be subject to the post-legislative scrutiny process.
However—I say this as a fan of sunsetting—I need to highlight that such a broad sunsetting provision in the Bill would be unworkable, as it would cover every regulation-making power in the Bill indiscriminately, and there are parts of it where sunsetting would be seriously problematic. For example, the Government would not wish the regulations providing for the PM2.5 target, the biodiversity net gains site register or the deposit return schemes to be automatically sunsetted. The Bill consists of numerous measures that are designed to drive long-term change, and the measures are too critical to stop after a five-year period. In addition, having regulations that expire after five years would undoubtedly create uncertainty for businesses and local authorities. The long-term targets, for example, have been welcomed by many business groups—for example, the Broadway Initiative and others—because they provide the predictability that businesses need to plan and invest.
I add that the Bill is, I think, exemplary, in that it contains within it, and all the way through it, an ongoing system of monitoring, reporting and evaluation. It requires constant evaluation against, for example, the long-term targets we set, so it should represent a turning point in how environmental policy is both designed and implemented.
I reassure my noble friend that we are working with local authorities to ensure that they are not overwhelmed by implementation—we discussed that in one of our previous debates. We are working to ensure that measures are implemented to sensible timescales to enable local authorities to be prepared. We will provide a range of additional impact assessments, to answer her question, on policies brought about through secondary legislation under the Bill—for example, the new targets delivered through Part 1—and this will cover a wide range of impacts, both economic and environmental.
I acknowledge the intervention by my noble friend Lord Ridley, who made a really important point about the need for good policy. That sounds like an obvious thing to say, but we have got it wrong many times. Four examples are: diesel, light bulbs, trees being grown to feed the monstrous—I probably should not say that; I am not allowed to say that—Drax, and the partial approach towards restoring the lapwing, which has backfired in the way that my noble friend described. He makes a very important point, and we need to get this policy right. But there are mechanisms within the Bill that will keep policymakers—whether me or the next bunch to come along—on our toes, and keep the policies that we are driving through in the Bill under permanent review.
I highlight to noble Lords that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report was hugely complimentary of the Bill and its approach to delegation and regulation. The Government have accepted all its recommendations and will bring government amendments forward at Report to deliver them. We are confident that we have the right procedures in place.
Turning to the completely different subject of Clause 136, this is a standard provision in many Bills, as the noble Lord will know. As a rule, an Act does not bind the Crown unless it does so expressly or by necessary implication. Therefore, the clause puts the matter beyond doubt, clarifying that the Act binds the Crown, subject to subsection (2), which sets out the position where the Act amends or repeals other legislation. If the clause were to be removed, there would be uncertainty as to which of the Bill’s provisions bind the Crown, weakening them and potentially creating legal risk in various circumstances.
The noble Lord asked a number of technical questions, on which I shall have to get back to him in writing, but Clause 30 defines a public authority as
“a person carrying out any function of a public nature”,
subject to a list of exemptions. This captures bodies with statutory powers and duties, so, to the extent that the Duchy of Cornwall or the Crown have any such duties, they will be captured. The Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are not exempt from any of the provisions under the Bill; this has been confirmed by the Queen’s and the Prince’s consent—I thank my noble friend very much for her last minute, very useful intervention. I therefore suggest that Clause 136 should stand part of the Bill.
This debate concludes the Committee. It has been a real pleasure to have debated this hugely important, landmark Bill for something like 80 or 90 hours. It has been a marathon and a test of endurance for many of us. I thank each and every noble Lord who contributed. It has been an extraordinarily important discussion.
I pay particular tribute to my counterparts on the opposition parties’ Front Benches—the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Hayman of Ullock, Lady Parminter and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley —for their tireless work on each of our debates over the past few weeks. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bennett, the representatives of the unofficial opposition, the Green Party. Both made some really important contributions throughout the passage of the Bill so far.
Of course, I thank all those who have made valuable contributions to the debate from the Back Benches. I also thank my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist for her support during these debates. She has endured no less than anyone else in this Chamber.
I pay tribute to the clerks and parliamentary staff for their work to make these proceedings possible, especially during late-night debates. I also pay tribute to the many stakeholders, ENGOs, land managers, businesses and local authorities, and everyone else whose expertise has helped to shape so much of what the Bill contains.
I have listened carefully to each and every concern aired throughout Committee. I hope that I have managed to reassure noble Lords on just how important the environment is to both myself and the Government. This is of course not the last debate that we will have on this flagship Bill, as I really think it is, and I look forward to returning for Report after the Summer Recess. In the meantime, my door remains open and I look forward to continuing our discussions.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank noble Lords for an interesting debate and the Minister for his words. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his clause stand part on application to the Crown and the way in which he cleverly used it to seek the clarification he needed on the Duchy of Cornwall. I just want to tell him that there is another complication that he did not mention: the Palace of Westminster and its well-known wildlife.
My noble friend Lady Noakes gave us a laser-like analysis of the impact assessment issue. I agree with her that assessments tend to be too narrow and that there is also a problem of optimism bias. As she said, I am trying to get some modest scrutiny into the process somehow to make us all do a better job. Of course, my noble friend Lord Ridley supported my idea of a fail-safe, with his excellent illustrations of things that we try to do to save the environment which are actually mistaken—the most obvious example of which is the diesel car.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard spoke about the precautionary principle, but he also brought out well the tension between different environmental measures, which will always be an issue. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for her support on costs and learning from mistakes, which is something I have been devoted to all my life. I thought that there was a little door open there.
My noble friend the Minister rightly pointed to the constant process of evaluation that is provided for in this Bill, but I am not sure that we in Parliament get much of a look-in. That was one of the considerations behind the amendment I moved for debate today.
I believe that we need to have a clause that provides for more review and, in some cases, a pause. I also believe that sunsetting might be able to play a role. However, I look forward to helping my noble friend the Minister to find a way forward, if that is possible, between now and Report.
My noble friend the Minister has elegantly and delightfully thanked everybody but, as this is the last group, I thank him, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield and the Bill team for their sterling work and unfailing courtesy. I look forward to Report after a refreshing summer break. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Clause 138, page 123, line 22.
“(ab) sections 16 to 18 (policy statement on environmental principles) extend to England and Wales and Scotland;”Member’s explanatory statement
See Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Clause 18, page 11, line 26.
“(a) the amendments made by Schedule (Biodiversity gain in nationally significant infrastructure projects) (biodiversity gain in nationally significant infrastructure projects) have the same extent as the provisions amended, and(b) ”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for the extent, as a matter of law, of Lord Goldsmith’s proposed new Schedule relating to biodiversity gain (which applies only in relation to development in England and the English marine area).
“(ia) section (storm overflows) (storm overflows),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the new Clause relating to storm overflows to come into force two months after Royal Assent.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
That concludes the Committee’s proceedings on the Bill. The House will now resume.
Environment Bill
Monday 6th September 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 43-II Second marshalled list for Report - (6 Sep 2021)
16:36 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 179 - Amendment 1 agreed.
17:51 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 166 - Amendment 2 agreed.
19:30 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 181 / Noes: 159 - Amendment 4 agreed.
Lord Teverson
“Purpose and declaration of biodiversity and climate emergency
(1) The purpose of this Act is to address the biodiversity and climate emergency domestically and globally. (2) As soon as reasonably practicable and no later than one month beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Prime Minister must declare that there is a biodiversity and climate emergency domestically and globally.(3) The Government must have regard to this purpose and declaration when implementing the provisions of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would have the effect of the UK Government declaring a climate and biodiversity emergency.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it has been two months since we debated the Bill in Committee over a period of three weeks, but the planet has not stood still over that time. First, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the IPCC—released its sixth report prior to COP 26, on which the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr António Guterres, commented:
“This is code red for humanity.”
This is an absolutely accurate declaration to my mind.
However, this is not just theoretical: let us look at other things that have happened during the end of July and beginning of August. First, we could look at fires: we have had forest fires in the northern hemisphere, almost unknown before, in California, Canada and Siberian Russia, where some 4 million hectares of forest have burned down and are still burning in parts of Siberia even today.
In terms of flooding, we have seen flash floods just now in New York. It was almost unexpected there, let alone down in the southern states of the United States. We have now had some 300 deaths in the north-east of the United States from those flash floods. Earlier, in July or August, some 300 people died in Henan province in China, many of them in underground metro systems, again in flash floods—something that had never happened in that way before. Of course, nearer home, in Europe—in Germany and close-by states—we had some 200 deaths because of flooding, which was unprecedented and unpredicted in terms of conventional weather forecasting.
In terms of temperature, in Lytton in British Columbia we had the highest temperature ever recorded in Canada at 49.5 degrees centigrade. More staggering was the fact that that was 5 degrees—I repeat, 5 degrees—more than the previous record. All those incidents and that report have happened since we last debated this legislation in this House.
We have also had, in July, the Government’s response to the Dasgupta report on biodiversity. They accepted, quite rightly, that we have to reverse biodiversity loss by the end of this decade; it is something that has been going backwards for decades and we have to amend that within a period of nine years.
We are now a month closer to the beginning of COP 15 next month, the biodiversity equivalent of COP 26, the first half of which will be centred around Kunming in China. Of course, we are now only 56 days away from COP 26 opening in Glasgow on 1 November. I also remind Members of the House that we had a report in June, again from the IPCC—the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change—and the secretariat of the biodiversity equivalent, which made it quite clear that these two crises, climate change and biodiversity, are absolutely and inextricably linked. You cannot solve one without solving the other. That is why this is an important area, an emergency, a real area and a place where the planet is globally changing.
We want this to be a landmark Bill; in fact, the Government declare this to be very much a landmark Bill, and we all want it to be so. But what I find it difficult is that it is not yet that. I welcome many of the Government’s amendments that they want to put forward, but it is not yet a landmark Bill, as the Climate Change Act 2008 was at that time. I do not believe that it is credible that this House, this country, can have what will become an environment Act without pointing out and declaring the obvious—that we have at the moment a climate change and biodiversity emergency.
I am sometimes asked whether this is the way we do things in the United Kingdom, and I had some arguments with the Public Bill Office around this when I put down this amendment. But I remind Members that over 200 local authorities in our land have already declared a climate emergency, and many of those are now also declaring a biodiversity emergency. I believe that what is right for them is right for us as a Parliament. Also, the way that we in the United Kingdom show unity in parliamentary politics is through legislation, because that brings the two Houses together, together with the Government. Having a declaration in an Act of Parliament brings together the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Government, and I believe that this is absolutely what is needed to make this a landmark Bill.
I believe this amendment would achieve leadership for this country—globally as well as nationally—in both those crises. I believe it will give us extra credibility and leadership at COP 26 and COP 15. I believe it will make this Bill something like the Climate Change Act for the future, and that it will also bring biodiversity, which is so important to this Bill, up to a similar status to the Climate Change Act. As I said, I think it brings together the two Houses and the Government in a unity that is important and that we saw in the citizens’ climate assembly.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I am very happy to support this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, I joined up a little too late.
Biodiversity is all too often seen as the poor relation of climate change and somehow less important. It is not. It is just as important and life threatening as any weather patterns, droughts or floods—and they are indeed all connected. So what is it? In essence, it is the variety of life on earth and all its interconnectedness. But it is also the product of millions of years of learning—of trial and error—by all the creatures, flora and fauna on earth to arrive at a system where this planet flourishes and where we can exist on it. Everything is in its place and everything is doing its bit—sometimes large, sometimes microscopic—and it keeps our planet in the healthy state that we want to preserve.
I have heard what we are doing now described as “burning the library of earth”. To take something really complex that we have made, let us think of an aeroplane going to New York, carrying 600 people. Out falls one rivet—not too bad. Out come two—maybe not a big deal. But suppose 10, 20 or 30 come out; at some point that aeroplane is going to come crashing down to earth—and that is what we are doing now with the complex world of our biodiversity. We do not know quite when we will pass the tipping point, but we are clearly very nearly there.
I have a few examples relating to the insect world, which is endlessly dismissed, but—as Einstein, apparently, famously said—the planet would survive without us, but it would not survive without insects. They are essentially the unseen rivers that keep the planet functioning, yet we have not managed to identify them all—and yet we are cutting down their environments. As I said, no one knows how close to the edge we are, but in China they are pollinating apples and pears by hand. In Bengal they are doing the same for squash plants. In Brazil it is passionfruit, and it is blueberries in Canada. Even the French beans in Kenya are now having to be mechanically pollinated because we have trashed the insects.
Clearly, many parts of the world—and, indeed, under the oceans; we have the temerity to think that we should destroy the ocean bed like we have destroyed the land above—have a huge value: trillions of dollars, or around double the world’s current GDP. In Europe alone it costs the 3% of GDP that we get from our natural services.
I thoroughly support the amendment. This is an emergency. That message needs to come from the Prime Minister and it needs to be made clear to everyone that we have only one planet and that we have to protect it. Biodiversity is extraordinary and amazing. It is up to all of us in this House to ensure that this becomes part of the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I support both these amendments: Amendment 1, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and backed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to which I am pleased to have attached my name; and Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
In introducing his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, looked at what happened in the timeframe from when we last debated the Bill to today. I will take a different timeframe and go back to when the Bill was first introduced on 15 October 2019. A lot has happened since then. Obviously, we have had, and still have, a global pandemic, which is related to our biodiversity and climate crises, but in reaction to it we have seen enormous, massive and rapid change. We have seen the invention from scratch of highly effective new vaccines from a range of technologies. We have seen billions of doses of those vaccines already delivered. We have seen transformation on an almost daily scale of our entire way of life. The previously obscure word “lockdown” has become daily currency. International travel has almost stopped. “Zoom” has become a verb.
What has happened to the climate in those two years? Emissions fell in 2020, chiefly because of the pandemic, but a lot less than people expected. They then started to rise again. We have seen Extinction Rebellion out on our streets regularly and the climate strikers have become part of the national life of countries all around the world. But we have yet to see the scale of reaction that is needed to these emergencies, which are on the same scale as the pandemic. Just look at the contrast between those two scales of reaction and the fact that the Bill was written two years ago. In the age of shocks, with time moving so fast, that is an age. Amendment 1 would update the Bill to be fit for today, as it must be, and create the frame for it to be fit for the future.
I will briefly address Amendment 21. It is particularly important because we are starting to see the word “resilience” in news coverage, which was once an extremely rare occurrence. It is starting to rise up the news agenda. I speak as a former journalist. Amendment 21 seeks to address the risks, identify them and report on them.
I will focus in particular on proposed new subsection (2)(c), which would ensure that the views of 11 to 25 year-olds in the United Kingdom are continuously engaged in debating these risks. I reflect on that because yesterday I was in Sheffield, where I joined the Young Christian Climate Network, which is on a deliberately very slow pilgrimage from Truro to Glasgow, stopping in as many communities up and down the land as it possibly can to engage communities, particularly young people, on this issue. Climate strikers, young pilgrims and Extinction Rebellion are leading. The amendment would ensure that the Government and the Bill are at least in the right place to catch up.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 1, to which I added my name. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his helpful amendment. We agree that assessing long-term environmental risk should be an essential part of setting environmental targets and improvement plans.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, very much for setting out why recognising our climate and biodiversity emergency is so important. He and other noble Lords set out the case with clarity, passion and commitment. As he said, this is indeed code red for humanity.
We had a number of excellent contributions in Committee which all strengthened the importance of having Amendment 1 underpin the Bill. It has of course become commonplace for government and civic society to acknowledge that we have a climate change emergency. The recent global evidence that the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Bennett, referred to reinforces this view. Quite frankly, it has made a mockery of the dwindling band of climate sceptics.
However, we still have some way to go to put the biodiversity crisis on an equal footing with the climate crisis, with comparable attention and resources. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, biodiversity is seen as the poor relation, yet, as we have heard, the evidence of a biodiversity emergency is all around us. At a UK level, the RSPB’s State of Nature report showed that 41% of our species are declining and one in 10 threatened with extinction. We are one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. At a global level, the WWF has documented the international failure to meet the UN biodiversity targets, with an average 68% of species decline across the world. We see the impact of this decline in our gardens, countryside and waterways. For many of us, it is personally heartbreaking to see nature suffering and declining in this way.
We now understand more than ever that nature is not just a “nice to have”; it underpins our very existence and regulates the earth’s climate. As the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee’s report concludes:
“Biodiversity and well-functioning ecosystems are critical for human existence, economic prosperity, and a good quality of life.”
Of course, this echoes the previous conclusions of the much-quoted and seminal Dasgupta report.
That is why Amendment 1 is so important. A government declaration of a climate and biodiversity emergency would be more than symbolic. It would make it clear that the two issues are inextricably linked and that both require action on an urgent scale. In Committee, the Minister acknowledged these arguments. He said:
“We absolutely recognise the extent of the crisis”
that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and I had relayed. He went on to say:
“There is no doubt that the facts on the ground tell us that we are in crisis territory”,
but he also acknowledged that international action on climate change is well ahead of any comparable action on biodiversity. As he said:
“It remains the case … that of all international climate finance, only 2.5% to 3% is spent on nature-based solutions.”—[Official Report, 21/6/21; col. 37.]
This lies at the heart of the problem. A group of us were involved in debates on the Financial Services Bill earlier in the year. It was clear then that banking and businesses in the UK are slowly waking up to their climate change commitments, but I do not recall much mention of biodiversity in their strategies for the future. So far, it seems that biodiversity and nature-based solutions are seen as Defra issues, not government-wide issues. I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity or commitment on this issue, but the evidence seems to show that the department is struggling to get other government departments to take this issue seriously. This is why it is important that the Government as a whole recognise the joint emergency of climate change and biodiversity, and why the Prime Minister needs to recognise the emergencies and put action on both issues at the heart of government policy for the future.
Nature will not wait. We are spiralling into levels of extinction that cannot be reversed. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, this is the right time to make this declaration. I therefore hope that noble Lords will heed our call and support our amendment if it is put to a vote.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the very powerful arguments that have been made. I believe that what is happening with biodiversity is more of an emergency than the climate. I am not certain that I like subsections (2) and (3) of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and I do not like Amendment 21, which is grouped with Amendment 1 but is not consequential on it. That would make it harder for the Government to pursue their environmental improvement plans and 25-year plan. There would be unnecessary duplication with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I am very happy with subsection (1) of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The purpose of this Act is to address the biodiversity and climate emergency domestically and globally. Once that is in print, it will be acknowledged by the Government as an emergency. Surely that meets the noble Lord’s point, and if my noble friend the Minister accepts subsection (1), I will be perfectly happy.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a curious experience to be standing up without being called.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has made the classic Conservative error of separating biodiversity from climate. It is all interconnected: you cannot talk about either without accepting that each has an impact on the other. Every noble Lord must understand that we have a climate emergency, and therefore this government Bill is not good enough. We all know that–it is why there are so many amendments at Report. It is our job to improve the Bill and it is the Government’s job to listen and, I hope, accept our improvements.
Lord Deben (Con)
I hope that your Lordships will remember the words of the Pope in Laudato Si’, when he said that climate change was the symptom of what we had done to the world. That brings together bio- diversity, imposed poverty, the lack of fertility in our soil, modern slavery and a whole range of other things. Climate change is the planet crying out for the elimination of its disease.
I was not present for his speech but I read carefully what my noble friend said about his commitment to both these things. I hope that, when he comes to answer this debate, he realises that it is extremely difficult for us in the Climate Change Committee to explain to people why biodiversity is part of the answer—putting that right is just as important as a range of other things, and we cannot divorce them from each other. It is difficult, because we have already started doing that, making climate change one sort of thing and these other things different from it. I hope that the Government will understand why this amendment has been put down and why it is important to connect these things. If I have a difficulty, it is that a lot of other things ought to be connected as well, but these two are particularly important this year, given the nature of international negotiations in this area.
I hope also that my noble friend will think to himself a very simple thing: if the Government will not accept the amendment or rewrite the Bill—my noble friend Lord Caithness may be right; I am not arguing in detail about the particular amendment—it is perfectly possible for them to come forward and make a statement in the Bill which makes it clear that the biodiversity and climate emergencies are intimately and intricately connected. I hope my noble friend will realise that, if he cannot say it, he will be showing that the Government are not prepared to say it. That would be really worrying. The reason the Government have to say it is that there is a fundament problem with government: it has a series of silos, and if we are not careful these big issues get caught up in some ministries and not others. Unless we make it clear that this should be a driving force in, say, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport as much as in the Department for Education, Defra or BEIS, we will not win this battle.
I hope my noble friend will recognise that the House is asking for a very simple statement. If it is refused, I really would not blame people outside for questioning the commitment of the Government as a whole to these two essential parts of the same problem. I look to him if not to accept these amendments then to at least tell the House that, at Third Reading, he will introduce an amendment that will assert publicly the Government’s commitment to these being urgent, necessary issues that deserve the title that we have asked for. I hope he is able to say that; if he is not, it will send the wrong signal, at a time when we should be united in sending the right signals, so that in all discussions people will know precisely where Britain stands.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, in supporting the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I draw attention to a particular feature that has been mentioned but perhaps could be made more explicit. It is a feature of both the climate emergency and the biodiversity emergency: the discontinuities that will arise as a result of incremental change. My noble friend Lady Boycott alluded to this in talking about the rivets in an aeroplane: it does not matter, perhaps, if one, two or three rivets fall out, but when more than a critical number fall off there is a discontinuity and the plane falls out of the sky. This is true, as we know from the IPCC and others, of the climate emergency. We hear over and over of the notion of dangerous climate change, whereby if we exceed a certain boundary then we will tip into a new world in which life becomes intolerable and many regions of the planet are uninhabitable for the human species. That is equally true of the biodiversity emergency.
I am an academic ecologist, and so I will refer back to the scientific literature. Back in 1969, an American ecologist, Robert T Paine of the University of Washington, drew attention to the notion of keystone species. He was studying a species of starfish that lives in the intertidal zone of the north-western United States—Washington state. If this species of starfish disappears then the whole ecosystem flips to a new state, because the starfish is the keystone species that maintains the equilibrium of the intertidal ecosystem. The same will be true in many other situations.
It is not just the number of rivets that fall out of the plane that is important; it is particular, key rivets. The sad thing is that, if we lose some of these keystone species, we will be among the ones that suffer, because we will suddenly find that the systems we rely on to produce food, purify our water and provide other ecosystem services will simply not exist any more. A genuine emergency is created by crossing these thresholds: once we have crossed them, it will be too late.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, in the Book of Common Prayer, the Lord’s Prayer says:
“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
in earth as in heaven.”
I repeat, “in earth”. It was not the work of some liberal conspiracy in the Church or the Liturgical Commission but, somewhere in the last 300 or 400 years in the popular saying of the Lord’s Prayer, it somehow changed from “in earth” to “on earth”. This tiny change encompasses for me all that is wrong in our relationship with the earth of which we are a part. We used to understand that we live in it, we are part of it, we depend on it and that, as good stewards of the earth, the earth depends on us. Then, somehow, we decided that we did not live in it any more but on it; it was ours and we could do with it as we wanted.
Therein lies the whole challenge to the human race. What I want to hear from the Government on this crucial amendment is a clear signal that we have recognised—as a human race, as a nation and as the Government of this land—that there is an emergency, and that what is happening to our climate and to biodiversity is completely connected. At the same time there must be recognition of the terrible responsibility that we bear for having imagined that we lived on the earth rather than in it. By giving that signal, everything else could follow.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Caithness. The Government are to be congratulated on the first major piece of environmental legislation in two decades; I congratulate them on this. It will set a world-leading framework for environmental improvement and vigilance. I believe that the Government—certainly my noble friend on the Front Bench and our excellent Minister in the other place—recognise the scale of the crisis. That has been said in the House already.
It is inevitably the case that the climate change emergency is much better recognised than the biodiversity emergency, yet the two are so linked. Indeed, it is frightening to see the decline in biodiversity. The figures announced by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for example, are a telling reminder of the dangers to our precious planet and the interconnection between all species on earth. Part of my religious belief is founded on the amazing magic that nature produces. This world has been created for us, yet we are in danger of ending the precious balance that has, in my view, been created for us. I hope that those who do not agree with my underlying religious belief on this matter will forgive me.
I hope that my noble friend might be able to accept the first part of Amendment 1, which aims to address the biodiversity and climate emergency both domestically and globally. I am not convinced that proposed subsections 2 and 3 are clear in what they imply. What does this mean? What do these extra bits add? What we want—and I think this House is keen to see—is that we are addressing a crisis in biodiversity and in climate change. Of course, there is pollution and waste management. All these things are incorporated in this crisis. I cannot support Amendment 21, but I hope that my noble friend will be able to speak to the first bit of Amendment 1.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I wish very briefly to endorse everything that my noble friend Lady Altmann said a moment ago. There is a great deal to be said for clarity and simplicity and I believe that the first part of this amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, frankly, says it all. We do not need the encumbrances. We need this clear, unambiguous, emphatic statement. If my noble friend the Minister will agree to give us that, I think it would be unwise of the House to seek to vote on the composite—as the trade unions would call it—resolution. This is what we need.
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York put it very well when he quoted from the Lord’s Prayer. We are in earth. As president of the Prayer Book Society, I always say that and would not say anything else. I beg my noble friend the Minister to take on board the wise words of my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lord Deben—how good it is to have him back in the Chamber—and that he will accept this; then, we can move forward.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
I am delighted to be back debating the Environment Bill on Report and not least to be able to do so in person. I thank noble Lords for continuing to meet me and my officials over the Summer Recess.
Off the back of much of that engagement, as well as the many insightful contributions in Committee from right across this House, noble Lords will have seen that we have secured and tabled some significant amendments to the Bill. I outlined these in a letter to your Lordships last week and I look forward to discussing these in more detail as we progress the debate.
Moving on to the important issues at hand, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his Amendment 1. He described an emergency; I reassure him that the Government fully recognise the seriousness of both climate change and biodiversity loss, which, as a number of noble Lords have said, must be addressed in tandem if we are to protect the planet. There is no credible pathway to net zero that does not involve the protection and restoration of nature on an unprecedented scale. Indeed, there is no pathway to meeting our sustainable development goals—any of them—without massive efforts to protect and restore nature. We know that those people who depend most on the free services that nature provides, and which have been described by a number of speakers today, are in the most vulnerable and poorest communities. As we destroy nature, we destroy those services and plunge people in huge numbers into base poverty.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out that of total global climate finance, less than 3% is invested in nature-based solutions to climate change. An attempt to shift that balance and get that 3% much closer to 50% is at the heart of our ambitions as the president of COP. In addition to committing to double our own international climate finance to £11.6 billion, we have committed that nearly a third of that will be invested in nature-based solutions, including forests, mangroves, seagrasses and more. As part of our diplomatic efforts in the run-up to COP, we are talking to other donor countries on a regular basis to try to persuade them to do something similar. There has been some progress and I hope that, by the time we reach COP, I will be able to present significant movement in that area.
My noble friend Lord Deben, who I too am very pleased to see here and who is an authority on climate change, quoted the Pope; I am not sure whether it was the current or previous Pope but he quoted a Pope. The point he made was absolutely right. Climate change has been described by others—perhaps from a less theological point of view—as a fever caused by decades and generations of our abuse of the natural world. The more we can see it in that way, the more likely we are to deliver appropriate solutions. COP will be a nature COP; this is at the heart of what we are attempting to do with our presidency.
I take issue with one suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Deben made: that we need to make it clear to others where the UK stands on these issues. I would not pretend that there is a country in the world, including the UK, that is doing enough. The gap between where we are and where we need to be is vast; that is true of every country on earth, and that is why we are having this discussion today. But where the UK stands on climate change and nature already sends a pretty powerful message to the world. I think we are regarded internationally as leaders: we were the first major economy to legislate for net zero by 2050; we have committed to ending taxpayer support for fossil fuel projects overseas, which the noble Lord has been urging for many years; we are the first to make our land use subsidy system conditional on environmental outcomes; we have doubled our international climate finance, as I said; and we have committed to a third of investment into nature-based solutions. As COP president, we are all engaging in intense diplomacy to try to raise ambition across the world.
Lord Deben (Con)
I think my noble friend misunderstood my point. My point was that, given the opportunity to declare this simple thing in an Act, the Government, if they do not take it, cannot avoid the fact that many will say they do not want to. The Government have the opportunity. I do not want the rest of these amendments; I just want the statement, and then no one can argue. If he cannot give that, I merely say that people outside will think we are not willing to do so.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his intervention, and I will address his question directly.
The Environment Bill contains numerous world firsts as well—for example, legislation to move illegal deforestation from supply chains, which we are trying to persuade many other countries to emulate, and with which we think we are making some progress. Biodiversity net gain is, I believe, a world first. I am delighted to introduce a legal requirement, which we will debate later today, to everything the Government can do to bend the curve of biodiversity loss by 2030. The Bill will enable us to improve air quality, address nature’s decline, deliver a resource-efficient economy, tackle the scourge of single-use plastics and ensure we can manage our precious water resources in a changing climate. All climate change legislation in England will be part of the enforcement remit of the office for environmental protection, including enforcement of the net-zero target. The OEP will work closely alongside our world-leading Committee on Climate Change on these issues, ensuring that their individual roles complement and reinforce one another.
Through the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, the Government set out steps to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. This innovative programme outlines ambitious policies and includes £12 billion of government investment to support up to 250,000 green jobs, accelerate our path to reaching net zero by 2050 and lay the foundations for a green recovery by building back greener from the pandemic. The Government have also published their energy White Paper, transport decarbonisation plan and hydrogen strategy, and we will bring forward further proposals, including a net-zero strategy, before COP 26—a strategy that all government departments, without exception, are working on. We will continue to tackle these interrelated crises in an integrated way, internationally, as hosts of COP 26 and by playing a leading role in pushing for the development of an ambitious post-2020 global biodiversity framework to be adopted at the CBD COP 15.
Briefly, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who talked about the need for action alongside this but questioned the action taken during the passage of the Bill, most of the examples I gave earlier are things that have happened during the passage of the Bill but, in addition to that, the Government announced a few months ago the £3 billion green investment fund to create thousands of green jobs and upgrade buildings; a £2 billion green homes grant; the England peat action plan, produced by my honourable friend Rebecca Pow in the other place; the England trees action plan, which was part of my portfolio; and a £5.2 billion fund to better protect properties from flooding, increasing amounts of which will be invested in nature-based solutions to try to deal with numerous problems using the same investment. We are taking action.
In response to the amendment, but also to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben: it is clearly the action against which a Government will be judged. Any Government can make declarations, as we have seen. As we approach COP, every declaration made so far in relation to deforestation globally has been missed. The Aichi targets were missed catastrophically. I cannot think of a single grand statement about the environment, biodiversity or climate change that has in fact been met—not a single one. It is the steps—the actions—that Governments take against which they should be judged.
A number of noble Lords have described an environmental crisis, a biodiversity crisis and a climate crisis. I have, in the short time I have been in this place, described those crises myself. Indeed, the reason I am in politics is to tackle those crises. It is hard to talk about the scale of the crisis. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, gave the example that the populations of key species have declined by nearly 70% in my lifetime, and that would not even qualify as a nano-blip in evolutionary terms. One more nano-blip like that and we are in very serious trouble. Of course this is an emergency; there is no doubt that we are describing, combating and tackling a biodiversity and climate emergency. But adding this proposed new clause to the Bill would not, we believe, drive any specific further action. It does not change the nature of what we need to do or of the action we are already taking. While I agree completely with the sentiment behind the noble Lord’s amendment—and I think the Government have demonstrated, in the steps they have taken, that they share that sentiment—respectfully, we do not see that this amendment would have any material impact.
Amendment 21 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, but he has not spoken to it, so I hope it is okay if I address it. I am not sure what the protocol requires, but I will do so unless I am told not to. I firmly believe that environmental risks are already accounted for under the Bill—in numerous ways, such as the environment improvement plan and annual reports that will consider risks related to improving the natural environment and be actively managed through ongoing performance management. These reports will be published and scrutinised by Parliament and the office for environmental protection. Furthermore, the Government report publicly on specific environmental risk, including long-term environmental trends and high-impact environmental risks, through Defra’s annual reports and accounts and the outcome delivery plans for each government department. These are all available online.
Regarding youth engagement, a point raised by a number of speakers, we have consulted the Youth Steering Group and are exploring new approaches to youth engagement as part of the EIP review due to take place in 2022. In addition, the emphasis being placed by the COP president-designate on the value of youth engagement and youth involvement cannot be overestimated, and that is demonstrated through the actions he is taking and the plans he is making.
The Bill and the actions we are taking elsewhere will deliver on the sentiments behind both amendments. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down: if the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, or anyone else for that matter, brought back at Third Reading proposed new subsection (1) of Amendment 1, which is merely a headline, would my noble friend pledge to accept that it does not detract one iota from the Bill? Yet headlines can be useful—they can be pointers—and I would urge my noble friend to do that. It is a pity to start on a Division when we all agree that that is the one thing on which many of us feel particularly strongly.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his intervention and his earlier comments, but the reality is that I, the department I work for and the whole of the Government will be tested and judged against the actions we take—actions and commitments we make in the run-up to COP and alongside the Bill. My view, and that of the Government, is that accepting this amendment and writing these words into the eventual Act would have no material impact on policy whatever. The reality is that securing changes to a Bill requires a great deal of heavy lifting. There are areas where I hope noble Lords will see that the Bill has improved considerably in recent weeks as a consequence of arguments put forward by noble Lords in this House. But those are material changes that will have a material impact on our stewardship of the environment.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, if my noble friend is not prepared to give the very simple assurance that at Third Reading he will have some form of declaration, he is being politically most unwise. What is more, he is setting himself up to have a great deal more trouble with this Bill than he otherwise would.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I simply say to my noble friend that I am not in a position to accept this amendment. If the House feels strongly on this issue, then it is important that it tests the amendment in a Division. Accepting it is not something that I am able to do or, frankly, that I think would make any material difference to government policy.
Lord Deben (Con)
I do not want this to start off so badly, but the fact is that many of us do not want to have various bits of this amendment and it is not our fault that my noble friend has been offered the opportunity to make this statement. I have to ask him: is he really going to stand up and say that, if just that bit were put in at Third Reading, he would whip his side to vote against it? If he did that—and that is the only way in which he could stand behind refusing such an amendment—then that seems to open up the reality of the question that he has been asked.
I agree with him about statements. I am constantly attacking the Government for not doing the things that are necessary to achieve the ends that they have so nobly accepted, so he must not accuse me of being in favour of declarations. However, when he has been asked to make a declaration and he does not do so, that seems to me to be a very different circumstance.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Perhaps I have misunderstood my noble friend. If he is asking me to acknowledge, as I have done many times in this House and outside it, that we face a biodiversity and climate emergency then I believe I have already done so. However, it is not for me to unilaterally accept an amendment on behalf of the Government that would have no material impact. As my noble friend says, we have made some big commitments; accepting the amendment would not change our commitment to net zero or to reversing biodiversity loss by 2030, or indeed in relation to any of these issues. I am afraid I have to come back to my noble friend and others by saying that if the feeling is strong then this issue needs to be put to a Division.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
I would just like to get clarification on this. Since it is now so difficult to table an amendment at Third Reading, it needs my noble friend to say that he would consider it before Third Reading. As I understand it, that would allow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to bring it back at Third Reading. If my noble friend is point blank saying that he will not even consider it, then the noble Lord has no alternative but to divide the House.
As I said, I like subsection (1) of the proposed new clause but not the rest of the amendment, which puts me and indeed quite a lot of us on the Benches behind my noble friend in an extremely difficult position. I think it is essential, as my noble friend Lord Deben said, that we get subsection (1), but we would have to vote for the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in order to get it into the Bill.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Could I summarise what I think I have heard the noble Lord say?
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid the noble Baroness cannot summarise. The rules in the Companion are quite clear that interruptions on Report are solely for points of clarification. I think we should let the Minister move on with this.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I have been told to finish but I am not sure how; this is the first time I have been asked to finish in these circumstances. I will repeat what I said earlier: all I can suggest to the House is that if feelings are strong then this question should be put to a Division. I do not see an alternative to doing so.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, in all my time in this House, this is the first time that I have got to a point where the Minister is calling for a Division on an amendment that he does not agree with. We have perhaps made history this afternoon.
This is a very serious matter. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. If subsection (1) had been accepted by the Government then I would have been in a great dilemma, because it does not quite say what I wanted to say but gets pretty close to it. The reason why it is written as it is, I have to say, is partly because of the Public Bill Office. I would have appreciated the Government’s help in getting it right and we could have done that at Third Reading, but we are not in that position.
I want to be quite clear about this. These are key issues where what we say matters as much as what we need to do. All of us here believe there is no difference between saying what we want and actually doing it; we all know that we need both of those, not just one. The Bill goes on to do a lot of what we need in some of those areas.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her in-depth look at biodiversity. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Bennett, and other Members have said, biodiversity has to be brought into greater focus. The point is that, in public life as in private, there is a big difference between acceptance and public declaration. That is why the amendment is so important for the Bill and why I, like the Minister, would like to test the opinion of the House.
“(e) soil health and quality.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment indicates that soil health and quality are a priority area for environmental improvement.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, Amendment 2 appears in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Curry of Kirkharle and Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I thank them all for their support, as well as others who would have offered their support had there been space under our procedures.
We have here a very simple amendment, but an improved amendment from Committee. As I listened to the discussion in Committee, it became obvious that we really needed to ensure that this amendment addresses both the health and quality of soil. I am simplifying slightly—I refer noble Lords to the discussion in Committee—but in a sense, in recent decades we have come to realise, in a way we had not before, that soils are complex ecosystems in their own right. The “health” element of this amendment very much addresses that biology aspect, whereas the “quality” element speaks more specifically to the chemical and physical composition of the soil. It is interesting that in our first debate today, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, highlighted the importance of soils when we are talking about biodiversity and climate. That is a useful introduction to this debate.
We debated soils at great length in Committee, so I will just briefly summarise some of the points raised. The UK loses more than 3 million tonnes of topsoil every year. Soil is degraded even while it remains in situ; almost 4 million hectares are at risk of compaction—the life and air squashed out of the soil, mostly by the passage of heavy farm machinery. Soil can also be contaminated through dangerous, damaging substances being swept or blown or landing on it—or still sometimes, sadly, being deliberately placed on it through error or fraud. We are also just beginning to understand micro- plastic pollution, something that cannot be escaped anywhere on this planet. Soils are stores of carbon too, of course. They are rich ecosystems and stores of life and biodiversity on a scale that we have barely begun to understand.
It is important to acknowledge that the Government, at least in some quarters, recognise the scale of this issue. The 25-year environment plan—supposedly the big, set-piece document outlining what the Government intend to do on many pressing issues—says that England’s soils must be sustainably managed by 2030. To drive home that point, that is little more than eight years away. In terms of farming practice, farmers are buying new machinery now that they might expect to use for many decades. In terms of the need urgently to plant trees, which is a soil health and quality issue as well as one in so many other areas, eight years is obviously not very long at all for them to reach any kind of size. Food manufacturers will have to think about their plans for the future and what crops might be available to them.
I credit the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for highlighting in Committee how your Lordships’ House, after a long wrestle, got a significant reference to soil in the Agriculture Act. This is very much its sister Bill, so surely we have to do the same thing here to get the two fitting and working together. In the priority areas of this Bill we have air and water quality, then there is a gap where soil obviously belongs and where this amendment puts it.
I want to address a couple of the points the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond, made in Committee. One response was that
“the Bill gives us the power to set legally-binding long-term targets on any aspect of the natural environment”.
A Secretary of State could set a target at any time, but given that there are a scant eight years to reach the Government’s own aim of 2030, why wait? Why would a world-leading Government wait?
The second response from the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was that there is not enough information and knowledge about soils to know what the targets could be. I acknowledge, as I did in Committee, that there is a dreadful shortage of information on and understanding of soils. This is a result of the failure to fund independent agricultural research extending over decades and the outsourcing of it to agrochemical companies that have advocated highly profitable—for them—practices which have had such a disastrous impact on soil health and quality. I suggest that the Minister then contradicted himself when he said:
“Developing targets is an iterative process”.
In other words, this is something that is developed, evolved and finessed over time. These targets can be set, improved, developed and worked through. What we need in this Bill is a statement that soil has to be there with air and water.
Without this amendment, we have a Bill that is a two-legged stool. Someone pointed out to me that they were once used in dairy farming because you could wobble by hanging on to the cow, but that is not quite a practical arrangement for a legal process. Stools need three legs. What this small, modest, but important amendment does is put that third leg on the stool. In our Committee debate, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said that soil
“warrants its own independent priority status”
and added that
“we are in danger of giving it a permanently second-tier status”—[Official Report, 21/6/21; cols. 87-93.]
without the addition of this amendment. If we are going to be able to grow our food, cultivate and support our natural world and store the carbon that we must in the coming years, decades and centuries, this amendment has to be in this Bill.
Noble Lords will note that the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, who might be expected to be in his place and commenting on this amendment, having attached his name to it, is not here. The noble Lord asked me to send his personal apologies for being unable to be here and to share some of his thoughts. He said: “I have attached my name to this amendment because it is illogical not to include soil health and quality as a key environmental indicator. Soil is our most precious asset, and its status will determine whether or not we achieve net zero by 2050 and whether or not we can feed 10 billion people by 2050. Nothing can be more important than these two objectives. The Republic of Ireland has just committed €10 million to carrying out a nationwide soil testing programme to establish a baseline of soil health and quality. We have the opportunity to do the same through the ELMS if we specify the standard of testing required and create a national database. Why could we not take this unique opportunity to position ourselves as global leaders in this crucial area, particularly with COP 26 approaching?”
I have indicated informally and will now indicate formally that, unless I hear an acceptance from the Minister that the Government will put the final leg on the stool, I intend to push this amendment to a vote. I really feel we can do nothing else; we will be utterly failing the future if we do not do this. I beg to move.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, the Climate Change Committee has made it very clear that the soil is a crucial part of our remediation policies to deal with climate change. I declare an interest because, in a small way, I am an organic farmer and I have a son who is particularly interested in and works with those who want to use soil for sequestration. Whatever one’s interests may be, it is quite clear that the importance of soil is universal; it is a world problem. We have reduced the fertility of our soil almost universally over the past 40 and 50 years. I often want to say that five a day is worth about what four a day might have been some time ago. I am not sure that is scientifically accurate, but it expresses what the difference is—not only is it the fertility of the soil, but the trace elements in the soil.
What is rather curiously called “conventional farming” suffers from the problem that is does not put back the richness of the soil in the same way that historic methods of farming have done. We have to recognise that we have to change, because we cannot go on doing this. If you come, as I do, from the east of England, you know that more and more conventional famers are recognising that the way we farm gives us very few more harvests because we are denuding the soil.
The first reason that soil is crucial is because it is getting far less useful—if we only want to look at it from a utilitarian point of view. The second reason is because we need it to be better able to sequester. That means we really have to bring the soil back to the kind of strength that it had before the war.
The third reason it is crucial is that there are particular soils with special issues. I draw my noble friend’s attention to the question of peatland, which is a remarkable and wonderful sequester of carbon. But if it is ruined or torn up, it becomes the opposite and it exhales carbon, so we have a double whammy. The fact is that the Government have not even embarked on a peatland policy that will reach the level the Climate Change Committee says is essential to meet net zero—to restore all our peatlands by 2045. If we do it at the speed which is, at the moment, being celebrated by Defra, we will not get there.
It is crucially important—some sort of animal has just landed on me and clearly wishes to sequester upon me—to note that, unless we act on soil, we have very little chance of reaching net zero, because the “net” bit of net zero is about sequestration. It is not just about planting trees, although that is crucially important; it is about the whole way we deal with soil, including how we deal with the bare period, which should be covered, and the sorts of things that we can do and which we have to make sure are part of ELMS when it comes to the detail. All those things are essential.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to a very interesting thing: of earth, air and water, earth is the first. Again, one comes back to the words of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, who reminded us of the nature of the Lord’s Prayer.
It is very important that soil should be part of this. My reason for speaking is simply because we have made that very clear in the Climate Change Committee’s report—which has been accepted by the Government and is the basis of our commitment to net zero and the way in which we are going to get there. It would be a great pity if we cannot find a way of including soil. It may be that the way the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, wants to do it has some technical problem which I have not so far seen, and I am perfectly prepared to be led down some path which enables some other way of doing this. But if we do not include soil, we are again saying something. There is no such thing as being able to negative something without making a statement. Therefore, we either have to do what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would like us to do, or we have to find another way of making sure that soil is part of this.
I end by saying to my noble friend that there is a particular reason why Defra should be saying this: we have not heard enough from Defra about how we are going to improve the soil—we have not heard enough about the details. Therefore, we are not sure that Defra has really taken this on board. The Climate Change Committee is, I think, trying to say to Defra that this is central. For example, we have not yet banned horticultural peat. What on earth are we doing making it worse? We could do that immediately; the industry is ready for it, but we have not yet done it because we are still talking. Climate change gives us no time to talk about this—something that we should have done a long time ago. Please can we have this in the Bill, so that we know where we are and the Government can be held to it?
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the way that she presented it and added a few more points from the noble Lord, Lord Curry, in his absence. Now, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has spelled out most of what I was about to say. The reality is that this is a very straightforward amendment and one which would be easy, sensible and logical for the Minister to accept.
In relation to the back end of the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, Defra really has no excuse now. I have to admit that, 20 years ago, when I was a Defra Minister, soil management was not very high on the agenda; it was there, and it was vaguely there in the common agricultural policy and agro-environment schemes, but it was very low priority. And yet it is such a central issue to life on this earth and the future of the human race that we have a soil—both cultivated and in the wild—that will continue to be sustainable and be resilient enough to provide the multitudinous plants that sustain life for ourselves and for almost every other species on earth.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment very strongly. First, I declare my interests—for the whole of Report—as a farmer and landowner, as chair of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and as chair of an internet parking business.
For too long, in this country and elsewhere, we have ignored the importance of the 1 billion bacteria that should exist in every teaspoonful of our top-soil. We have ignored their vital importance for the foundation of life on our planet—food, habitats, everything. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has just said, the situation is particularly serious in sub-Saharan Africa, where we are losing good agricultural soils at a devastating rate. While obviously this Bill can do nothing about that, it would be good if the UK could lead by example and set the model for others to follow. Having soil as a priority area in our Environment Bill, and later, when we come to Amendment 18, having a serious soil management strategy, would be a good way to do this and would create a model for other countries to follow. I commend the emphasis on soils in this amendment and look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment very strongly. I speak as the chair of the Adaptation Committee of the Committee on Climate Change. In June this year, we gave our advice to the Government on climate risks faced by the UK, and three of our eight urgent priorities are to do with the impacts of the changing climate on our soils—so it is not just those historic and current farming practices but the fact that our soils now have to put up with droughts, floods, high temperatures and wildfires. Of course, these are unfortunately only going to get worse. This means that we are giving them a very hard time—yet we are expecting them to sequester carbon and support the 30,000 to 50,000 hectares of trees that we need to be planting per annum to meet net zero, and we are expecting them to support increased food productivity to make room for planting those trees. We are expecting a lot from our soils; they need the support of this amendment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I added my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I was pleased to do so because I, like others who have spoken, realise the importance of soil. In fact, I doubt that there is anyone in this Chamber today who does not appreciate that.
The question is whether we should put this where it is on the face of the Bill. As has already been said, my noble friend Lord Caithness’s amendment about a soil strategy will come later. I am very taken with the idea of putting this in the Bill. However, I have one note of caution. The next amendment, which I will speak to, will put in something else that I think is a priority, and I dare say that there are plenty of, or quite a few, others that people could put forward as priorities—we have our own pet subjects. I really want to hear from my noble friend the Minister—I know that he believes in this—what Defra and the Government are taking seriously about this and how they will deal with it. This may not be the way to put it forward in the Bill, but at the moment it seems like the best way. I am very taken with my noble friend Lord Caithness’s amendment that we will come to later, which might be a better alternative. That said, I shall listen to what my noble friend says.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to be of good cheer and believe that this is the solution—because it seems to me that we have heard, from many noble Lords of high esteem, just how important soil is as a fundamental part of the environment. Indeed, two of the Government’s priorities in Clause 1(3), “water” and “biodiversity”, are crucially dependent on soils, apart from anything else. It is true to say that, as well as very many noble Lords being able to lay down the case very clearly for soil being part of the Government’s priority list, the Government themselves have said that: in their 25-year environment plan, they mentioned soil quality 17 times, so it does not seem to me to beyond the wit of man to believe that that looks like a bit of a priority and probably ought to be in this list.
I know that, in Committee, the Minister said that the science will not let us measure soil health, but there has been research on soil quality for the last 50 years, and lots of measures have been put forward as indicators of soil health, ranging from microbes to organic matter to earthworms. The Government just need to make a stab at a basket of indicators and get on with measuring and incentivising improvement.
Although I have banged on for many years about government needing to incentivise people to produce outcomes, in this particular case I want to recant from that and ask for the reverse practice, which is to incentivise practices that have a proven effect for good on soil health. If we can get farmers, land managers and others who have an impact on the soil to do the right things, good soil quality will result.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked about a few of those things, such as minimum tillage, crop rotations, applications of manures and composts, use of cover crops and effective management of field margins. If farmers and land managers were incentivised to do all of those, we would be almost absolutely guaranteed to be improving the health of the soil. As such, I urge the Minister: soil health is too important to say, “It is too difficult” and to leave it out of the Government’s priority list.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Randall for pointing out that my Amendment 18 is coming up, complementing this amendment in that it asks the Government to “prepare a soil … strategy”. No one could have put it better than the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, just now, and much of what she said is reflected in the wording that I have in Amendment 18, which we shall come to.
However, the Government must include plans for the integration of soil management with environmental objectives, such as climate mitigation, flood-risk minimisation, water-quality measures and policies relating to food production. All of this is so integrated that, unless one has a comprehensive approach to it, one will fail. In my view, it is very sad that the Government have got policies for air and water but no statutory policy for soil. My Amendment 18, which I will not speak to at length because I am speaking to this amendment, is equally as important as this amendment.
My noble friend Lord Deben mentioned that soil is a great sequestrator of carbon. Indeed it is, but saying “soil” is like saying “fruit”—there are so many different types of soil that a different approach will have to be taken on most farms, probably, because the soil varies so much. Some of the sandy soils are not terribly good sequestrators; they could be made much better with improved farm management, but, if you have a heavy clay soil, you have an inbuilt advantage for sequestration from day 1.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said how little Defra spent on soil. It is rather frightening that only 0.4% of the environmental budget is spent on soil—that is a catastrophically low amount of money, which is why this amendment is so important and why my Amendment 18 is equally important. The whole question of soil and research needs much more expenditure and we need to be clearer on it, but let us have one basic fact in mind: about 25% of our biodiversity is in our soil. That is why we need to get this amendment—and mine —in the Bill.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I should note, for the record and for the whole of Report, my interest as a Devon farmer. For many years, we have been adding organic matter to our porous red sandstone soils to increase sequestration, combat run-off, build resilience to drought, decrease the need for chemical fertilisers and provide Teignbridge District Council with somewhere to put all the garden waste.
In Committee, we debated a number of potentially priority areas in Clause 1(3). I am glad that this one in particular has returned, and I will strongly support it. I would have added my name to it if it had not been so eminently oversubscribed. I am less keen on Amendment 3, the light-pollution amendment, which pales in comparison and importance to this one.
The prior debate on these amendments only explained how important this is. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that our understanding of soils is
“not as complete as it should be.”—[Official Report, 21/6/21; col. 95.]
He begged for more time to gather the necessary data. There is simply no more time to do so: our soils are in a crisis and have only a few harvests left, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords. If it is not a priority, how will we ever gather that data? How will Defra be instructed to gather it? The absence of data is seriously damaging the debate on environmental matters, and it is encouraging a number of extremes.
Take the debate on grass-fed meat and dairy. It is a topic close to the hearts of all Devon farmers. We all agree on the negative impact of indoor lot-fed meat and dairy consuming grain and soya in terrible welfare conditions, but no one knows the net environmental impact of beef and sheep fed on the ancient green pastures of the West Country because the data and the science are not there and everybody has an argument. This was confirmed to me just last week in discussions with an eminent environmental scientist at Exeter University. We really need that data, and this amendment needs to be made to encourage Defra to collect it.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, we very much thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for moving this amendment on soil. As noble Lords have mentioned, if we do not have soil as a priority area, how will we have the sustainable food we need in future and how will we support the essential microbial organisms that live in and on the soil? Indeed, as noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, asked, how will we manage our carbon sequestration and net-zero targets without that? It is absolutely essential that the Government make soil a priority.
We accept some of the arguments put forward by the Minister in Committee—the noble Earl, Lord Devon, referred to them—concerning issues that the Government have had. The progress achieved has not yet resolved the definition and description of soil quality. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said in Committee, it is something of a chicken-and-egg situation. Do you have the research base first so that you can sort out the targets or do you need the targets first to ensure that you then get the information?
That pertinent point has informed our thinking on this because there are other ways in which the Government could show that soil is the priority it needs to be. For example, they could go along the route of the soil strategy of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. It is a compelling approach; he sees it as complementary. Perhaps that is another route. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, this House wants the Government to show that soil is a fundamental, critical issue and, as the Member’s explanatory statement says, to indicate
“that soil health and quality are a priority area for environmental improvement.”
That is the purpose of the amendment. The question is whether the route taken—having a long-term target—is the best way forward. I must say, I have gone back and forth in my mind about whether it is, but I have come down in favour of supporting the noble Baroness’s approach should she press this amendment to a vote because, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said, we must undertake this research to ensure that we can define and describe soil quality. It is a fundamental requirement for us to get the point where we can achieve what we need to on soil quality.
In my mind, if we do not set soil as a priority area, there is a real risk that the Government could choose to spend money in other areas. In future years, there will be myriad requests of Defra for research in the environmental field. We have so much to do in such a short space of time. Projects will come in left, right and centre, looking for money to take forward. If we do not specify that we have a long-term target for soil health, there is a real fear that future Defra budgets will be under serious constraints to deliver that necessary work.
Therefore, unless the Minister can, in summing up, assure the House that there will not be a curtailment of finances to resource this essential work on soil in future—we have to do that work to protect soil for all the important reasons outlined so eloquently by others —we will support the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has spoken eloquently on this issue, both in Committee and during this stage of the Bill.
By failing to list soil health alongside air, water and biodiversity in the Bill, the Government have missed the opportunity to list the important aspect of monitoring soil health as a means of improving the environment. I hope that they can address this and show that they mean business by giving the important issue of soil health the attention it requires. We are all aware of the firm commitment to improved soil health in the new Agriculture Act, yet, to reverse the degradation of our soils and return them to a healthy state nationally, we need a long-term commitment to monitoring at both the farm and national level.
The simple truth is that, without a functioning monitoring programme, we are being kept in the dark over the state of our soils. A freedom of information request made by the Sustainable Soils Alliance revealed that, unlike for water and air, no single policy instrument exists to improve and protect them, and they are suffering as a result. As a BBC article states, the alliance discovered that
“just 0.41% of the cash invested in environmental monitoring goes on examining the soil”—
a point also made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. The article goes on:
“That’s despite the fact that soils round the world—including in the UK—are said to be facing a crisis. The figures are startling: £60.5m goes to monitoring water quality, £7.65m to checking on air—but just £284,000 to auditing soil … Its director … told BBC News: ‘This figure is staggering—but not surprising. It reflects the widespread under-investment in soil health compared to air and water. We could be actually saving money—and the environment—by investing in soil monitoring because understanding soil would tell us a great deal about the health of our water and air too.’ … A report by the Commons Environment Audit Committee in 2016 warned that some of the UK’s most fertile fields were losing so much soil they could become unproductive within a generation … The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) told BBC News”—
this was in March last year—
“it was planning to design an indicator for healthy soils, and to establish a new national soil monitoring scheme. It says powers in the Agriculture Bill could be used to support the monitoring.”
What is the update on this? Currently, we see no evidence that Defra will commit to funding soil monitoring.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made the point that we just have not heard enough from Defra. My noble friend Lord Whitty said that there can be no time for excuses from Defra. What does the Minister plan to do to address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and noble Lords across the House regarding the lack of references to soil health in the Bill, and to ensure that soil health is not left as an afterthought? I know that he will refer the House to the power in Clause 1 to give the Government the ability to
“set long-term targets in respect of any matter which relates to … the natural environment, or … people’s enjoyment of the natural environment.”
However, this power must be used actively to focus government action on environmental improvement in areas where the need is greatest.
We urge the Government to address the clear desire for stronger action on monitoring soil health through the target development process that the Bill will establish. This must be done holistically and transparently with early and effective stakeholder engagement. The Government should publish a timetable and plan for how they intend to progress targets. On current performance, they are failing soil health and, ultimately, the environment.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in particular, for tabling Amendment 2 on soil health. She made a compelling speech, as she did in a previous session, describing soil as an ecosystem in its own right: an ecosystem—or ecosystems—that we are plundering and destroying at an extraordinary rate of millions of tonnes every year.
It is often cited as an example of extraordinary human progress that we have managed to treble food production in the past 40 years, and that is true, but we have done so at the expense, undoubtedly, of many future generations. It is the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, pointed out, that many of the bread baskets of the world have been pretty rapidly converted into deserts. According to the latest data that I have seen, at least 500,000 small farmers in the world are currently having to deal with diminishing yields as a consequence of their impoverished soils. As a Minister in the FCDO with some responsibility for part of our ODA budget, this is something I am trying very hard to shift the focus towards, so that it is a problem that, I hope, the UK will be able to have a positive impact on.
Bringing this back to the domestic, I would like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that we are working out now how to develop the appropriate means of measuring soil health. It is complicated but we are doing that work and its results could be used to inform a future soils target. However, as I outlined a number of times in Committee, long-term targets set under the framework of the Bill have to be capable of being objectively measured. If we commit in the Bill to setting a target by 2022, without the reliable metrics needed to set a target, and then measure its progress, we could be committing to doing something that ultimately we cannot deliver or might not even know whether we have delivered it. We therefore cannot commit to set a soil target in the Bill, but I can assure the noble Baroness of a number of things.
The first is that we are focusing our efforts already on developing a soil health measuring and monitoring scheme, which will produce a baseline assessment of soil health against which change can be measured. This, as I said, could inform a future long-term soil target. Secondly, we are currently identifying soil health metrics as the basis of a healthy soils indicator. This will complement a future soil health monitoring scheme by providing a straightforward measure—
The Earl of Devon (CB)
Does the Minister accept that under Clause 1(2) we need to set only a single metric? Is he saying that there is not a single metric that Defra can set that would impact soil? Is that correct?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I was coming to the point made by the noble Earl. As part of the soil health measuring and monitoring scheme, we are developing methodology to enable visual field assessments of soil health to be carried out by farmers and land managers across all land uses and all soil types. That will be supported by the development of field protocols and the production of field guides instructing land managers how to do the sampling. That work will, we hope, be a user-friendly and relatively easy way of measuring long-term trends, which I think is what the noble Earl was getting at—trends that can easily be understood by those on the ground who actually manage the soil. Data collected by land managers will then provide a baseline for an informal, non-statutory target, which in turn could inform the future, robust and well-evidenced soil health target that will be established under the Environment Bill. The data from the soil structure scheme would feed into future soil health monitoring.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, we are also proposing additional actions that support land managers and farmers to achieve sustainable soil management. For example, the sustainable farming incentive scheme—she referred to it as ELM, but I think it is now referred to as the sustainable farming incentive scheme—includes practices such as the introduction of herbal leys, the use of grass-legume mixtures, cover crops and so on.
I make two additional points. The first, very briefly, is that by setting, as we are committing to do in the Bill, a 2030 biodiversity target, and having already set, on the advice of the Climate Change Committee, a net-zero target by 2050, in addition to all the other targets that are either in the pipeline or already committed to, it is inconceivable that we could achieve either of those headline targets without addressing soil, for all the reasons mentioned and explained so well by noble Lords today: we cannot get to net zero without addressing soil.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned peatlands, which are particularly important for the reasons he described. Although I think we shall debate this issue later—potentially today in response to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—I just mention that earlier this year we published the England Peat Action Plan, setting out the long-term vision for large-scale management, protection and restoration of our peatlands, which are critical carbon stores but, when mismanaged, can become a source of carbon. This will enable them to deliver a huge range of benefits for people, wildlife and the planet. It sets out a number of policies to achieve that vision: the announcement of a nature for climate peatland grant scheme, through the Nature for Climate Fund; an immediate commitment to restoring 35,000 hectares through that fund; a commitment to end the use of peat in amateur horticulture by the end of this Parliament; longer-term plans that we are setting out, as all departments are, in our net-zero strategy—peatlands will be a critical part of getting to net zero; and a new spatial map of England’s peatlands to enable us to make more robust estimates around the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands and to prioritise investment in restoration.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I thank the Minister very much for allowing me to intervene briefly. I want to wind back a few moments in his response to this debate, in which he said, as I heard it, that we will not be able to achieve the biodiversity target without improving soil health. I want to clarify what was meant by that. Does it mean that, in the indicator species that will be part of the biodiversity target and halting species decline—the billion bacteria to which my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington referred, as well as the tens of thousands of protozoa and fungi in a single teaspoon of soil—they will be part of the species abundance target and therefore soil health will be folded into that objective?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. We will talk in detail about the target shortly—perhaps even next—but my point is less about the individual fungi or bacteria; it is that you cannot deliver a reversal of our catastrophic biodiversity loss without tackling ecosystems and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, make plain in her speech, soil is the basis of so much of our biodiversity and ecosystems, so it is logical that you cannot do one without the other—and likewise with net zero, for all the reasons that my noble friend Lord Deben pointed out.
So, as I have outlined, we are very much on the case. We are developing a metric and prioritising soil health in numerous ways, through this Bill but also other actions. The amendment would undoubtedly pre-empt the process of developing that metric and, for that reason, we cannot accept it—but, with the assurances I gave, I hope that the noble Baroness can be persuaded to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I think this has been some of your Lordships’ House at its finest and I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. It is extraordinarily striking that, from all corners of this House, we have seen overwhelming support for Amendment 2.
I do feel I must address the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who signed the amendment and then expressed some concern about it. I do not believe that there is any form of conflict or competition between this amendment and Amendment 18 from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. This amendment sets out that there must be a target; Amendment 18 sets out a process, scheme and operational activity. So they are not in competition. I strongly urge your Lordships’ House to support the noble Earl’s amendment. Indeed, I attempted to sign it, but, as with a number of others, it was already oversubscribed.
I should love to go through so many contributions—each has added something to the debate—and acknowledge them all, but I know that some of the people who are keen for the Bill to progress would be right on my case if I did that, so I will not. But I shall pick out just a couple of contributions, because I think they are particularly important. They are from two members of the Climate Change Committee: the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. This is the expert view saying that the amendment needs to be in the Bill; that is the independent view, in all senses. The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, made a point that no one else has made in our long discussion of soils, about the way in which climate change is putting pressure on soils: drought, flood, fires and all the extra damage to what has already been done.
I also want to note the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. She has been a particularly fervent supporter of this amendment, and I thank her for that. I also thank her for counting the number of times that soil quality appears in the 25-year plan; I confess that I had not done that. That shows that the Government kind of see the issue but are just really not engaging with it in the Bill.
So I will address a couple of points that the Minister made. He talked a lot about what Defra is doing operationally and what it is setting out, but he did not really address my point that the 25-year plan says that we will have sustainable management of soils by 2030. How can we do that without having this long-term target to progress towards—without, indeed, having the noble Earl’s strategy? It was particularly telling that one of the other chief points of the Minister’s argument was, “Oh, well, we deal with these other things—biodiversity and water—and that will fix soils”. That is making soils a second-order issue, which is putting it in profoundly the wrong place. This amendment puts it in the right place: in the Bill. As we have discussed in so many other areas, whatever the department might be doing under one Secretary of State, there is no guarantee that it will continue under another Secretary of State. Issues must be put in the Bill.
I well understand the pressures in your Lordships’ House against calling votes; I understand the desire to progress the Bill. But, having listened very carefully to the Minister and having heard the very strong support for the amendment from all sides of your Lordships’ House, I must ask to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
“(e) light pollution.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to set a commitment to act on matters which relate to light pollution that are currently omitted from this Bill. It aims to ensure that the Government must produce targets to reduce levels of light pollution in England.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 3 in my name is also in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to whom I am grateful. I declare my environmental and conservation interests as on the register, and it is also relevant—although not registerable—that I am a member of Buglife, the invertebrate NGO. Perhaps one of the flies which have been annoying my noble friend Lord Deben is an agent.
Artificial lights disrupt the world’s ecosystems, human health and, I submit, society in general. Most of the earth’s population is affected by light pollution, as 80% live under skyglow, and very few in the UK can experience a natural night sky from where they live. Those few who do see a night sky naturally without light pollution are amazed by what they see on a clear night.
Light pollution is increasing from a variety of sources, including residences, public infrastructure such as lighting along motorways, and industrial activity such as energy infrastructure. Ironically, the rapid switch to LEDs is contributing to the installation of brighter lights, in places increasing light pollution and missing the opportunity to reduce it. That is ironic because LED is much better for the environment if used appropriately.
The 25-year plan for the environment states:
“We must ensure that noise and light pollution are managed effectively.”
However, no indication of how existing light pollution will be reduced has been proposed by Her Majesty’s Government. As far as I can see, the Environment Bill does not currently offer a suitable location for this form of pollution to be addressed. The amendment would ensure that the Government set out how they will reduce light pollution levels.
In Committee, 12 noble Lords spoke in favour of my very similar amendment on light pollution, covering a range of issues including the impact on invertebrates, astronomy, human health and bats, among other things. I was extremely grateful for their powerful arguments and I am extremely grateful for the many who support today’s amendment in the Chamber and elsewhere. Noble Lords shared their own experience of light pollution and provided compelling reasons why this issue should be included in the Bill.
In his reply, my noble friend the Minister did not seem to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of environmental and health damage. His response, as drafted, was disappointingly focused rather narrowly on uncertainty about whether it has been proved that light pollution is the main driver of insect loss. That is one of the main reasons why I tabled this amendment: because I do not think we had a proper discussion of some of the other harmful effects of light pollution. Perhaps his department was unaware of the recent science review “Light pollution is a driver of insect declines”, published by Owens and others in 2020. Since that debate, many noble Lords may have seen that newly published evidence has confirmed that light pollution has a negative effect on local moth populations. The response given in Committee also did not address the other issues raised in the debate or recognise the cross-departmental benefits that reducing light pollution would bring.
In recent years, evidence of the impacts of light pollution on species and ecosystems has grown and consolidated. Increased artificial light at night is now directly linked to measurable negative impacts on energy consumption, human health, and wildlife such as bats, birds, insects, reptiles, amphibians, mammals and plants. As I mentioned in Committee, noble Lords who saw the David Attenborough documentary will have seen turtles, instead of going towards the moon as they go back to sea, going back to some taverna on a Greek shore. This resulted in many of their deaths.
Unnecessary artificial light increases financial costs and contributes to greenhouse emissions. I submit that light pollution should be treated with the same disdain with which we treat other forms of pollution. As I mentioned, recent studies from Germany suggest that a third of insects attracted to street lights and other fixed-light sources will die. This results in the death of an estimated 100 billion insects in Germany every summer. As many noble Lords will recognise, insects are an incredibly important part of our whole ecosystem.
My amendment aims to set a commitment to act on matters relating to light pollution that are currently omitted from the Bill and would ensure that the Government must produce targets to reduce levels of light pollution in England. I will not go through all the examples I have written down, because I think that many people know them for themselves; besides which, we are a little pressed for time. However, speaking as a trustee of the Bat Conservation Trust, I know that artificial lighting can cause many problems for bats, including disrupting their roosting and feeding behaviour and their movement through the landscape. In the worst cases, that can directly harm these protected species. Even hedgehogs have been shown to avoid lighting, restricting their movements in areas of high artificial light.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on one of his and my pet topics. He has covered the issue extremely well. We have all had a very good briefing from Buglife, which I thank very much, supported by Butterfly Conservation, the Bat Conservation Trust, Froglife, the Mammal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society. This comes from a lot of areas of expertise. They all draw attention to the fact that light pollution impacts on humans and other species. I argue that it also impacts on the planet in terms of energy consumption and contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, whether we use LED lights or not. It deserves a place in the Environment Bill.
The last comprehensive consideration of this issue by the Government was the 2009 report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Artificial Light in the Environment. Almost none of its recommendations have been implemented, and tackling this cannot be achieved by planning alone. There is also the fact that humans have evolved to rely on the cycle of night and day to govern our physiology. I am a very primitive soul: I would actually like to go to bed when it gets dark and I always wake up at first light, so I am extremely vulnerable to light exposure at the wrong time. I would like the Government Whips to note that when they insist on keeping us here beyond 8 pm. It is inhuman; it goes against human health, and it leads to underperforming. There is also a link to health conditions. We are much better off if we understand that light pollution is not good for us and it is not good for other species.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned several species. I would like to add birds that migrate or hunt at night: they navigate by moonlight and starlight, so artificial light might cause them to fly to lit areas, which may or may not have their prey. Many marine species, such as crabs or zooplankton, are attracted to artificial lights, and that can disrupt their feeding and life cycle. All in all, it is an important environmental issue that we really should not ignore.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, there is very little that I can add to the speeches of the two noble Lords who have spoken already, but I will make one small point. The opportunity to prevent species’ decline and improve our environment is certainly presented by this Bill, and this amendment would assist. Addressing light pollution offers a simple solution for the species that we are trying to enhance and protect. We should bear in mind, however, that the pollution that we are trying to address does not linger when the source is dealt with—it is an easy win. It also has the added advantage of reducing carbon gases, so these two are major issues that are worth considering in relation to this amendment.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I spoke in favour of my noble friend Lord Randall’s similar amendment in Committee. I confess to being a little disappointed that the Minister has not brought forward an amendment to deal with this. While I think that adopting too many targets that cannot be realised is not necessarily a good thing, to adopt a target for light pollution would at least show that the Government accept that it should be included together with other types of pollution. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has just pointed out, it is certainly true that it can be dealt with immediately—unlike the soil—by just switching off lights or reducing the number of lights.
There is strong evidence that light pollution has a detrimental effect on birds, bats and insects. I am certainly no lover of clothes moths, and would love to find a way of introducing light pollution to my cupboards to protect my clothes, which have been devastated during lockdown. However, the Government are committed to increasing biodiversity, which means a wide range of species, including insects. Studies from Germany are among the clearest, as my noble friend Lord Randall pointed out, in showing how serious a problem light pollution is for insects, frogs, bats, birds and hedgehogs, among other species.
As for homo sapiens, we have indeed evolved to rely on the cycle of night and day to govern our physiology. We all know how exposure to light at the wrong time affects our mental functions. Light pollution is not included within the existing priority areas in the Bill. My noble friend’s amendment would provide clarity on how the Government could reduce the impact of light pollution on nature and, especially, on people’s enjoyment of it.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have not yet participated in the discussion of light pollution during the stages of this Bill. That is not due to idleness: it is because at the times the Committee or the House were discussing the light pollution issue, I was double-booked on the Charities Bill or the Dormant Assets Bill, in both of which I have a particular interest. That failure means that I should be very brief this afternoon, and indeed I will be. I add my support to the very important point made by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and others, and will just make a comment about the all-pervasive nature of light pollution.
I have a house in Shropshire, on the Welsh border, well in the country, 500 feet up. If you go into my garden at night, the whole of the eastern horizon is suffused by the glow of the conurbation from Birmingham. If you swing your eyes round, you hit Kidderminster; south is Hereford; and even when you turn to the West—to Wales—there are frequent patches of light from small towns and villages. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give due weight to the very important points made by people who are much more expert in this area than I am.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, to which I have added my name. The noble Lord set out the case for this amendment previously in Committee and has reiterated his arguments this afternoon. I agree with him and the other speakers—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I declare my interest as a member of the APPG for Dark Skies and am lucky enough to live in a village with no street lighting. I appreciate, however, that street lighting is an issue that can divide communities. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that light pollution is not as important as soil quality, but it nevertheless has a place in this Bill.
Street and security lighting, which are on throughout the night, can have a number of serious side effects. For plants, there is no real darkness in which to rest; nocturnal animals, birds and insects become confused, and this affects their well-being and, subsequently, their numbers. As has already been stated, moths, in particular, being attracted to light, struggle to maintain their normal life patterns. This is particularly damaging, as moths are essential pollinators, which is something we do not always recognise as happening at night. The lack of a plentiful supply of insects and moths has a knock-on effect on bats, for whom they are the main food source. Over recent years we have seen a steady decline in the number of bats. For us humans, exposure to excessive artificial light can lead to sleep deprivation, which affects our overall health and well-being, as was so eloquently demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
A number of amendments will be debated over the next two weeks that seek to address climate change and redress the loss of biodiversity and species. Light pollution is undoubtedly contributing to this loss, and adding this amendment to the Bill would contribute towards halting and redressing it. The evidence is slim that switching off streetlights late at night causes a spike in crime. Security lights, which cause the greatest distress when excessive, should be focused on the ground, not pointing upwards towards the night sky.
There is also the effect on children’s development. The wonder of the stars at night is lost to millions of children who live in urban areas, where streetlights are never switched off at night. I am lucky enough that I can frequently go out and optimistically think that I can look for a UFO. I never see one, but I nevertheless look up into the dark sky.
The satellite illumination profile of our country shown on TV news programmes clearly demonstrates the level of light pollution over the whole country. There are very few dark sky areas. The exceptions tend to be the national parks, such as Exmoor, which has declared itself a dark sky area.
Light pollution may seem like a very minor issue for some people, but for me, it is absolutely vital that each one of us should be able, if we choose, to go outside at night and enjoy the night sky and the creatures that should, by right, be able to thrive in the darkness. I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and hope that the Minister will, on this occasion, have some encouraging words for us.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has made important and eloquent points in relation to light pollution throughout the passage of the Bill. Not only is this crucial for our insects and wildlife, but it is important that we can see the stars and better understand our place in the universe.
The 25-year plan for the environment states:
“We must ensure that noise and light pollution are managed effectively.”
However, no indication of how existing light pollution will be reduced has been proposed by the Government and, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, indicated, the Environment Bill does not currently offer a suitable location for this form of pollution. The Minister needs to acknowledge and deal with this important area, as encouraged by the Government’s draft environmental principles, encompassing both precaution and prevention.
The briefing from Buglife, which, to be honest, the noble Lord might have authored himself, stipulated that light pollution is a real contamination of our environment. It affects not only human, animal and bird health but insect health—not only how they function but how they can act as pollinators. There are serious environmental consequences of light pollution.
In Committee, the Minister’s response did not acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of environmental and health damage, focusing narrowly on uncertainty about whether it has been proven that light pollution is a main driver of insect declines. I know we cannot vote on everything we care about, as we will never finish the Bill, but I use this opportunity to ask the Minister again what action the Government will take to reassure us and provide clarity on how they will reduce the impact of light pollution on nature and people’s enjoyment of it.
Existing UK law and regulations relating to light pollution do not provide sufficient guidance and are not strong enough to tackle its increasing impact. There are now several examples of countries that have introduced a national policy on light pollution, such as Germany, France, Mexico, South Korea, Croatia and Slovenia. Will the UK also produce a national plan intended to prevent, limit and specifically reduce light pollution, including a series of targets and a programme of monitoring?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for his Amendment 3.
As my noble friend campaigned for, the Bill requires the Government to set a legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030, and we will talk more about that shortly. But to meet a species abundance target we will need to address the multiple interacting causes of nature’s decline, including light pollution. This does not mean that we need to or should set targets for each and every cause of nature’s decline. The species abundance target will drive the right mix of policies and actions. For light pollution, this includes measures such as planning system controls for street lighting improvements. Through the designation of the dark sky reserves that a number of noble Lords mentioned, we are also working to protect exceptional nocturnal environments that bring great natural, educational and cultural enjoyment to members of the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, made a compelling case, as he did in Committee. I should start by saying that if I appear to play down the importance of light pollution, the seriousness of the issue or its impacts on a whole range of things, including biodiversity, that certainly was not my intention. I say that in response to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Khan, as well. The noble Lord powerfully summarised the impacts of light pollution. He gave the example of insects in Germany, the turtle hatchlings which a number of us saw on that powerful Attenborough programme, and bats. I also saw the Buglife briefing, which was full of examples as to why this is such an important issue. I thank the noble Lord for bringing some of those recent papers to my attention. I can tell him that my officials are already in touch with many of the academics and researchers behind that work, as well as with the NGOs that have been cited by him and others. That work is happening.
Although I cannot accept the amendment, I can commit to the noble Lord that we will continue to take action both to minimise risks and to improve our understanding of the impact of light pollution. We will continue discussions with PHE—Public Health England—and DHSC, focusing on the impact of light pollution on human health and the best approaches with which to tackle it. I am also happy to relay the noble Lord’s points on the planning system and light pollution to ministerial counterparts in MHCLG, and I will ensure that his remarks both now and from a couple of months ago are conveyed to them.
It is probably worth noting that the National Planning Policy Framework includes consideration of the impact of light pollution from artificial light on local amenity, intrinsically dark landscapes and nature conservation, but I do not think anyone pretends that this is an issue that has historically received the attention that it should. I hope that, using his powerful words, I will be able to move things a bit in MHCLG. I am also happy to confirm that we will continue to work with our academic partners to keep emerging evidence under review, and the Government can set a target in secondary legislation if it is judged to be the best way to deliver long-term environmental outcomes and subject to this review.
I hope this has reassured noble Lords that the Government are taking serious action to act against light pollution and that they agree that these amendments are therefore not necessary. I hope this reassures noble Lords and I beg the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I would like to thank my noble friend the Minister very much. He has gone a lot further than he was able to in Committee, and for that I am very grateful. I am also extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have lent their support and spoken in this debate. It is a very important issue and something that we will continue to hear about. While the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, is looking for UFOs, I tend to look for the drones from the Whips’ Office to keep an eye on me at these crucial stages of Report. So far, they have managed to keep away from me.
As I said, I am extremely grateful; we have had a good debate. I think the things my noble friend has said about the other departments are also very important, particularly planning. I have attended many planning meetings over the years, and I am not sure that that has ever really come up. Perhaps that is another tool that some people, when they are having big developments, should look at. So there are some good things. As the noble Lord opposite said, we cannot vote on everything. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—(a) be less than or equal to 10µg/m3, (b) so far as practicable, follow World Health Organization guidelines, and(c) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target will be at least as strict as the 2005 WHO guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 4 and speak to Amendment 12. Both are in my name and the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and I thank them for their support.
Amendment 4 would ensure that the new legal target for fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, commits the Government to reducing this pollutant to within the existing World Health Organization guidelines by 2030 at the latest. Amendment 12 would ensure that the importance of protecting health is reflected in the target review process set out in the Bill. But before I get into the detail of why these amendments are so important, I express my thanks both to the Minister and to the Defra officials for their time in meeting with me and others during the Recess and for the detailed information provided on their work in this area.
In his response to our amendment on air quality in Committee, the Minister said that
“the Government recognise the importance of reducing concentrations of PM2.5 and the impact this has on our health.”—[Official Report, 23/6/21; col. 306.]
Air pollution is also recognised by the UK Government to be the single largest environmental risk to public health that we have.
In Committee, noble Lords drew the Minister’s attention to the role that air pollution played in the death of nine year-old Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. I was privileged recently to meet her mother, Rosamund, who shared with us her frustration at the Government’s lack of urgency in tackling damaging toxic air, despite recognising the serious health implications for people and communities. The motivation driving her campaign is simple: to make sure that what happened to her daughter does not happen to other people’s children. Amendment 54, in the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, seeks to enshrine in law the recommendations of the coroner’s prevention of future deaths report into Ella’s death, and we strongly support it.
Sadly, air pollution accounts for eight to 12 deaths every year in London alone, and it is 13 to 15 year-olds who are most at risk. Until our air is clean, our children will continue to die. The Government must grasp the urgency of this. The UK currently complies with the less ambitious existing legal limit of PM2.5, which is double the WHO guideline. Reductions in this pollutant have stagnated in recent years, so setting a more ambitious target in the Bill would drive action to better protect people’s health. The Minister assured the Committee that the Government’s target on PM2.5 would be ambitious, and he acknowledged the gravity and urgency of the situation. However, we then heard that until the Government completed the ongoing work and consulted the public again about the kind of restrictions that would be needed to be placed upon us, particularly in large cities, it would not be appropriate to write that limit into law.
We understand that reducing PM2.5 to meet the WHO recommendations is not easy—there are uncertainties about the future and the impact of climate change, and there are natural ways in which these particulates are produced so we can never bring the limit down to zero. However, we are deeply concerned that the Government are still researching, modelling, discussing what to do and looking at further consultations two years after the publication of the clean air strategy and after the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, which provides independent advice to the Government, said that reducing concentrations below the WHO air quality guidelines would benefit public health.
We have SIs promised for October next year but no indication as to exactly what the targets will be. It worries me that the Government’s unwillingness to accept this target and put it in the Bill might reflect their concern that the target is simply not achievable. The Minister has previously informed your Lordships’ House that
“at this stage the full mix of policies and measures required to meet the current WHO guideline level of 10 micrograms per cubic metre is not yet fully understood”,—[Official Report, 23/6/21; col.306.]
yet in 2019 Defra had technical analysis from leading scientists at Imperial College London and King’s College London which concluded that achieving the WHO guideline of PM2.5 was technically feasible. The analysis also highlighted that the measures the Government have already committed to as part of their clean air strategy could take us 95% of the way towards the WHO recommendation for what should be the basic level of protection.
Further independent analysis by King’s College London commissioned by the Greater London Authority, which I referred to in our previous debate, has subsequently shown that, with additional action, achieving the WHO guideline of PM2.5 is feasible by 2030 in our most polluted city in this country. Surely that should remove the main barrier to achieving this goal. The Minister also referred to the Mayor of London study, confirming that officials were going through it and taking it into account. Does his department now agree with its findings, and what action is being taken as a result of it?
Today we have seen the publication of a report, funded by the Greater London Authority and carried out by researchers at Imperial College London, that provides a comprehensive overview of the most credible evidence of the links between air pollution and Covid-19. We already know that air pollution has harmful effects on the lungs, but until now it has been most associated with non-infectious or non-communicable diseases that cannot be directly transmitted between people—for example, the links between air pollution and cancer, stroke and asthma are all well established. Covid-19, however, is an infectious lung disease, and questions have begun to be asked about whether air pollution played a role in the spread of this devastating disease.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 54 in this group. Like my noble friend Lady Hayman, I had the privilege of meeting Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. I was at the meeting that she had with the Minister last week, and I thank him for being generous with his time. I am sure that, like my noble friend Lady Hayman, he could not help but be impressed by Rosamund’s humanity and commitment, and her determination to ensure that her daughter’s tragic death is not something that will happen to other families. That is why I have tabled this amendment, which I also tabled in Committee. I also very much support Amendments 4 and 12 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman.
In our meeting we were all in agreement—the Minister and Rosamund agreed about everything—until at the end there was the problem of the “but”. The Minister said, “Of course we will have to do some more consultation and look at this a bit further. We are with you, but”. Probably the only difference on both sides now is that “but”; apart from that, I think we are all in agreement. I hope that the Minister can go further than that today and give us some good news. If not, I know my noble friend Lady Hayman will test the opinion of the House on Amendment 4, and in those circumstances, I hope the House votes for it.
I want to talk about what happened to Ella. Rosamund and Ella lived near me in Lewisham. Ella died at the age of nine while suffering from one of the most serious cases of asthma ever recorded in the UK. Her chronic condition lasted 28 months. She suffered greatly, and fought to breathe right to the very end. On Ella’s final night in Lewisham, the borough recorded one of its worst spikes ever in air pollution. She had been hospitalised 28 times in 28 months, admitted to the ICU five times, and had fought back many times from the brink of death. Her condition meant that her lungs constantly filled up with mucus and made her feel that she was suffocating.
In December 2020 there was a landmark victory for Ella and her family. She became the first person in the UK—and the world—to have air pollution listed as a cause of death. The coroner, Philip Barlow, found that she had died of asthma that had been contributed to by exposure to excessive air pollution, and the primary source of that was traffic emissions.
Eight years after Ella’s death, we have also learned that between 36,000 and 40,000 people in the UK die prematurely due to exposure to air pollution annually, and that all of us suffer from its negative health effects. Thousands are impacted every year and, across the UK, 22 to 24 young people die of asthma, eight to 12 of them in London. The UK has one of the highest death rates from asthma in Europe. In countries such as Finland no child dies from asthma. Toxic air impacts on the health of all of us, from cradle to grave. It is now a public health emergency, and Covid has highlighted the inequalities in health.
This is, in many respects, a very good Bill, but it completely fails to address the issue of air quality. That is why we are tabling these amendments. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and give us more than the “but” that we got at our meeting with him last week. If not, I hope, as I have said, that my noble friend will divide the House. I will support Amendment 4 tonight. I support all the amendments: Amendments 4 and 12 and Amendment 54, to which I am speaking now.
All we are asking is that the Government adopt the World Health Organization’s guidelines and targets. That is a pretty reasonable way forward: the World Health Organization’s particulate matter targets. I hope that the Minister can give us some good news in his response to the debate.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I support Amendments 4 and 12, and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for the superb way in which she introduced this group and encapsulated the strength of feeling about the importance of these amendments.
I remind the House that air pollutants reach every organ of the body. They affect growing foetal tissue, not just adults. They affect organs as they develop in children and throughout people’s lives. Very small particles are a particular problem because they stay suspended in the air for prolonged periods and have a propensity to penetrate the deep parts of the lung. Ultrafine particles are especially problematic because in many respects they behave like a gas. As particles become smaller—into the nano scale—their surface area increases exponentially, so chemicals carried on their surface are released into cells and become bioavailable as toxins in the mitochondria within cells. The damage goes throughout the body.
The WHO guidelines are health-based and due to be revised downwards. They will not remain at their current level for many years: they will get tighter, because large epidemiological studies have shown that there are no safe levels of pollutant exposure. I remind the Government that as far back as 2001 their own advisory committee on air quality stated:
“Impact analysis of policies or specific developments, whether for industry, transport, housing etc, should take account of the interlinkages of emissions of air quality and climate change pollutants”.
That has still not occurred.
To increase the relevance of air pollution controls in environments where people live and move around requires greater input that takes into account real-life exposures in different settings, especially urban environments where people work and live close to busy roads and the foci of traffic congestion.
It has been shown in the bay area of California that there is a direct link between health impacts and the levels of pollutants in the air. There are enormous impacts, even from a single two-hour commute in a car. That has been shown to increase human stress metabolism, with very clear differences between people with normal lungs and those who are asthmatic. People with asthma are particularly vulnerable to air pollution.
I stress that point because, in addition to the growing evidence that air pollutant exposure increases susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection, as has already been said it enhances the severity of, and likelihood of death from, a lot of other lung diseases. It is all linked to the social determinants of health. Ella’s death illustrates the tragedy for many.
I remind the House again: the UK has the worst death rate for asthma in Europe and one of the highest incidences of asthma. I worry that short-term finance is driving resistance from the Government, because monitoring levels of these very small particles requires different equipment from that in use at the moment. To avoid doing this properly, however, is a real false economy. Quite apart from tragic deaths, there is the cost to the health service and social care. By installing equipment to measure particulates equal to or less than 10 micrograms per metre cubed, the Government will be prepared and able to set an example to other nations when the WHO guidelines change.
This amendment sets a quality target with a deadline far enough ahead to be achievable. Delay will simply mean that we will be playing catch-up, rather than providing the leadership that is desperately needed.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have been working on the issue of air pollution for more than two decades. I thank Simon Birkett of Clean Air in London and Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, who are fantastic campaigners, and so tenacious. It moves me that I am able to present some of what they think and are fighting for. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, on her excellent opening speech—it was far better than anything I can do, I am sure, though I will try.
Amendment 4, on which we may divide, is crucial: it could save your life. The other two amendments are great, because they will help with your health as you go through our filthy London streets, but Amendment 4 is basic. We have to reduce PM2.5. Exposure to these fine particles is the main cause of death for most people who die early from air pollution. These are tiny bits of soot and grit that are so small that they not only stick to the lungs but can pass through them. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, explained it much better. We must understand that this is incredibly difficult to control without targets.
Amendment 12 is also extremely important, because the World Health Organization is due to publish its updated air quality guidelines this month, possibly within days. I try never to use the words “air quality”, because we do not have air quality—we have air pollution. We have to remember that. It is filthy and harmful. Many countries around the world follow the previous World Health Organization guidance, which was issued 16 years ago, but we still have nothing. We have a public health crisis leading to tens of thousands of premature deaths and we have identified the main cause, but still we do nothing.
Incinerators can be built and ignore this pollutant. Heathrow can be expanded and ignore this pollutant. Local authorities and national government are making decisions that will potentially damage human health and increase these emissions, but we allow it because we ignore the scientific advice. That really should not be acceptable.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
The noble Baroness is making a very important speech; I will just add to what she has said. In addition, the Mayor of London covered up the monitoring stations on the roads leading to the Olympics. Otherwise, the pollution would have been worse than it had been in Beijing four years previously.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
But he did put potted plants there; let us give him some credit.
Amendment 54 is also incredibly important, because it would achieve three important outcomes. First of all, it would put health at the heart of government policy-making. I am an ex-Southwark councillor, like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. On the old town hall, there was a translated Latin quotation:
“The health of the people is the highest law”.
That is what this Government absolutely ignore.
Secondly, Amendment 54 would ensure that air quality targets are based on WHO air quality guidelines and achieved as soon as possible. Thirdly, it would ensure that air pollution is properly monitored, particularly where it is a problem, and that people are warned about it.
Please understand that this is a public health crisis. I have tried to get the issue of air pollution into other Bills, but I was always put off and told that whatever Bill it was was not the right Bill to put air pollution in. When we are talking environment, this is the Bill to add air pollution as a serious issue.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I am still a vice-president of Environmental Protection UK, which for most of its lifetime was the National Society for Clean Air. In that capacity, I was a bit remiss in not putting down an amendment myself. I was originally fooled by the Government; it does not happen very often, but it did on this occasion. I thought that by having this as the second clause and PM2.5 right up front in the Bill, they had really seized the opportunity. I did not read it properly.
Clause 1 sets a particular status for long-term targets that then run through the rest of the Bill, but this clause says the target for PM2.5
“may, but need not, be a long-term target.”
Parliamentary draftsmen are usually comfortable putting “may”, because that gives them a certain amount of flexibility, but on this occasion they put “but need not” very clearly. That means that the target envisaged in this clause, as it stands, does not have all the overriding principles and follow-through in the rest of the Bill that a long-term target has. That is why the clause, as it stands, has to be amended.
I support all these amendments. I just want to say two or three other things that colleagues have not yet covered. Before I do so, I say to the House that, in the debates on air quality over the years, one supporter was the late Viscount Simon, a lifelong sufferer from asthma who normally took part and had a lot of insight; we will miss him.
I point out, first, that the WHO targets were set on the basis of health information from over a decade ago. Hopefully, the new ones will be updated. The limits that we have been working to on EU standards were largely set—and I speak as a pro-European—by what the German motor manufacturers would put up with. Even then, they fiddled the testing. So, what we put in as our targets here have to be robust, health based and universally recognised.
It is also important to mention something else. There is a bit of an assumption that, since traffic has been the biggest contributor to air pollution, this is being resolved as we move away from diesel cars. It is not. A lot of pollution from traffic comes from brakes and friction between tyres and the road. In any case, of course, traffic is significantly increasing. The problem will not automatically resolve itself. We need new measures, both for vehicles and for the way we manage traffic. Also, as I believe is covered more fully in a later amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, there are a lot of non-traffic-related sources of PM2.5 and other forms of pollution. They have to be covered just as rigorously.
Thirdly, as my noble friend Lord Kennedy pointed out, the tragic death of Ella Kissi-Debrah happened because of where she lived: on the South Circular, an already heavily polluted road. I would ask local councils of all political complexions not to alter their traffic arrangements to divert the heaviest traffic to areas where the poorest live and where there are likely to be more pedestrians and more children. Moving air pollution around is not a solution. I hope that is recognised.
I support these amendments as they stand. I hope that the Government will be prepared to take at least some of them on board and we can start making a dent in what is a truly terrible aspect of urban life and the health of our people.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 4 and 12 to which I have put my name. Before I come to that, I will say something about Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I particularly liked the last two provisions—subsections (2)(e) and (2)(f) of his proposed new clause —on the training of professionals and, especially, on public information. I strongly believe that, if the public had any idea of the fatal effects of PM2.5 and their effects on health, they would be much more likely to accept some of what might otherwise be quite unpopular actions that needed to be taken to reduce the concentration of those particles. I very much support that.
I now come to Amendments 4 and 12. I have spent the last 18 months conducting my work in your Lordships’ House remotely via the wonders of modern technology, from rural Wales and, occasionally, Scotland. In those parts of the UK, air pollution, including from PM2.5 particulates, is low. Yesterday, I came back to London. As someone who suffers mildly from asthma, I noticed the difference immediately. I am now inclined to wear my mask outdoors on the street as well as indoors, not just to protect myself and others from Covid-19 but to avoid breathing in unfiltered London air.
The challenge of reducing the amount of PM2.5 in our air is a complex and difficult one, which the Government, assisted by dozens of scientists and economists, are already tackling to some extent. I do not underestimate the difficulty of reducing our national and local concentrations of these particles to below 10 micrograms per cubic metre. These materials are produced by many human activities, and some natural weather systems, which are beyond our control. Controlling some of them also requires international co-operation. But just because it is difficult does not mean that we should not set out to do it—and do so expeditiously.
The reason is, of course, that polluted air is the greatest danger to health of our time. PM2.5 causes damage to health from before birth, when it affects children’s brain and lung development, right up to old age, causing pulmonary and cardiac disease, liver damage, and damage to the brain—probably including dementia. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has explained all that in great detail, so I need not go into any more detail. Everybody knows that polluted air can be fatal—sadly. That is why I support everything the Government are doing, including their dual target to reduce both national levels and population levels, particularly where pollution levels are high and health inequalities are greatest. To do that, they must support local authorities—but that is a debate for another time.
Our Amendments 4 and 12 do not impact on any of these activities or targets. The 10 micrograms in our amendment is not a target but a maximum—and if the WHO guidelines suggest a lower maximum, we should follow that. In other words, nobody will be happier than me if we can reduce it further. The Government tell us that they will announce their target and the date by which it should be achieved in October next year. Well, we all know how these things slip. Setting a target is one thing; achieving it in practice by a certain date is quite another. Our amendments simply hold the Government’s feet to the fire to achieve what Ministers themselves, including Mr Michael Gove, have said they want to achieve. This is for the sake of the health of the whole population, as there is no safe level of PM2.5, according to the WHO.
However, there are two other very important reasons why I want to see this target minimum level in primary legislation, and they concern wider climate-change policy. The Government have set the target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, but as yet there is no detail as to how this will be achieved: no road map. There are many possible routes and combinations of policies and technologies that could lead us to achieving net zero. By setting in primary legislation the maximum PM2.5 emissions at 10 micrograms per cubic metre of air—or whatever the current WHO-recommended level is—we will influence the Government to choose those routes to achieving net zero which do not contribute to small particulates in the air.
Some people might think that surely all activities which reduce CO2 emissions must necessarily contribute to clean air—but this is not so. For example, the burning of biomass might emit less CO2 in the long run than burning fossil fuel, but this combustion emits small particulates—which is why wood burning stoves should be banned, at least in towns and cities where pollution is already high. There is more than one route to net zero, and we should choose the cleanest and healthiest. I accept that the Government will want to convince themselves of the feasibility of the target they set, but many scientists have advised us that the 10 micrograms maximum can be done by 2030, and I would like to see the Government set out seriously to do so.
My final reason is that the Government’s record on air quality has not been of the best. In one of its final judgments before the UK left the EU, the European Court of Justice—which was instrumental in enforcing environmental protection—judged that the UK had “systematically and persistently” broken legal limits on air pollution, which, as we know, hastens the death of 40,000 people per year. The replacement for this enforcement body is the OEP, which is introduced by this Bill, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and a cross-party group of Peers are trying to amend the Bill to ensure the new OEP is properly independent and has teeth. It is also why we who have put our names to this amendment seek to ensure that the Government are legally obliged to set and achieve ambitious targets for air quality.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, in the midst of all this great technical expertise, I would like to follow up one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, touched on, which is how all this will be achieved. This amendment asks that a further metric be added to those already in the Bill. The Secretary of State is tasked with setting targets for the annual mean level in ambient air, and an amazing combination of statistics will be needed to get that.
Clause 17 asks the Secretary of State to prepare a policy statement, but who is actually going to produce all these measures? The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, hinted at what local authorities could do, but is the Government’s policy to pile all these tasks on to local government? Who will be blamed if the measures are not produced? Are the Government considering what the financial demands are likely to be? The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has given us some indication that they may be considerably more than is currently the case.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I think the later contributions have shown that it is vital, in this connection, for the Government to focus on changing the materials that produce this. It is one thing to say, for example, that we want to go to zero carbon by a certain date. Well, surely we should have that kind of system applied to the way this development arises. Nobody wants to kill people, yet there is a substantial amount of this trouble arising in our country, and the remedy must be focused on getting rid of the particulates as far as possible. That is a very high aim, which is not always made prominent in the literature and the policies.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I would like to thank all noble Lords for another important debate and to reassure the House that the Government view this matter as one of the utmost seriousness. As I have set out in previous debates that we have had on this issue, we are committed, through this Bill, to set at least two air quality targets. They will complement each other to fundamentally reduce air pollution in the worst areas, while driving continuous progress to benefit the health of all citizens across England.
Turning first to Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I would like to thank her for the time she has given me over the past few weeks, discussing this and other issues. I know she has also met with my officials and Professor Alastair Lewis, chair of the Air Quality Expert Group, to better understand all the other work we are doing on PM2.5. I thank her for her time in all those meetings.
I will start by reiterating the assurance provided in Committee, first, that the Government want stretching and ambitious targets, like everyone who has spoken in the House today, and, secondly, that the Government are following a robust and evidence-based process to set those air quality targets, which will focus on delivering the greatest possible public health benefits.
The Government are committed to working with internationally renowned experts to deliver evidence to inform air quality targets. We regularly engage with independent expert groups, such as the Air Quality Expert Group and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, to ensure the process is informed by their advice and reflects the latest evidence, which includes WHO air quality guidelines.
In July, advice from the Air Quality Expert Group and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants was published. This showed that both groups support the proposal to set a concentration target and an exposure reduction target for PM2.5, though both acknowledged the difficulty in setting targets in this area. The Air Quality Expert Group highlighted the substantial challenges associated with modelling future PM2.5 concentrations, a point made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, including the many uncertainties and significant unknowns. For example, as our climate changes, the potential to reduce PM2.5 concentration also changes, because climate and weather strongly influence pollution levels. We may experience more rain and wind, which disperse pollutants and clean the air, or conversely more heatwaves, which lock in and exacerbate pollution. Some sources of pollution, such as shipping in the English Channel, require work with international partners to reduce emissions. This point was also made earlier.
As we take action to reach net zero, policies such as active travel will have co-benefits, but others may create tensions, as we see with anaerobic digestion and biomass burning. Many of these issues are not easily resolved or modelled, and this demonstrates why we should not be pre-empting or short-cutting the evidence required to underpin long-term target-setting decisions. While it is absolutely necessary to continue to achieve reductions in key pollutants in the air we breathe, the inherent complexity and diverse range of sources of PM2.5—both natural and manmade—means that significant reductions are much more difficult to achieve in practice.
Before setting these targets, it is vital to ensure that both the Government and the public understand the kinds of actions needed and the restrictions which may be required for them to be achieved. This is why we will be consulting on proposed targets and actions required, which may include significant changes to how we heat our homes and travel within towns and cities, early in 2022.
I will briefly respond to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about the timetable slipping. On the assumption that the Bill becomes law in its current form, or even in an amended form, allowing the timelines to slip would be a breach in law. We would be breaking the law and that is not something the Government could do, so we will not see this timeline slipping.
We are still working to understand the full mix of policies and measures that would be required to meet the WHO guideline of 10 micrograms per cubic metre, but we know that a range of restrictions on activities are likely to be needed in urban areas to meet any ambitious target. Meeting 10 micrograms would likely require policies, as I said in previous debates, including
“reducing traffic kilometres across our cities by as much as 50%”
and
“a total ban on solid fuel burning”.
As I said in Committee, I do not think it is
“right for us to set a target … that would impact millions of people and thousands of businesses”—[Official Report, 23/6/21; cols. 306-7.]
without first levelling with people about what would be needed and ensuring that we bring them with us in understanding the health benefits of achieving that target. Without fully understanding the policies needed to meet such a limit, we cannot know where the burdens of these policies will fall.
To date, this debate has focused primarily on the concentration target but, again, I remind noble Lords that we are setting two targets that will work side by side. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, we have to set a long-term target under Clause 1 and the PM2.5 target under Clause 2. It is not a choice we have; it is inherent in the Bill. This dual-target approach is strongly supported by experts.
In addition to the concentration target, we are developing a new type of target that focuses on reducing people’s exposure to pollution. The population exposure reduction target will be a more important driver for achieving health benefits, both at national and local level. Experts tell us, and a number of speakers today have made plain, that there are no safe limits for PM2.5.
The long-term exposure reduction target will drive a process of continuous improvement to reduce people’s exposure across the whole country, even in locations where the concentration target has been achieved. It will inform how local interventions need to be targeted, particularly where the most people are exposed to elevated levels of pollution. The concentration target that we have spent much time debating serves to provide a general minimum standard and will focus on reducing levels where concentrations are highest, but it is not by any stretch the whole story.
As I have repeatedly set out in debate, in letters to the House and in meetings over the past year, we are working at pace on this. But it would not be right for us in this House to set a target without understanding the measures needed to meet it and bringing the public on board. The Government are therefore not able to accept this amendment.
Amendment 12 was also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I assure her that, as air is part of the definition of the natural environment, it already falls within the scope of the significant improvement test. In future EIP reviews, we expect new evidence—including updated WHO guidelines, emerging scientific evidence and the like—to be relevant to an assessment of whether further measures are needed to meet interim and long-term targets. The intent of the noble Baroness’s amendment is therefore already delivered by the Bill as drafted and I ask her not to press it.
On Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, I thank him for meeting me and Rosamund Kissi-Debrah the week before last. I can say only that if I was not already convinced of the urgency of the case, I certainly would have been by that conversation. Rosamund is an extraordinary campaigner and speaks with huge authority; of course, what happened to Ella is heartbreaking on every level.
In setting these air quality targets, it is as crucial to have a scientifically reliable understanding of the pollution sources and their dispersion as it is to have in place sufficient means to monitor progress and assess compliance. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that the Government are working extensively with experts to seek advice on this and that the details of the targets, including monitoring requirements, will be set out in secondary legislation following a public consultation.
Making sure that information about air pollution is publicly available is clearly important; we already have legal obligations to do so. We do this through a range of channels, in particular the UK-AIR website, which carries an air quality five-day forecast and live information about pollution levels around the country. We are committed to improving the accessibility and usefulness of that information to a wider range of users, and we will undertake a thorough and comprehensive review of the UK-AIR website and the daily air quality index to ensure that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing.
In addition, the Government are funding work with health professionals in a number of therapeutic areas to develop advice for patients about air pollution. They are also looking at working with relevant health charities in longer-term campaigns aimed specifically at the most vulnerable groups.
The amendments tabled by my noble colleagues are hugely important contributions to this debate. I think we all agree that air pollution, particularly fine particulate matter, needs to be reduced urgently to protect the nation’s health. We know that, in setting both the concentration target and the population exposure reduction target, we need to be ambitious. Indeed, we are determined to be ambitious; that is a view shared right across government.
However, we also have to be realistic in how we set that ambition and consider the practical challenges and costs before enshrining new targets in legislation. It is so important to bring society with us and therefore consult properly and meaningfully on the measures that we are likely to need to implement to achieve those significant reductions in air pollutant levels in the future; that is something we will have to do.
I hope that I have managed to reassure at least some noble Lords of the seriousness with which we take this issue, and I beg them not to press their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, could he confirm that I understood him aright that the current situation, where we do not know the origin of 80% of the particulate matter, is not satisfactory and that the Government will fund more and better research so that we have a grip on where this is coming from?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
That is a really important point. In this debate and previous debates, I have said that our knowledge base is not complete, and it needs to be much more complete. It may not ever be totally complete, but the Government—particularly Defra, working with the Department for Transport and Public Health England—are researching the issue exhaustively, with a view to informing the targets that we are obliged to set in the short term.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I will be very brief because I know that we are all looking forward to a break. I will not go into any detail about individual contributions, but I thank everyone who has spoken in support of my amendments—it is very much appreciated, and it has demonstrated that there is a lot of very strong feeling in the House about the concerns that we have raised.
I come to the points that the Minister made. Having met Defra officials on a number of occasions, I do not doubt at all that they are working extremely hard on this issue—for example, the planned exposure targets are extremely important—but that does not alter my frustration, and that of many others, that the urgent action that we need now is simply not happening and is being put off yet again. We have heard time and again that this is a health emergency, and I do not believe that the Government are treating it as an emergency. If that was the case, these amendments would be accepted, in my opinion.
We believe that our amendment is critical to drive the progress that we need. We also believe that a lot of existing evidence and information is already available in order for the Government to start taking action. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 4.
Environment Bill
Wednesday 8th September 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 43-II Second marshalled list for Report - (6 Sep 2021)
16:20 - Division on Amendment 11 - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 181 - Amendment 11 agreed.
18:12 - Division on Amendment 20 - Ayes: 184 / Noes: 182 - Amendment 20 agreed.
19:12 - Division on Amendment 24 - Ayes: 180 / Noes: 151 - Amendment 24 agreed.
19:47 - Division on Amendment 27 - Ayes: 153 / Noes: 143 - Amendment 27 agreed.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, before we begin proceedings today, I think we can all agree that we did not make as much progress as we had hoped on Monday. May I make a few points about the rules of engagement for Report in the hope that we can make things a little swifter today? I remind the House that on Report, apart from the mover of an amendment, who may reply to the debate on the amendment, Members should not speak more than once to an amendment, save with the leave of the House to explain some material point in their speech. Only the mover of an amendment may speak after the Minister. Other Members speaking after the Minister may do so only to ask short questions of elucidation. I should be very grateful if we could all adhere to these rules.
Clause 5: Environmental targets: reporting duties
Amendment 11
“(d) interim targets are met.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to meet any interim targets they set.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 11 and will speak to Amendment 14 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Parminter, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. Both amendments are designed to ensure that the important environmental plans and targets established by the Bill drive strong and effective action. The Bill introduces an important suite of legally binding, long-term environmental improvement targets and provides for these to be guided by five-year interim milestones. Unlike those in the Climate Change Act, these interim milestones are not binding requirements.
In Committee, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, Lady Hayman, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Parminter, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made a persuasive case for these interim targets to be statutory. They cited evidence—lists of non-statutory targets missed, such as those for biodiversity, contrasted with the success and focus of the Climate Change Act. They highlighted human behaviour; a statutory duty in five years’ time will get more focus than one in 20 years’ time—or, as Allegra Stratton, the No. 10 climate spokesperson, has said, 2050 is “too far away”,
“we have to feel the … urgency of now.”
They stressed the need for urgent action. Nature takes time to respond, and there is no hockey stick from new technologies enabling back-ended action. They emphasised the value of transparency; statutory interim targets make progress more visible and the OEP’s role more effective. They quoted business, with the Aldersgate Group’s support for statutory interim targets that give business certainty to invest and act. In short, they outlined a compelling case.
However, the Minister was not persuaded. He responded that interim targets would
“undermine the long-term … targets framework”—[Official Report, 23/6/21; col. 268.]
across political cycles. This perplexes me, because the Climate Change Act demonstrates quite the opposite—that statutory interim targets maintain focus and pressure as Ministers and Governments change. He said that, without statutory targets, Governments might take more ambitious action; it is also perplexing that one might think that statutory targets prevent greater ambition. He said they would lead to “rushed policy-making”. I do not understand how it would be possible to set robust, achievable, science-based, long-term targets—as the Bill rightly requires—without identifying the steps needed to get there. This is exactly how the Climate Change Committee works. The original 80% target and the net zero recommendation could not have been made with any credibility without an analysis of the pathways to achieve them.
The Minister rightly said that we are dealing with complex, living “non-linear systems”. Indeed we are. In my experience as a scientist, it is easier to predict the impact of actions to support such systems over a five-year timescale than it is to predict outcomes in 15 or 20 years, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, reminded us on Monday. The Minister said it discourages large-scale change for a focus on quick wins. I might agree with this if we were talking about a five-year target alone, but evidence shows the effectiveness of the combination of statutory interim targets and a legislated long-term goal. I sincerely hope the Government will reconsider their position on statutory interim targets, because the evidence is clear. They would help ensure that the excellent intent of this important Bill is delivered.
I will very briefly turn to Amendment 14. This amendment strengthens environmental improvement plans by linking them clearly to the proposed measures and targets under the Bill and by requiring the Government not just to take steps to improve the natural environment but specifically to set out policies and proposals. Without this clear link to specific measures and delivery of targets, there is a risk that environmental improvement plans will resemble our current national adaptation plan—long descriptions of process with few time-bound actions.
This requirement to set out policies and proposals is the wording in the Climate Change Act. This has led in recent months to a stream of major policy announcements across government departments, including the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, the transport decarbonisation strategy, the hydrogen strategy, the industrial decarbonisation strategy and the anticipated net-zero strategy—an impressive list, referred to by the Minister on Monday. These are truly important developments for the climate. Do nature and the environment not deserve the same? “Yes” is the message we have heard in many speeches in this debate. The Minister was reassuring in his response on this issue in Committee. I hope he will now accept that we must turn steps into policies and proposals and give nature the focus and funding across government that it so urgently needs.
Binding five-yearly targets on our way to critical long-term goals are such an important issue in terms of the urgency of now that I may wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to say why I added my name to this amendment. The Bill currently lacks a coherent interlocking scheme, and these amendments seek to deal with that. It is right to warmly acknowledge the huge progress made by the Minister, but as he has said so clearly, the costs of much of this are not yet understood by the public and there are still obvious strong lobbies that will seek delay.
It is therefore very important that there be a coherent scheme with interlocking interim targets, environment improvement plans and long-term targets. I warmly thank the Minister that we have legally enforceable, long-term targets. It is good that we have them, but the really difficult decisions relate to interim targets. They do not easily fit into the short-term electoral cycle; they are not something a politician or decision-maker can say is for a future generation, years and years away. Interim targets are the here and now. Nothing much has changed, as one can see from the great Victorian novelists, “Yes, Minister” or, more tangibly, the targets that have been missed to date. That is why I so strongly support providing for the practical nature of legally binding interim targets.
There is another matter to which, as a legislature, we should have regard: we ought not to be passing aspirational, vague legislation, but legislation which is clear and sets clear duties so that people know where they stand and so that the Government can be held to account. The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, has dealt eloquently with the arguments made by the Government. There is no need for me to add anything to her observations.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 11 and 14, but actually rise to speak to Amendment 13 in my name. The background to this is an amendment I put down in Committee specifically in relation to trees, tree-planting and tree health. It asked the Government to ensure that an annual report was made to Parliament on how far we had got in achieving the target set in the Bill. Obviously, what is applicable to trees is applicable to every target in this Bill—a whole range of targets will eventually be put forward and I will not go through them all.
The Bill as it stands now says there must be a review within five years of the first review. I suggest that the situation is now so urgent that Parliament needs to consider every year how far we have got towards achieving or failing to meet that target. We are all agreed that there is huge urgency to this, and we need to keep the pressure on year by year in Parliament.
I will never forget a meeting in Singapore in 2020, when one of the major issues facing the world was third-world debt. At the end of the meeting, people from the developing world looked at their diaries and said, “Perhaps we could meet again in three years’ time”, when suddenly a friend of mine—for whom this was literally a matter of life and death in his country—erupted with huge righteous anger which still echoes in my mind. I am not myself given to righteous anger, but I am sure that countries where people are literally now dying as a result of what is happening would have that same anger.
I will not divide the House on this as we have quite enough votes anyway. But I would like the Minister to consider seriously—sharing the sense of the urgency of this, as he does—bringing forward a government amendment to ensure that Parliament has a chance to look at the targets in this Bill every year in order to see how close we are to achieving them, or to what extent we are failing.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, because I know from my experience as chairman of the Climate Change Committee why it works. It works because there are statutory targets to be met within reasonable times. If the target date is 2050, no Minister presently serving will have to be responsible for it. Indeed, I remind my noble friend that when a former Labour Party Administration announced a date for net-zero houses which was some 10 years later, there was ribaldry on the Conservative Benches on the basis that that would mean that they would not have to do anything during their period of office.
I am afraid I am long enough in the tooth to recognise that the Climate Change Act ensured that no Government could put off the actions they had to take until a more convenient time arose. The brilliance of the Act was to bring together two very different timescales. One is the democratic timescale of four or five years for the renewal of mandate and the other is the continuing timescale of fighting climate change. A democratic society has somehow to bring those two together. The cleverness of it was that by ensuring that Parliament agreed on the interim budgets and therefore they were democratically voted on, the Climate Change Committee was then able to hold the Government to them. They could not be changed without their agreement. That brought these two things in line.
What surprises me about my noble friend’s—and he is a noble friend—reply during the previous debate was his suggestion that somehow everything that is true about the Climate Change Act does not count in the Environment Bill. He does not believe that because he is a great supporter of the Climate Change Act. It is just not possible to hold those two views. I fear that this is the result of some apparatchik somewhere who does not want anybody to be held to anything. All of us should recognise how dangerous that is from the news today. Despite everything that has been said at this Dispatch Box and a similar Dispatch Box in the other House, the Government have bent over to the Australian Government and removed from the agreement the commitment to meeting the climate change figures and temperatures in the Paris Agreement.
If that is so, how can we possibly accept merely the assurances? We have to have it in the Act—we have to have it clearly there, not because we have any doubt that this Minister, this Front Bench, would do what they say they are going to do, but because we have lived long enough to know that if it is not in the Act, in the end it does not get done.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I fully support Amendments 11, 13 and 14. I simply ask: what is the point of having targets if there is no duty to meet them?
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I want, very briefly, to support Amendment 11. The whole point of this Bill is that it is going to be ready for the COP 26 meeting. It is a model Bill. It is something that we hope that other countries will adopt as a method of dealing with very difficult problems.
It seems to me in business experience that if you have long long-term targets, interim targets are very helpful. Therefore, as a necessary logical consequence, one would want the model Act to have such interim targets as well—the exemplar we would want other countries to follow. As I am sure we will be managing the thing in a logical way and therefore managing it with interim targets and would want other people to do that as well, it is logical that we should have these targets.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, for her excellent opening remarks. As she rightly said, a number of us spoke at some length on this matter in Committee. We have had excellent expositions from her and supporting evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, of the merits of this case and why we need these statutory targets. It is not just this House that is calling on them —business is calling on them. This is what it needs to make the changes in the future for our country and for the sustainability of companies. Given that time is tight, if the noble Baroness were to press this to a vote, she would have the support of these Benches.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 11 and 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Baroness for her introduction.
In Committee, we tabled an amendment to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to meet any interim targets. We were very disappointed that the Government did not agree that this is important if we are to make genuine progress in improving our environment. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, today that if she chooses to test the opinion of the House, she will have our support.
It has been made clear in the debate today, as it was in Committee, that we really need to make sure that the interim targets are going to be met. Amendment 14 would strengthen the EIPs to do this and link them to the targets to make them legally binding, as opposed to their current standing, which is really being nothing more than policy documents.
As I said in Committee when I provided your Lordships’ House with a number of examples of how voluntary environmental targets had been badly missed or even abandoned on a number of occasions, this really only emphasises the need to make sure that the interim targets are as legally binding as the long-term ones.
The Government have seen fit, as we know, to bring in a legally binding species abundance target for 2030, which we welcome and support. This shows that the Government do not, in principle, object to legally binding short-term targets and, indeed, accept that they can drive progress in that area. It seems very inconsistent, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said earlier, that they are not doing it in this case. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, strongly explained, the Climate Change Act 2008 has been very successful in holding the Government to account on their interim targets. I have heard no compelling justification for why there should be this critical difference in the Environment Bill.
The Minister made the point in Committee that long-term targets provide much-needed certainty to business; the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, also mentioned business and the Aldersgate Group. The Minister said that for businesses to invest confidently they need flexibility around the interim targets but the Aldersgate Group representing business has said that that is not the case. In fact, it has been very clear that it wants other legally binding interim targets so that it can deliver the much-needed investment in nature restoration.
I acknowledge the noble Lord’s previous argument that change towards long-term goals and progress towards meeting them, does not always happen in a linear way. However, I do not accept that this is a convincing argument not to make the interim targets legally binding. Instead, it is an argument for the Government to apply some flexibility in the type of interim targets they may well be setting. We know that the Bill already gives the Secretary of State considerable discretion in setting these interim targets
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, made the point that if you get this set, it means that any early action taken is much more likely to be sustainable as well. So, if we set end goals far into the future, we need binding interim targets with monitoring and scrutiny to prevent the targets being potentially kicked into the long grass or left to the last minute.
Finally, I remind your Lordships’ House that, as I mentioned in Committee, this is not just an issue for Defra. This is important, because if we are to meet our environmental targets, other departments have to play their part. If the interim targets are not binding, why do we think that the DfT, BEIS, local government and others will be on the path to meet the long-term targets? They will have their own priorities, so they will need to be properly encouraged by legally binding targets to make the progress we need.
This amendment would hugely strengthen the Environment Bill and its outcomes. I urge the Minister to review his previous position and support it.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Beginning with Amendment 11, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, the Bill’s robust statutory cycle of monitoring, annual reporting and five-yearly reviews, combined with the OEP and parliamentary scrutiny, ensures that meeting interim targets is taken seriously, without the need for them to be legally binding. We discussed this in detail in Committee, but I would like to outline the Government’s position briefly once more.
The OEP will scrutinise the Government’s progress on targets, including those interim targets, and it can make recommendations on how to improve progress, to which the Government have a duty to respond. It would be both unnecessary and detrimental to our targets framework and our environmental ambitions to introduce legally binding interim targets, as the approach risks undermining the long-term nature of the targets framework, which we have designed to look beyond the political cycle of any one Government and to avoid action solely focused on short-term wins. As I mentioned in Committee, it is undoubtedly a natural temptation for any and every Government working to legally binding five-year targets to set eye-catching, short-term measures in their manifesto, even if those are not necessarily the most effective measures for meeting the longer-term targets.
However, everything we know about the complexity of the environmental targets—indeed, everything we know about natural systems—shows that they transcend any one Administration or five-year period. We are talking about living, non-linear systems, where there will be plenty of measures whose effects will take many years to bear out. For example, for certain habitats, such as peat bogs, native woodlands and elements of the marine environment, significant change is very unlikely to occur within a five-year period, no matter what we do now. We would not want to have to deprioritise key aspects of the environment with longer recovery times to meet a legally binding target in five years.
A number of speakers have made comparisons to the carbon—
Lord Krebs (CB)
I thank the Minister for allowing me to interject briefly. He makes the point that restoring and maintaining natural systems is a long-term process. I would agree with that, but does he not also accept that a key element of meeting the targets is to build resilience of natural systems—that is, their ability to withstand shocks and to recover from events such as extreme weather or infectious disease outbreaks? One can tell, from decades of ecological research, at an early stage whether the right steps are being taken to build the resilience of natural ecosystems. Therefore, that could be identified as a shorter-term target to achieve the long-term aims.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord; building resilience into our natural environment—into the natural systems on which, ultimately, we depend—is clearly a priority, and I think that is reflected throughout the Bill. It is certainly reflected in our soon to be newly introduced 2030 biodiversity target. But I do not think that takes us away from the fact that, if we are measuring progress on the basis of a longer-term plan, you would end up in some cases with a very dramatic hockey stick, which would be difficult for a Government to explain in the way that would be necessary in the context of legally binding targets.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
I thank the Minister for his response, and I agree with him that the targets will be difficult and complex and need to be set with considerable thought and attention. However, I can only repeat my point that I cannot see how it is possible to set robust, achievable, science-based, long-term targets as the Bill requires without identifying the steps needed to get there. If you can identify the steps needed to get there, you can set statutory interim targets.
I thank all noble Lords across the House who have contributed to this debate, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Redesdale
“(5A) It may also set out steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to improve the conservation of land environments of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest, including improving people’s enjoyment of them (and if it does so references in this Part to improving the natural environment, in relation to that plan, include conservation of land environments of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest, including improving people’s enjoyment of them).”
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 16, 17, 25 and 29 in my name. this amendment is looking to include heritage as one of the requirements of EIPs.
The Government stated clearly in Committee that they are committed to heritage through the 25-year plan, but it seems to have been neglected in the EIPs. The problem is that if it is not on the face of the Bill there is no compulsion for heritage to be looked at in this provision. There is an issue here, because while we talk about environment, there is a read across to many historic landscapes where heritage has led to the conservation and preservation of species. In the summer I was working on hedgerows. You can tell the age of a hedgerow by the number of species incorporated in it, and if you say, “we’ll replace it with a modern hedgerow”, you will end up with just one species and a degradation of the landscape. Preserving the historic heritage could save many parts of the environmental landscape that could be at risk.
It was clear in Committee that the Government are not going to place this on the face of the Bill, but can the Minister state clearly before the House today that while they are not placing it as a duty under the EIP, they see it as a fundamental area that should be brought into an EIP going forward?
I would love to make a long Second Reading speech on the joys of heritage but obviously, in the interest of haste I am not going to. In return, I would like the Minister to make a very strong statement. However, I will raise a second issue. While this is not part of this Bill, the heritage sector in this country has been very worried about what has been going on in Afghanistan. Those working in the heritage sector in Afghanistan are particularly at risk and were on a bus ready to go to the airport to be taken to a safe country. Unfortunately, the bomb went off and those people have not been able to leave. I hope that the Minister will raise this with the DCMS. I know that the DCMS has been doing a lot of work on this, but there is a long-standing and strong link between those in the heritage sectors in this country and in Afghanistan.
I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I support all these amendments. As an ex-archaeologist I feel strongly that this is something we must take notice of. We cannot keep trashing our heritage. I will try to be brief, if not as brief as last time, but will give two examples of where we have absolutely blundered.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned “historic”, but my area of study was prehistoric. For example, the way Stonehenge has been treated, with plans for a tunnel and a road, is absolutely outrageous. Why is there no understanding that these monuments contribute not only to wildlife, the landscape and the soil in lots of ways but to human happiness? Luckily, the plans for the monstrous Stonehenge road have been turned down by a British court.
That is a prehistoric example. An historic example is Bevis Marks Synagogue, which has just celebrated its 320th anniversary of continuous use, which is absolutely incredible for a building in London. However, an application has been made to build three high-rise tower blocks around it, which would plunge it into darkness for most of the day. This will impact on the people who go there, and it will be a tragedy to degrade this stunning monument in this way. It seems that, with ambition, development and building, people lose sight of what is good for us all. The local community is, of course, absolutely up in arms and trying to stop the City of London Corporation’s planning committee.
The Green Party is incredibly keen to support these amendments. I am astonished that the Government do not understand rather better the need for our heritage. They make a lot of fuss about statues at Oriel College but somehow, these other wonderful monuments do not seem to play any part in their thinking.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to all four amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
My noble friend the Minister acknowledged in his speech at Second Reading that heritage is a part of the Government’s vision for conservation and the countryside. He reminded your Lordships that the 25-year plan explicitly recognises the link between the natural environment and heritage and said that it is at the heart of our approach. However, if that is so, why is heritage the only one of the 10 goals contained in the 25-year plan to be excluded from the definition of “the environment” in Clause 44? EU legislation did not treat heritage buildings and archaeological features as part of the environment and, as a result, they have been underfunded for decades.
More than half of our traditional farm buildings have already been lost. As I said in Committee, I do not think it is possible to set targets with respect to people’s enjoyment of the natural environment without recognising that traditional farm buildings and other archaeological features are an essential part of accommodating increased numbers of visitors to the countryside and their enjoyment of it. Ancient tithe barns and other buildings have been or need be restored and repurposed in order to accommodate increasing visitor numbers.
On 23 June, my noble friend the Minister stated that heritage was never funded under the common agricultural policy. I am not sure that he was correct, in that, although heritage was not treated by the EU as part of the environment, I understand that it has been funded by Defra ever since the Agriculture Act 1986. Landscape heritage was one of five priorities for agri-environment scheme funding under the CAP and has received Defra funding of several million pounds a year—both maintenance and capital—for more than three decades, under country stewardship, environmental stewardship and previous schemes.
On page 42, the 2019 Conservative manifesto guaranteed that the current CAP budget would be maintained but that it would be moved from direct payments to public goods. The budget for public goods such as heritage is thus up to three times higher than it was under the CAP. Like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I look forward to hearing something strong and positive about this, because heritage is a great omission from the Bill.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and his excellent amendments. Like him, I regret that we did not get this on the face of the Bill. My noble friend the Minister rejected that in Committee and there is no point in trying again. However, I hope that my noble friend will pay strict attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said about making a strong statement that this funding should continue. I apologise if I am incorrect, but I think that my noble friend Lord Trenchard was right. My noble friend the Minister probably was given wrong advice when he said in Committee that it has never been funded under the CAP and that:
“It is not something that Defra has done or can do. It is very much a job and a responsibility for the DCMS.”—[Official Report, 23/6/21; col. 365.]
I think that is not the case and that this has been funded for some considerable time through Defra. I understand that the sums are not significant. We are talking about £10 million per annum, which has of course been used for things such as farm buildings, walls, and archaeology. It is not funding residences; it has not been funding grand estates which may be the job of the DCMS, or anything like that.
In addition to asking the Minister to make a strong statement that the funding will continue, I enter another strong plea. I do not speak on its behalf, but I understand that Historic England is deeply worried about this. It was under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that this would appear on the face of the Bill. It is now concerned that, since it will not be included, and given that my noble friend the Minister and Defra are rightly concentrating on funding the Bill’s priorities—peatland restoration, woodland planting and so on—something such as heritage might fall through the cracks. I would be very grateful if my noble friend said that either he or one of the Defra Ministers will meet with the heads of Historic England and reassure them as to their intentions. Historic England is not seeking much: it is seeking reassurances that the status quo can continue. I would be very grateful if my noble friend gave that assurance and assured the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that this will not fall through the cracks but will continue to be a small but important priority.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Blencathra just said about a meeting with Historic England and indeed with English Heritage, which is responsible for a large number of important buildings up and down the land. I support all the amendments, as I did in Committee. To me, it is an anomaly and a contradiction of the phrase “joined-up government” that because something is largely within the province of another department it cannot be covered by an all-embracing Bill.
This afternoon, I will concentrate on an issue that I raised on another amendment in Committee. I do so—and I have discussed this with my noble friend the Minister—because it fits logically under these amendments. When we were debating this last time, I said, and there were nods all around the Chamber, how central and important to the manmade landscape our churches are. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to a synagogue in London, the most historic synagogue in the land, and she was absolutely right in all she said. I pray that that is not overshadowed, literally, in the way currently threatened.
Central to most of our country towns and virtually all our villages, especially in England, is the parish church. You come closest to the soul of the country in the parish church, particularly through the monuments it contains, which often tell the story of the whole community—one thinks of Gray’s “Elegy”—in that church.
We have a real problem when it comes to the preservation of species and buildings. The National Trust paper, which we have all been sent, refers to habitats, and we have got the balance very wrong when it comes to the preservation of bats—important creatures that they are, despite being a bit of a health hazard sometimes—and the preservation of those buildings that tell the story of our land. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Goldsmith; I gather he is not going to reply to this debate, but he replied to the earlier one in which I took part and we had a brief discussion this afternoon. I had a lengthy meeting with him during the recess, on the dreaded Zoom, but it was a good meeting and Professor Jean Wilson, a great former president of the Church Monuments Society, took part.
I know there is a Bats in Churches project, but it is creeping forward slowly. We have 16,000 listed churches in this country, most of them Church of England, but not all, by any means. Some of them are being despoiled and defaced—the monuments, the wall paintings, the alabasters and the brasses in particular—by bat urine and bat faeces. We have to get the balance right when we are preserving species and buildings that were not built to house bats; they were built to house worshipping Christians. We are still officially a Christian country, and the parish church means a great deal to many people, even if they do not worship in it regularly. We have to remember that the parish system in our country means that everyone who lives in England lives in a parish and is entitled to the services of the parish and priest, particularly at times of great moment in a family’s history—birth, marriage, death. It is truly important that we recognise how important these buildings are.
In his letter to me, sent following our meeting, the Minister talked about something like five churches a year benefiting from this new scheme. That is good but, measured against the overall number, it is negligible. I hope that the Minister will meet me, Professor Wilson and perhaps others again, because we must try to get the balance right. Getting the balance right is the answer to so many problems in our country, not just heritage and environmental problems, but many others. It would be wrong if, during the passage of this environmental Bill—and I agree strongly with my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—we do not get this on the face of it. I am realistic enough to know that we are not going to get it, but we need a strong ministerial statement. This is casting no aspersions on my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, who will reply to this debate, but we need a statement from my noble friend Lord Goldsmith as well.
We live in a landscape that is mostly manmade and, where it is not, it is man-moulded. Some of the most important features of that landscape are parts of the built environment and the archaeology of which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke so movingly. Can we please try to recognise the threat to our churches from the overpresence of bats in many of them and do all we can to rescue a priceless part of the nation’s heritage and an embodiment of much of its history?
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I support all these amendments. We should be proud of our heritage in this country, but I am not sure, as others have pointed out, that we have been doing enough to protect our cultural landscapes in recent years. They may vary from ancient monuments all the way up to the present day, and include the lived environment, which overlaps so much with the past.
There are two real concerns, at present. There may be more, but I will point out two. The first is the lack of local authority funding and the second is the danger of untrammelled development, particularly through the tearing up and sidestepping of planning regulations. It is a disgrace that, in a country not affected by war at home—and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned Afghanistan—we have lost one site of world heritage status, Liverpool’s Waterfront, and are in danger of losing another, Stonehenge, if that road tunnel is built. We still do not know what is going to happen.
On the lived environment, I am put in mind of the 100th anniversary of the birth of the artist Joseph Beuys, who co-founded the German green party. His work “7000 Oaks” involved the planting of oak trees, often in bombed-out sites, across the city of Kassel. This was not a simple tree-planting exercise, as each tree was accompanied by a large stone marker. As the trees were planted—and it took five years to complete the project—the pile of 7,000 stones in front of the city’s museum was gradually reduced. Beuys’s idea for this piece, which was radical at the time, was that of nature being in harmony with humanity. His ideas have been copied in America and Britain. In this context, I just mention the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire. This lesson of sensitivity towards our environment is something that we all need to learn.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I fear that in my contribution I cannot be as poetic or as evocative as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on focusing these amendments solely on putting heritage on a statutory footing in regard to environmental improvement plans. This prevents succeeding Governments removing these incredibly important matters of heritage and the historic environment from future EIPs. It also makes sure that funding to support heritage under the Agriculture Act has much greater certainty.
This is at the heart of the argument this time. It continues to take into account all the arguments we made in Committee on the importance of protecting heritage of all sorts in this groundbreaking Bill. I believe that these amendments will be a simple change but have a distinct impact. Importantly, they will cover the concerns of the previous amendments introduced in Committee.
Finally, these amendments would also allow the office for environmental protection to monitor heritage in the rural environment as a statutory requirement based on EIPs. I give them my full support.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests and my passion for heritage landscapes. I have spoken already on the gaping hole in this Bill where heritage should sit, and I need not repeat that. However, having read the Committee stage debate afresh, particularly the Minister’s response, I am concerned that the Government are promoting a false and very damaging dichotomy between manmade heritage, which is delegated to DCMS, and the natural environment, which belongs to Defra. This reveals either a fundamental misunderstanding or a deliberate rejection of the millennia of human intervention in creating our natural landscape, of which we are an integral part and on which so much of our life and biodiversity is dependent. To misquote the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, we are “in” this earth and should not be separated from it.
We are not talking about rural buildings, towers and follies here—important though they are—but the much less sexy engineering works that have created and protected so much of our essential farmable landscape, particularly in East Anglia and the Somerset Levels, as well as vast areas of urbanisation such as the Thames estuary. This dichotomy is dangerous and wrong. I ask that the Minister makes it explicitly clear that the preservation and maintenance of our manmade landscape is a priority for this Government and will be supported through this Bill. This is very important to those of us who live and farm at or near sea level—and sea level that is protected by heritage features.
This damaging misunderstanding is particularly pronounced in the current fashion for rewilding, and the condemnation of any and all human intervention in nature. Having created this green and pleasant land, we must not abdicate our responsibility for it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for tabling these important amendments. Cultural and historical landmarks and environments bring recognised value to our environment. As such, this debate has raised important concerns about their omission from the Environment Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, after our debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, assured your Lordships that the historical environment will be considered when the Government prepare their environment improvement plans for the natural environment.
The Minister also referred, as have many noble Lords here today, to the 25-year environment plan, which, as we know, is to be adopted as the first statutory environmental improvement plan. It has a commitment to safeguarding and enhancing the beauty of our natural scenery, and improving its environmental value, while being sensitive to considerations of its heritage. However, because this Bill explicitly excludes the historic environment from the provisions of Part 1—as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said—this potentially excludes it from future versions of the EIPs. The 25-year plan also recognises the importance of the environment for people. This is something else that is not explicitly carried forward into the Bill. It is all very well for the Minister to talk about what is in the 25-year plan, but that is not the same as actively improving the quality and conservation of these environments, and increasing people’s opportunity to appreciate and enjoy them, by putting them inthe Environment Bill.
Many noble Lords have talked about the need to ensure that the goals in the 25-year plan will be taken forward into future versions. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, among others, talked of the disconnect between this Bill and the 25-year plan. We have also heard many noble Lords eloquently describe how the natural and historic are tied together, their importance to our society and that what impacts one aspect may well have an effect on another. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, spoke passionately about parish churches; the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about the importance of our archaeological sites; and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned the particular concerns of Historic England. I am sure we are all aware that the National Trust has also expressed its deep concerns.
We have also heard much in recent months and weeks, highlighted by the Covid-19 pandemic, of the importance of us getting outside into nature. However, the Bill fails to afford equal priority of access to and enjoyment of the natural environment. Again, this is another disconnect between the Bill and the Government’s ambitions in their 25-year environment plan, which included a policy aim to ensure that the natural environment could be used by everyone. Amendment 17 brings people’s enjoyment of the natural environment into the EIPs.
This Bill needs to be brought into line, I believe, with the 25-year plan and the plan needs to be brought in line with legislation, so that when the Bill gets Royal Assent, these provisions are part of what we will take into the future. As published, the Bill fails to commit the Government to act on this. As we emerge from the worst of the pandemic, during which the importance of getting outside and connecting with nature—and understanding our historic environment as part of that—it becomes very clear that this is something that society wants and needs. The Bill presents us with a rare opportunity to ensure that everyone can benefit from that.
Why are the Government so reluctant to explicitly include some of the really good and welcome provisions that are in the 25-year plan in the Bill? This would secure these ambitions for the future. It would continue to protect and improve our important landscapes and to encourage and facilitate equitable access for everyone to enjoy.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this interesting debate. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for tabling these amendments and for speaking with me earlier. I stress that this Government consider the protection of our heritage a crucial issue.
The threats posed to the setting of the Bevis Marks synagogue are matters to be considered through the planning system, but I emphasise that in taking relevant decisions the local planning authority should have regard to the heritage policies within the National Planning Policy Framework. Certainly, in the case of Stonehenge, the recent decision is going through redetermination by the Department for Transport, National Highways and other relevant partners to protect the outstanding universal value of Stonehenge as much as possible. The state of conservation report will be submitted to UNESCO by February 2022 for the World Heritage Committee’s consideration.
On our commitment to heritage, in response to the Covid pandemic, in just the last year this Government have established an unprecedented £2 billion Culture Recovery Fund to support hundreds of heritage organisations, demonstrating our ongoing commitment to this country’s heritage. Furthermore, Defra’s new planning and protected landscapes programme will provide additional investment, allowing farmers and land managers to deliver better outcomes. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, that this can include projects that provide opportunities for people to discover, enjoy and understand the landscape and its cultural heritage.
The new ELMS will allocate money for heritage as part of the list of public goods and will be focused on delivering against priority environmental outcomes. We are exploring our scheme offer with regard to heritage outcomes, as well as the potential for delivery on heritage through other available mechanisms. In the meantime, Defra’s countryside stewardship programme has proven very successful in delivering outcomes for heritage and the historic environment. Countryside stewardship is open to new applications until 2024, with agreements running throughout the agricultural transition period. I think my noble friend Lord Blencathra asked for a meeting with Historic England. I confirm that the Minister has agreed to that meeting.
I turn first to Amendment 15, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I emphasise that the primary purpose of the EIP is to improve significantly the natural environment. Amending the Bill to make express provision in relation to the historic environment risks eroding this important focus. However, I can reassure noble Lords that, where appropriate, the Government will consider the historic environment when preparing EIPs for the natural environment. Indeed, in the 25-year environment plan, the Government committed to:
“Safeguarding and enhancing the beauty of our natural scenery and improving its environmental value while being sensitive to considerations of its heritage”.
I turn to Amendments 16, 17 and 25. I reassure noble Lords that the Government’s annual reports will already include a description of the steps taken to implement the EIP, as well as an assessment of environmental improvement and progress towards Bill targets. The Government will also obtain data for the purpose of monitoring improvement to the natural environment in accordance with the EIP. These requirements are broad in scope, allowing the Government to consider all aspects of the EIP in their monitoring and reporting. This includes measures expressed as targets, goals or objectives, as well as any measures included to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. Therefore, we feel that these amendments are unnecessary. Likewise, the OEP’s monitoring functions allow it similar breadth, monitoring progress in improving the natural environment in accordance with the EIP.
Turning to Amendment 29, Clause 44 is a bespoke definition created to underpin the new environmental governance framework provided for in the Bill. Not only does this clause define the purpose and scope of EIPs, it also defines the scope of the OEP’s enforcement function. This amendment could therefore result in provisions concerning the protection of specific historic sites falling within the enforcement remit of the OEP. This is not and should not be the OEP’s role. In drafting this clause, the Government have taken into account that heritage stakeholders, including the Heritage Alliance, are not seeking this effect. The OEP’s remit should be focused on its principal objective: to contribute to environmental protection and the improvement of the natural environment. This amendment would only dilute the focus of the OEP and therefore weaken its effectiveness.
I must stress to all noble Lords, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Trenchard in particular, that the Government take heritage seriously. But the raison d’être for this particular Bill is the improvement of the natural environment, which is why its focus should always be the natural environment. However, while I will not be able to accept these amendments, I would like to confirm for the noble Lord that we are planning to engage with a wide range of stakeholders to inform the EIP review and refresh process through specially organised round tables and by bringing the subject to existing stakeholder forums throughout 2022. In addition, there will be various subject-specific consultations, such as the nature recovery Green Paper, which are likely to inform the EIP’s development.
I should touch on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. As he rightly said, and as was agreed in the meeting between him and the Minister—at which I understand my noble friend made a strong case—officials will, with Natural England, explore opportunities to develop further guidance for churches to help them mitigate problems caused by bats. I am sure these conversations will be ongoing. I confirm that we will consult heritage stakeholders as we develop the next EIP, and I look forward to their inputs in the design of the plan.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned the cultural sector in Afghanistan. Across government we are closely monitoring the situation and stand ready to provide whatever support we can to help protect the rich Afghan cultural heritage for future generations and those involved in the sector. We obviously urge all parties in Afghanistan to protect the cultural heritage of their country, including the museums and cultural institutions. I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response and thank all who took part in the debate. That was quite a detailed reply, with a number of assurances that the heritage sector will be consulted. I thank the noble Baroness for that because I know there is a degree of concern in the sector.
It was also good to hear that stewardship and ELMS will include heritage. I know that that has had a marked effect on preserving elements of the historic environment which could have been obliterated because of the lack of funding. There is a great deal in the reply, which I am sure people will scour over, but the noble Baroness has gone a long way to mitigate some of my concerns. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness
“Soil management strategy for EnglandSoil management strategy for England
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a soil management strategy for England.(2) The soil management strategy for England must set out Her Majesty’s Government’s objectives, priorities and policies for the sustainable management of soil in England during the period to which the strategy relates.(3) That period must not be shorter than 10 years.(4) The soil management strategy for England must include—(a) a commitment to the long-term monitoring of soil quality and health,(b) a definitive open access map identifying the different soil types,(c) plans for the integration of soil management with environmental objectives such as climate mitigation, flood risk minimization and water quality measures and policies relating to food production, and(d) targets for achieving the sustainable management of soil on Grade 1 and Grade 2 agricultural land (and other soils where necessary).(5) The Secretary of State must publish—(a) an annual statement on progress against the soil management strategy for England, and(b) after a period of three years beginning on the day this Act is passed, a review of the effectiveness of the soil management strategy for England including any necessary revisions of the strategy.(6) Before the end of the period to which the soil management strategy for England relates, the Secretary of State must prepare a new strategy for a new period that must not be shorter than 10 years.”
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 18. Some of your Lordships will remember a BBC radio comedy series called “Beyond Our Ken” in which there was a gardener, Arthur Fallowfield, played by the late Kenneth Williams. His stock reply to any question was, “The answer lies in the soil”. Arthur Fallowfield was more right than he could possibly have imagined, because the answer to many of our problems lies in the soil, as we discussed in Committee and on the first day of Report when we discussed the amendment on soil of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. That is why I have tabled Amendment 18, which asks the Government to prepare a
“soil management strategy for England”.
I am extremely grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. That is cross-party support, and it is clear that such a strategy is needed.
I will be brief, as I said I would be on Monday, because I said most things then, but may I reiterate a couple of points? Why are there strategies for water and air when there is not a strategy for soil? My noble friend the Minister will be aware that in 2020 a survey showed that 16% of our arable soils were being lost through erosion at such a high rate that they are likely to become unproductive. Some 25% of biodiversity lives in the soil. My noble friend the Minister has stated on many occasions that he wants Britain to be a world leader. I give him the opportunity now with soil. By including this amendment in the Bill, we will become a world leader and we will be able to point to it when we come to COP.
My final point, as an ex-Treasury Minister, is on cost. It will not cost the Government anything to prepare a soil strategy. If it is prepared and implemented, it will actually save the Government money. It will improve our environment and farming, which will benefit us all.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in this amendment. If anything needs a strategy, it is the soil. As was talked about on Monday night, the air, the water and the soil are the three pillars on which we exist, and I would say that the soil is the most important. It is a magical world that we know very little about. People can name the planets, but they cannot name a single thing that lives in the soil. Indeed, it is a whole complex world that lives on a different timescale and on a different planet, as it were, from us because it is all so tiny, but that does not make it any less complicated. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, 25% of our biodiversity lives in the soil.
As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, pointed out, soil is already degraded, and the five a day we have to eat is now probably four, because we have so weakened this magical substance. We also give it a very bad press. We talk about the dirt beneath our feet; every single laundry advert has someone coming back muddy, as though this is something that we do not like. We treat our soil—this extraordinary world—in the most amazing way, because twice a year, a plough goes through, which, if you can imagine it, is literally like your town, your house and your landscape being bombed to pieces. Despite that, our soil struggles on.
As I pointed out the other day about rivets in planes and when biodiversity starts to turn in the wrong direction, our soils are depleting. Various figures have been given, but most people in this House were nodding when it was said we have maybe 50 harvests left. That may be an exaggeration, but we cannot live on chemicals any more. The soil is also our most valuable means of storing carbon if we treat it right.
Soil is there to help us, to enable us to live on this planet and thrive. It seems to me that this needs a strategy. This is where government should come in. There are lots of people out there campaigning about water and clean air. The soil gets a seriously poor look-in, and if the Government are there to protect the most precious elements of our life, we need a soil strategy.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment. I will not go over the ground again. The noble Earl and the noble Baroness have made the case strongly, and it was made strongly on Monday. But I would say one thing to the Minister: on Monday, he was reluctant to accept the amendment that made a priority of soil management, which, as the noble Baroness has just said, has historically not been given attention. The neglect of that dimension of agricultural land use and environmental policy is one of the most dangerous things confronting humanity.
Soil is essential for our food, our biodiversity, our ecosystems and our very survival. Therefore, even if the Minister and his colleagues decide that the priority we voted on in this House on Monday is not to their liking, and they want to delete it or alter it, whatever they do at that level in this Bill, operationally they need a strategy of the kind that is laid out in the noble Earl’s amendment. No amount of arguing about priorities will change the fact that it is absolutely clear that soil must be one of our priorities, and we need a plan as laid out in this amendment to operationalise that priority. I do hope that, whatever the circumstances, the Minister will accept this amendment.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Cawood Scientific, which provides analysis of soil and other agricultural products. I apologise that I was unable to be present on Monday, but I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for quoting me in her speech. Let me, without duplication, endorse what has been said already and perhaps expand on my comments repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on Monday.
The Republic of Ireland has decided to carry out an extensive survey of its soil. It is spending €10 billion this year and is expected to spend a similar amount over the next three years to have a comprehensive understanding of the quality of the soil throughout the entire Irish Republic. Northern Ireland is considering a similar approach, so the whole island of Ireland will have, I hope, a soil-mapping exercise that will provide it with all the data it needs to make informed decisions to improve the quality of its soil.
I attended the Rothamsted Research centre a few years ago and met the soil scientists. The thing that stuck in my mind was when a scientist said, “Once soil is completely degraded, it is impossible to recreate soil.” I thought that was a tribute to what was concluded with perfection in the Garden of Eden. Once we have degraded our soil completely, we have lost it for ever. So, why would we in England not wish to take a leading global position and understand the quality of our soil and have a strategy to address that quality? We need to do this. We have a vehicle to do it through the ELMS, when testing soil will be part of the encouragement that farmers will be given. It would be a simple matter to extend the responsibility in terms of quantifying and qualifying what soil testing actually means and to establish a standard nationally that would give us the same data and information that the Republic of Ireland will have. Why would we not do that?
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
If noble Lords have noticed my silence at earlier stages of the Environment Bill, it is because my noble friend Lady Jones has been very ably joined on the Front Bench by my noble friends Lady Hayman and Lord Khan. It is now a much better team, and I congratulate them. But I too had noticed the omission of soil and improvement targets. I declare my interest as a working farmer and wholeheartedly support Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Her points were very well made on Monday night, and I am glad the House agreed.
The Soil Association was aptly named by Lady Eve Balfour following the Dust Bowl events in America in the 1930s. Amendment 18 complements Amendment 2 in proposing a soil management strategy in rolling 10-year cycles. This is very important, and soil is, to some extent, recognised within Defra, in that farmers need to comply with regulations concerning NVZs—nitrate vulnerable zones—concerning the application of manures, fertilisers and water run-off.
The importance of soil is also recognised by and included in the advice to government by the Climate Change Committee, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for his powerful words in drawing attention to this. Not enough attention is paid by Defra, as soil compaction is becoming ever more problematic, as farmers’ machinery becomes bigger and more powerful to cover the necessary acreage needed to remain profitable while catching favourable weather conditions.
I thank Professor Karl Ritz of Nottingham University, introduced to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for sending me his paper, “The Groundswell 5 Principles and Soil Sense”, which wisely recognises:
“Regenerative agriculture wisely puts soil health at the heart of its concepts and practices.”
It underlines the five principles as: diversity; protect soil surface; maintain living roots; minimise soil disturbance; and, finally, livestock integration.
This allows me to ask the noble Earl why, under proposed new subsection (4)(d) in his amendment, he highlights only
“the sustainable management of soil on Grade 1 and Grade 2 agricultural land”.
while putting in brackets “other soils where necessary.” The noble Earl will know that much of the livestock grazing on the west side of Britain is categorised as grade 3, where soil structure and stockholding capacity are also important as primary business assets, providing nutritious food to the nation. All soils should be included, as they support all terrestrial habitats, store and filter water, sequestrate carbon and nutrients, and even inform us of the past.
Peatlands and uplands are also vital and part of Defra’s strategy for flood management. The Climate Change Committee recommends the full restoration of peatlands by 2045. Could the Minister write to your Lordships, as time is short, updating the House on the department’s peatland strategy and say when the banning of horticultural peat is scheduled to take place and whether this could be brought forward? There may also be drafting issues with this amendment that the Minister may take exception to.
I stress that soil management must be included as an element under ELMS, the new support payment system for agriculture. Will the Minister also undertake to write to me with the latest information on trials being conducted on the introduction of the ELMS, which are still needed by agriculture to balance the progressive withdrawal of area-based payments, pointing out where soil management will be undertaken within the new ELMS?
Nature does not like a bare soil and tries to cover up as soon as possible. Will the Minister commit to covering this important element of our environment under targets supplementing others in this Bill?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who has contributed so much on these issues to the House over many years. I want chiefly to reiterate a point that I made on Monday, when your Lordships’ House backed Amendment 2. There is no conflict between that amendment and this one, so ably introduced by the noble Earl and supported by all other speakers in this debate today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, pointed out that the 25-year environment plan mentions soil quality 19 times. In that debate on Monday, the Minister talked about how the sustainable farming initiative scheme includes practices such as the introduction of herbal leys, the use of grass-legume mixtures, cover crops and so on—as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, just referred to. The Minister talked also about how complicated it was to measure soil health but said that the Government were doing that work. So we have these suggestions here, there and everywhere, but what this amendment would do—I hope that we might hear some good news from the Minister when he stands up shortly—is join this all up. Joined-up government is one of those favourite phrases we hear very often. It is clear that your Lordships’ House believes, and it is clear from the science, that soils absolutely are the foundation. As the noble Earl said, we have a water strategy and an air strategy; we have to have a soil strategy, just as we have to make soils a priority. This is joined-up government; this is sensible, practical work to make sure that the Government are working towards one goal, which has to be healthy, high-quality soils.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, on Monday, we debated adding soil health and quality to Clause 1. Many noble Lords from all sides of the House spoke knowledgeably and passionately about the need to monitor and improve the quality of our soil. The noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, gave an excellent summary of the attacks from all sides on our soil. In response, the Minister said that it was difficult to measure soil quality and indicated that the Government were working towards targets that could be measured with reliable metrics. He felt the amendment would pre-empt that work. However, the House did not agree with him.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is also passionate about the quality of soil and has spoken extremely eloquently to his Amendment 18. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, have also spoken in favour and added their names to the amendment. If we are fully to appreciate the role of soil, its condition and how we as a nation might best help to improve its quality, we will need a soil management strategy for England. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, although not in his place today, on Monday recommended this amendment to the House.
As noble Lords have previously said, there are many different types of soil. They contain billions of essential bacteria, but over the years, by the continued spraying of chemicals to control insect pests, prevent weed growth and promote the growth of crops, we have denuded the soil of its quality. Whether the soil is of grade A agricultural value, peat bogs, clay, sandy or containing lime, it is all suffering. The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, has given an excellent example of the strategy adopted in Ireland. It is time that we followed that example.
I fully support the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his desire to introduce a soil strategy into the Bill. The timeline set out in his amendment, of a 10-year strategy to be reviewed and renewed for another 10 years after that, is right. It would give adequate time for a proper action plan to be implemented for the different types of soil and the uses to which they are put. It would give time for the soil to recover and to be adequately measured, and for the Government, landowners and farmers to see whether their actions had been successful.
Given that everyone across the House fully supports the amendment, I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it, despite what his briefing notes might say.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Grantchester for his kind comments and for all his excellent advice and support on this issue.
This has been a very interesting short debate. I want to thank in particular the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for speaking so passionately on soil health and management and for furthering the issue. From reading his contributions on this Bill and previously on the Agriculture Bill, it is evident that he cares deeply about this issue.
According to the Sustainable Soils Alliance, poor soil management releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which contribute 21% of total UK agricultural emissions. In contrast, healthy soils sequester carbon rather than releasing it, while also increasing resilience to floods and droughts.
We hope that the Minister will have taken note of the earlier amendment on soil health and will use it as an opportunity to bring forward a wider soil management strategy. The Government need to note the strength of feeling in the House and give this important issue its due attention, rather than leave it as an afterthought, which seems to be their current strategy.
What does the Minister plan to do to reverse the currently fragmented approach to soil policy? I know it has been said that the answer lies in the soil, but on this serious issue of a soil strategy, the answer lies with the Minister. I look forward to his response and the joined-up approach, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate regarding Amendment 18, tabled by my noble friend Lord Caithness. I thank him for his correspondence on this issue over the summer, for the discussions we have had and for his passionate speech earlier. I assure him that we of course remain committed to sustainably managed soils by 2030, as laid out in the 25-year environment plan and the action we are taking to get there. I will not repeat the case for soils, because we touched on that on Monday but also because we have heard some compelling speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, my noble friend Lord Caithness in introducing the amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, who made the critical point about the carbon values of soils.
I want to start by emphasising the actions I outlined in our debate on Monday which the Government are undertaking to improve soil health. We will produce a baseline assessment of soil health, which could inform a potential future long-term soils target. We are currently identifying soil health metrics to complement a future soil health monitoring scheme. The Path to Sustainable Farming: An Agricultural Transition Plan 2021 to 2024 sets out examples of the types of actions that we envisage paying for under the schemes, including soil management, such as the use of cover crops. I described in Monday’s debate the England Peat Action Plan, which we published in May. This sets out the Government’s long-term vision for the management, protection and restoration of our peatlands, which are crucial carbon stores, as well as—to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester—our commitment to end the use of peat in amateur horticulture by the end of this Parliament.
However, I would like to add to my remarks from Monday. The Government recognise both the strength of feeling expressed by many noble Peers from across the House and the critical importance of this issue. Soils matter of course in and of themselves, but they underpin, quite literally, the improvements that we will have to see right across the environment, as well as being critical for agriculture and, by extension, food security.
I am therefore pleased to announce that the Government will publish a soil health action plan for England. The plan will be a key plank in our efforts to halt the decline of species by 2030, as well as meeting our long-term legally binding targets on biodiversity. As we have heard from a number of noble Lords in this debate and in the debate on Monday, our soils are in a perilous position. The action plan will be crucial in driving progress across government to restore the health of our soils. We will set out further details of what the plan will contain by the end of this year.
I repeat my thanks to my noble friend Lord Caithness for having applied the pressure on this issue in the way that he did. To quote the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, campaigning works from time to time. I hope that this new announcement and my comments in our earlier debate reassure my noble friend and others in the House. I beg him to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and given me support. It is always nice to have unanimous support when one moves an amendment, and on a subject such as soil it is also good to have at least three farmers supporting one. As the Minister said, the case for this amendment is very sound.
I need to answer the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. The reason I included only grades 1 and 2 is that those are the two soils most likely to be ploughed. The noble Lord is absolutely right to say that grassland is equally important, but there is less erosion on grassland, particularly pasture grassland. Given the amount that Defra has to do, if it starts with grades 1 and 2, it can go on to grades 3 and 4 afterwards. However, I take the noble Lord’s point.
What the noble Lord said has been overridden by the Minister, and I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his commitment to introduce a soil action plan by the end of the year. I noted with care what my noble friend Lord Deben, my fellow ex-Minister, said on Amendment 11. He said that if it was not in the Act it would not get done. I am going to back my Minister and not my noble friend Lord Deben; I shall trust my Minister to introduce the soil action plan by the end of the year. I am sorry that it is not in the Bill, because being able to wave that bit of paper at COP 26 would be good. However, if he could write a letter confirming what he has done, or at least wave Hansard in front of people at COP 26, we might get a little bit more. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench and to all noble Lords, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(f) the principle that policies and decisions should take into account the interests of members of future generations.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, to move Amendment 19. He wishes me to send his sincere apologies that he is unable to be here today. I shall do my best to be a substitute, although I am not quite sure that my acting skills are up to it—but I shall do my best.
The amendment is very simple; it would add an extra principle to the list of principles to be considered, stating that
“policies and decisions should take into account the interests of members of future generations”.
The fact is that we know that the climate emergency and nature crisis are already here, but even more severe impacts are waiting in the wings for future generations. We are seeing floods and forest fires, and these impacts will grow in coming decades. Future generations are desperate for us to do something now so that they get a chance of a decent life.
In this Chamber we have all benefited from the vision, bravery and foresight of past generations, whether that is a parent or grandparent who fought in a number of 20th-century wars or those who founded the NHS or decriminalised homosexuality. Indeed, noble Lords may remember the noble Lord, Lord Bird, speaking very powerfully on his Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill at greater length on those issues. We are in a unique position now to change the course of history for our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and those not yet born, to make their lives better and safer and more secure, stable and prosperous. This amendment sets that out as a principle of government action. We need to acknowledge that responsibility and to listen to the young people who are saying, “What are you doing to our future now?”
We must have a commitment to long-term thinking and interrogating the consequences of our policy decisions—to look for better solutions to today’s problems that will leave the future better off. We all know—many Members of your Lordships’ House who have been former members of Governments within these walls have recognised—that decisions in the past have had unintended consequences. We have to start trying to solve the problems that we have created.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I support the sentiments and the important issues that it raises and thank her for her remarks and her support for my Amendment 20.
The point of Amendment 20 is to help the Government’s policy statement on the environmental principles to put environmental protection at the heart of government decision-making. Currently, the principles ask departmental Ministers to consider the least environmentally damaging option when they are looking at a range of policy options. However, not all Ministers are obliged to take that policy statement into account. The MoD and the Treasury are exempted because defence and tax and spending have a disapplication from the existing statement on environmental principles.
I thank the Minister and his colleagues for meeting me over this summer to discuss this matter, but I am disappointed that we have not made as much progress as I thought we might, and I reserve my right to test the opinion of the House on this matter. As the noble Baroness said, the Minister said in Committee that the reason for this exemption was that it could restrict our response to urgent threats. I accept entirely that the MoD will have urgent threats which it needs to respond to, and I would support the Government coming forward with a targeted disapplication to enable that to happen. However, this is not a targeted disapplication; it is a blanket disapplication for the MoD. The MoD has a third of all the UK’s SSSIs—our most special land for habitats and for environmental protection. In addition, there are all the tenanted farmers, the ancient woodlands and all the land that could deliver so much in terms of natural resource protection on the 2% of the UK land mass which is the military estate in the UK.
There are plenty of examples in pockets of the MoD where it shows that it can marry together environmental protection and the protection of the state. However, unless we change this clause as it stands, I fear that the description in the National Audit Office review in 2020 of environmental protection in the MoD as a Cinderella service will not change. Equally, since then, in March of this year, the Minister Jeremy Quin MP and others launched the MoD’s new climate change and sustainability approach. It says:
“The response to climate change and sustainability in Defence must be led from the top and applied across all areas and at all levels.”
Without this amendment, that cannot be delivered.
As regards the exemption for the Treasury and for tax and spending policy, given the importance of tax policies and departmental budgets to deliver environmental targets when we are looking at managing the land for protecting the environment, it is almost unbelievable that there is that exemption. It means that Ministers will not have to consider environmental matters when they are looking at spending issues such as roads. As the noble Baroness said, the Minister’s response was that the exemption was to allow maximum flexibility. In the Government’s response to the Dasgupta review, which was produced earlier and to which the Government have signed up, they accepted that nature was a macro- economic consideration and supported setting out steps to align national expenditure with climate and environmental goals. Without this amendment, that cannot be delivered.
It is not just me saying that; since we last met in Committee, the office for environmental protection has given its first advice—at the request of the Government—on the draft environmental principles policy statement. I will quote from the chief executive offer of the OEP, which we will come on to in the next group of amendments. Natalie Prosser said that
“there are such important benefits to be reaped should policy-making across all departments embrace and live by these principles.”
That is all departments—not some departments. It would be a very worrying sign if the Government were to refuse that first piece of advice from the OEP.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and I have put my name to Amendment 20. I will be very brief, because I had a real moment of joy and optimism this morning when I read the latest Defra briefing notes, called Key Facts on the Environmental Principles. I will read out two sentences from this factsheet, which lead me to believe—if these really are facts, as it says —that the Government have changed their mind. First, “Ministers across government”—I emphasise that—“will be legally obliged to consider the principles in all policy development where it impacts the environment”. Secondly, “All government departments” —I emphasise that—“must consider the environmental principles policy statement when developing policy”.
I assume that unless the key facts are not key facts, the Government have indeed accepted Amendment 20, and I very much look forward to the Minister confirming that in his response.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendments 19 and 20, and passionately so.
Many members of your Lordships’ House have spoken of the urgency of the crisis before us; just yesterday, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, Pope Francis and the Ecumenical Patriarch issued a powerful joint statement. They appealed to those with “far-reaching responsibilities”—including ourselves—to
“make short-term sacrifices to safeguard all our futures; become leaders in the transition to just and sustainable economies.”
There can be no exceptions.
Last week I was privileged to take part in an interdisciplinary gathering in Milton Keynes, which is part of my diocese of Oxford, which brought together, through the agency of Citizens UK, a range of contributors on the climate crisis. The first speech of about 12 during the evening was the most memorable. It was from a 19 year-old woman who described how, when she was 16, she first encountered the news of the climate crisis. She was told—mistakenly, of course—that nothing could now be done, so serious was it, and that the world would end in 10 years. The impact of this news was absolutely devastating to her mental health. She has moved on and is now active in climate campaigning, but her speech was a real eye-opener to the importance of engaging with future generations and those who are now young on this issue and all those with power and responsibility, indicating that they are part of our considerations.
With regard to Amendment 20, the Bill and the climate crisis need to be taken with equal seriousness across the whole of government. The submissions already made to your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Environment and Climate Change, of which I am privileged to be a member, indicate a catastrophic variation in the place these issues have on the agendas of major departments of state. These exceptions signal that this can be tolerated when the opposite is the case. Every part of national and local government, every church and charity, company, institution and household need to play their part, and that includes the MoD and the Treasury. As has been said, we need a fresh pair of economic spectacles.
Another contribution in the Milton Keynes seminar last week was a fine presentation from those planning the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, of which MK is in the centre. The environmental leaders in that venture are attempting to apply Kate Raworth’s doughnut economics as the foundation for the life of the arc and are viewing everything through that lens. Taxation is a key lever for government to drive environmental improvement, and I urge the Government to accept this amendment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak primarily to Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. However, having interacted with the Minister on a number of occasions during my short time in the House, I feel that he will naturally address Amendment 19 on ensuring that environmental policies consider the interests of future generations. In fact, I am looking forward to seeing him on a speaking tour around schools, colleges and universities to promote this landmark Bill—with all the amendments accepted, of course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has consistently been profoundly clear, eloquent and razor-sharp on the issue of environmental principles in this Bill. Across the House, there is a strength of feeling that we have not made much progress on this matter. We cannot allow the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury to be excused from the need to take responsibility for what happens on our planet—it just sends out the wrong message.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. I know there is significant interest in this House in the environmental principles. Regarding Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in a typically compelling and powerful speech, the contents of which I fully agreed with, I reassure noble Lords that the concept set out in the amendment is already covered by the duty on the Secretary of State, and I shall explain why. Currently, the Bill states that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the environmental principles policy statement will contribute to the improvement of environmental protection and to sustainable development. I want to clarify for noble Lords that this legal reference to “sustainable development” encompasses and includes the importance of meeting the needs of future generations. That is what it means.
As I explained in Committee, these are internationally recognised principles and consistent with those agreed through the EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement. This amendment is therefore unnecessary, as the existing principles are fundamentally about passing the natural environment on in a better state to the next generation. However, adding it would nevertheless require government departments to consider an additional principle that overlaps with the existing objective but is not as commonly understood. The fear is that that would cause confusion, resulting in poor policy outcomes. I hope I have adequately addressed the issue raised by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it in his name.
I turn now to Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. First, I thank her for our discussions in the run up to Report. I understand the motivation behind the amendment, but the Government’s view remains that exempting some limited areas from the duty to have due regard provides vital flexibility in relation to finances, defence, and national security. I will take each of those exemptions in turn. Starting with the exemption on taxation, I understand the interest in removing this exemption, but Treasury Ministers want flexibility to alter the UK’s fiscal position and respond to the changing needs of, for example, the NHS, schools, the police and any number of other vital public services. Applying the environmental principles duty to taxation would be a constraint in cases where speed is required in altering the UK’s fiscal position, with limited environmental benefit. Nevertheless, the Government are committed to encouraging positive environmental outcomes through the tax system. An example of that in the Bill is our commitment to a new plastic packaging tax to encourage greater use of recycled plastic, which is estimated to achieve around a 40% increase in recycled plastic being used in 2022-23. The Treasury’s Green Book already mandates the consideration of natural capital, climate change and environmental impacts in spending. This applies to spending bids from departments, including at fiscal events.
Furthermore, the Government’s response to the Dasgupta review commits to delivering a “nature positive” future, ensuring that economic and financial decision-making, and the systems and institutions that underpin it, support the delivery of that future. I emphasise that the spending and allocation of resources exemption refers to central spending decisions only. In other words, once funds are distributed by the Treasury to other government departments, the principles will apply to how those funds are spent by departments. To be clear, even if we accepted this amendment, principles such as “the polluter pays” could not be applied to, for example, the allocation of overall departmental budgets. This is because allocating money between departments sits outside policy-making. In other words, this amendment would have no material impact in respect of the allocation of resources within government. To reiterate, however, the policy statement must still be considered at the level of individual policies that require spending, such as the design of new transport programmes or environmental subsidy schemes. This is where they can deliver real benefits.
Looking at the Armed Forces, defence and national security exemptions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, noted, they are also excluded from the duty. That is to provide maximum flexibility in respect of the nation’s protection and security. However, I shall address some of the concerns raised in Committee about the management of defence land. The primary function of the defence estate is to support our operations and maintain military capability. It provides homes for those who defend our country, offices for work, space for training, and conditions to prepare to meet the ever-changing threats that the UK faces. Defence land cannot be practically separated out: it is part of the MoD and touches on decisions across the Armed Forces, national security and defence.
The MoD’s concern is that if we were to impose a consideration of environmental principles on defence policies, or on MoD land, it could result in legal challenges which could slow critical policies or expose sensitive decisions to the public domain, threatening national security. However, the MoD already has statutory duties to protect the environment and the enormous amount of land that the MoD owns, and these are not altered by this exemption. The MoD is subject to all the environmental legislation that other landowners are required to adhere to: the habitats directive, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act and others.
Under Clauses 98 and 99, the MoD will be subject to two strengthened duties: to take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity and then to report on the action it has taken. The MOD already reports publicly and regularly on its contribution to improving the environment and SSSI conditions, and showcases its conservation initiatives through the sanctuary awards. The MoD will fully comply with new reporting requirements in the Bill by building on its existing approach. Its SSSIs are managed through a partnership with Natural England, which jointly implements integrated rural management plans to improve and maintain them. The percentage of MoD SSSIs in a favourable condition in England is higher than the national average.
I recently met Minister Quin, who has responsibility for this area. Although I am not able to secure the amendment for this House, I am assured that the MoD takes its responsibilities to the environment seriously. I am confident in the wider arrangements in place to support environmental improvement. I hope, therefore, I have gone some way, at least, to reassure noble Lords and I beg them not to press their amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short but very powerful debate and the Minister for his response. I particularly wish to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for reminding us so powerfully of how human health and planet health are interrelated and how the sickness of our planet has real impacts on people’s well-being, particularly that of young people. It is certainly part of the epidemic of mental ill health, from which our society and the whole world are suffering. I also thank the right reverend Prelate for mentioning one of my favourite books, Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics. I commend it yet again, as I am sure I have before.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her support for Amendment 19 and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, for his suggestion to the Minister. Indeed, I would extend that suggestion to all Members of your Lordships’ House. I take part regularly in Learn with the Lords, a chance to go out, through the mechanisms of your Lordships’ House, to speak to young people. It is a great opportunity, and it would be wonderful if more people took that up, particularly to speak about environmental issues.
I want to make one comment on the Minister’s response to Amendment 19. He suggested that “sustainable development” within the principles covers this. When we think about our current planning law and the way in which the term “sustainable development” is used in that and proposals for changes to our planning law, there is cause for grave concern about suggesting what sustainable development in our current legal framework might or might not achieve.
None the less, we have a lot to do and much pressure on our time. However, before I finish, I want to commend to your Lordships’ House the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, has—one might call it fate—the number one slot in the ballot for Private Members’ Bills. The greater expanse of his Wellbeing of Future Generations Bill covers the issues that this amendment sought to address. I commend that Bill, engagement with it and support for it to all Members of your Lordships’ House. In the meantime, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 19.
Baroness Parminter
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the exceptions for armed forces, defence policy, tax, spending and resources from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have supported my amendment, and the Minister for his response. His comments on the Treasury reiterated the point about flexibility. This Government have got to decide either that nature is a macroeconomic consideration that they want to take seriously, or that it is not.
Secondly, regarding his comments about the MoD, when again, he reiterated the points about flexibility, we had no answer to the question asked in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The MoD is obliged to take the requirements of the Climate Change Act into consideration; it should have to do the same for this Bill. It is not right that the Government are not prepared to do this. The noble Lord, Lord Khan, summed this up well when he said that by not taking forward this amendment, the Government are sending out all the wrong signals to businesses and the public. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Goldsmith’s next amendment to Clause 25.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am pleased to open this group and speak to the amendments I have tabled, which respond to many of the concerns raised by noble Lords in Committee regarding the independence of the OEP. I also notify noble Lords that I outlined in a Written Ministerial Statement yesterday the full range of provisions already in place to ensure the OEP’s independence. I hope that it is a useful reference point for noble Lords and that it offers reassurance on the Government’s commitment to the independence of the OEP.
These amendments will increase parliamentary scrutiny of any guidance that the Secretary of State wishes to issue under Clause 25. They will afford Members in both Houses the opportunity to review and make recommendations regarding the draft guidance, to which the Secretary of State must respond before final guidance can be laid and have effect. This will provide additional parliamentary oversight, not only of any guidance issued by the Government but any issued by future Governments.
For parity, Northern Ireland Ministers have decided also to bring forward amendments to Schedule 3 to give the Northern Ireland Assembly the same opportunity to scrutinise any draft guidance issued relating to the OEP’s Northern Ireland enforcement functions.
As I have said before, the OEP has an unprecedented remit, with the ability to take enforcement action against all public authorities. It is for this reason that the Government feel that a guidance power is necessary to help ensure that the OEP continues to carry out its functions as intended. However, I understand the concern about the use of this power and hope that these amendments go some way to reassuring noble Lords that there will be an additional check on its use.
There is no question that the OEP must be impartial and independent but it should also be accountable to Ministers who are ultimately responsible for its use of public money. Any guidance issued must respect this important balance and I hope that this additional mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny will allay these concerns.
Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the other members of the Constitution Committee for their recommendations on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 24 in this group is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
In Committee, there was strong support from across the House for my amendment that would have removed the guidance clause from the Bill in order to ensure that the OEP was fully independent. In fact, I do not recall anyone making a coherent case for greater ministerial control over the OEP. I acknowledge and thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for their time in discussing this matter since Committee. I also thank the Secretary of State for his letter to my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich and myself, dated 28 August.
I also acknowledge that the Government have made concessions in their own amendment to Clause 25 and that, furthermore, the importance of the independence of the OEP was reiterated by Minister Pow yesterday in a Written Statement and also by the noble Lord the Minister with the same Written Statement.
So why am I still pressing ahead with my amendment to replace Clause 25? It is simply this: if we must get one thing right in this Bill, it is the office for environmental protection. The OEP is the body that will ensure that the Government’s warm words about the environment are translated into action. The Minister himself could not have been clearer on Monday. When I asked who will hold the Government to account on the target of halting species decline, he replied that it was the office for environmental protection. Even with the government amendment to Clause 25, the OEP is not, in my view, sufficiently independent of Ministers for us to be confident that it will be able to do what is has been set up to do.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for introducing—or reintroducing—a similar amendment to one that a number of us supported in Committee. I also acknowledge that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith has indeed come forward with improvements in the form of Amendments 22 and 23. However, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, through the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has indicated, a number of us have serious issues about the financing and resources available to the OEP, and I am not sure that those have been entirely addressed at this stage.
I am very disappointed to see, in the government amendments that have been tabled, that the Government are intending to keep Clause 25 relating to the guidance. It is extremely important that, if we are going to have a new body with the essential responsibilities such as we are allocating to the OEP, it must be seen to be independent of government because its remit is, among other things, to hold the Government’s feet to the fire to ensure that they are implementing those parts of this Bill, the Agriculture Act and other Acts that have implications here.
When my noble friend sums up this little debate on this group of amendments, I hope that he will address how his Amendments 22 and 23 address my concern that the Government are seeking to micromanage the OEP. I am particularly attracted to proposed new subsection (4) in Amendment 24:
“In making or terminating appointments … the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Environmental Audit Committees of the House of Commons.”
As a former chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I obviously believe that these committees have a special role to play—and they have played that role extremely well, if I may say so, over the years. They are independent by nature and have had, historically, the duty to approve such appointments for Natural England and a whole host of other bodies to which the Government make appointments.
In addition to the concerns about the financing, the resources and the general independence of the OEP, in the terms so eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, we are asking this body to undertake a role of the level of importance as that attributed to the European Commission in implementing environmental policy, the whole raft of which is before us in the other parts of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will take this opportunity to address my concerns. It cannot be the case that not only is the Secretary of State appointing the chairman of the OEP and the members of the board but is micromanaging in the form of the guidance set out in the current Clause 25. I am minded to support the contents of Amendment 24 and subsequent amendments that we will come on to. I hope that my noble friend will address these very real concerns that I and others have.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 30 in this group, which is similar in intent to Amendment 24 from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering; I well recall her efforts on the EFRA Select Committee in the other place, as I was a member of it, in holding the Government to account on a wide range of environmental and agricultural matters.
My amendment also relates to the vital matter of the OEP’s independence. Its scope addresses how this needs to be strengthened in Northern Ireland where, subject to the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly, we all hope that the body will operate and flourish. My cross-party amendment, also signed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Suttie, would provide the OEP with the necessary discretion to undertake its functions, including the enforcement function, in Northern Ireland. It would remove the power for DAERA Ministers to provide guidance to the OEP on its enforcement activity and strengthen the appointment process for the Northern Ireland member on the OEP’s board, requiring this appointment to be subject to the consent of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
These amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, set out very eloquently in speaking to Amendment 24, are necessary if the new environmental governance framework that this Bill will establish in England and Northern Ireland is to be robust and effective over the long term. I well recall explaining in Committee why the guidance power was inappropriate in principle, as this afternoon’s debate has powerfully reiterated. I also set out the different administrative and political context in Northern Ireland, which serves only to increase concern about such a widely cast power. To recap, my concerns related to the power-sharing nature of the Executive, how cross-cutting matters are dealt with and the potential for the power to be misused against specific parties or public authorities. I also explained my concern about the blurring of accountability that can result from the power, not least because front-line environmental regulation is currently carried out by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, which resides within and is ultimately accountable to DAERA and its Minister.
In addressing the strong concerns raised by noble Lords across the House, the Government’s response has been to propose some extra procedure around the guidance power. I know the Minister has outlined those issues this evening through his various government amendments and in correspondence to us over the Recess, but those amendments fail to grasp the seriousness of the matters we have been raising. The amendments will not protect the OEP from directive guidance issued by an overly zealous Minister, nor do they require that any concerns that the Assembly might express be heeded. They are not an appropriate response to the depth and breadth of concern that many noble Lords outlined this afternoon and in Committee.
I carefully read the letter the Minister addressed to us, announcing the Government’s amendments, during the Recess. My understanding is that the Government’s noble objective of ensuring accountability for the proper use of public money and effective functioning of public bodies is driving the rationale for their approach to the OEP. As someone who has been involved in local and regional politics in Northern Ireland since 1985, I recognise and respect this. However, there are other and, I suggest, better ways to achieve the Government’s objective. It is about establishing the OEP as a non-departmental public body; the tailored review process which all such bodies undergo is a far more effective vehicle to discuss and address any issues regarding their operational effectiveness.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said that he brought the amendment back because it was the most important one for this Bill and, quite honestly, I agree. There are lots of very important amendments but, if we are going to have one, this must be it. I absolutely take the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, on Northern Ireland, and support both amendments.
It is obvious to anybody looking in from outside that the office for environmental protection must do things such as hitting the share price of a water company whenever it dumps sewage into our rivers. We must have an independent OEP that commissions research into the impact of pesticides on our wildlife and insects and hands it over to MPs so that they can actually challenge Ministers and the lobbyists in Whitehall. We need an OEP that can say a straightforward no to damaging developments, whether it is infrastructure or development, urban or rural. It should not be suggesting mitigation and greenwash, which is what could happen with such a toothless watchdog. This country needs an OEP that is a rottweiler and not a lapdog.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I also support Amendment 24 and related amendments. Again, I quote the unprecedented statement made yesterday by the Archbishop, Pope Francis and the Ecumenical Patriarch:
“We stand before a harsh justice: biodiversity loss, environmental degradation and climate change are the inevitable consequences of our actions, since we have greedily consumed more of the earth’s resources than the planet can endure.”
For that reason, we cannot solve these complex problems through good intentions alone. Independent scrutiny is absolutely vital. Therefore, I support the maximum possible independence for the office for environmental protection. Action on climate change and biodiversity will be challenging politically for every Government over the next three decades. We will face many difficult decisions. It is essential to build in independent assessment and challenge for the medium and long term.
Over the last three years, I have had the privilege to be part of the board of the Government’s Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation—as it happens, alongside the new chair of the office for environmental protection, in whom I have every confidence in that major role. One of the major threads running through the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation’s work—which, I believe, has been excellent—has been a strong ambiguity about its independence from government in terms of budgets and the appointment of its chair and board. The questions were present at every meeting, whether spoken or unspoken, and consumed a significant amount of energy. Reading the political runes at any given moment was, on balance, a distraction from the CDEI’s vital task.
As has been said, the OEP needs to command national and international confidence for the objectivity of its advice and recommendations. I join many other voices in urging the Government to build in greater independence along the lines of these amendments.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I just want to intervene briefly to stress the importance of Amendment 24 and the associated amendment relating to Northern Ireland.
I recognise that the Minister himself and the Government’s own amendments in part reflect the concern about the independence of the OEP. I welcome in broad terms the letter I received from the Minister although I have to say that yesterday was probably not the best day to receive a letter whose first reassurance was that it was all going to be all right because it is in the Conservative Party manifesto.
However, these reassurances do not go anywhere near as far as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. If the Government do not accept these amendments, there is a much bigger story than one about appointments and guidance. In many ways, the Bill is a great Bill and I thoroughly support the bulk of it. However, if we do not accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, or if the Minister does not agree to bring forward something very like it at Third Reading, then the credibility of the Bill—all its 145 clauses and 25 schedules—is at stake. Ultimately the effectiveness of all the good parts of the Bill depends on us having an office for environmental protection that is objective and independent and a system of environmental regulation and enforcement that is itself effective and independent.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, post-Brexit we were promised a system of environmental regulation that would be at least as effective as the past EU regime when we had the Commission checking on the actions of member states and our public bodies. If the office for environmental protection—the body overseeing what is arguably the most important job of the Government: the long-term future of our environment —is not seen as independent, it will not be respected. It will be challenged and much of the good work that is behind this Bill stands to fail.
As I have said, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is not just about procedural niceties in making appointments. It is about the credibility and effectiveness of everything we are working on in the Bill and in this House. I beg the House to support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I share the view around the House that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, have made a compelling case for their amendments on a fundamental issue. It would be of enormous assistance if the Minister when he comes to reply would identify which part of Amendment 24 he objects to. Is it really the Government’s case that the OEP should not have
“complete discretion in the carrying out of its functions”?
Is that the Government’s case? I would be surprised and very disappointed if it were. If the Government accept that the OEP should have complete discretion, surely a matter of this importance should be in the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, no Minister likes an authority such as the OEP, because the Minister is undoubtedly convinced that his policy is absolutely right. However, when one stops being a Minister and looks back, one realises the importance of bodies such as the OEP.
I think my concern was summed up beautifully by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, when he said that this is the one thing we have to get right. We were promised a totally independent body, equivalent to that which operated when we were in the EU. I accept that the Government should not be fined for not doing the right thing, but the OEP not only is—but has to be seen to be—totally independent. The Bill as drafted at the moment does not cover that. I hope that my noble friend will not be intransigent and stand out against this amendment but will go back for one more go with the other people in the department and the Secretary of State, understanding the enormous support there is in this House for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. It would be so much better if the Government solved this problem rather than having a Division. My noble friend was very good to me on my amendment on soil and has made a promise; I hope that he will be able to do the same thing again.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for long because the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has made a compelling case for his amendment, to which I was very happy to add my name. I just want to add a reflection on the point which I think all of us feel very strongly about. There will sometimes be occasions when the OEP will have to take Ministers to task. There has to be not only a degree of separation between the OEP and the Government but also public confidence in that degree of separation.
I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that the public will see what is happening in Scotland, where the body they are setting up has no such curtailment of its powers. Indeed, Environmental Standards Scotland has the powers to take the steps it considers appropriate to secure public authorities’ compliance with environmental law. The public need to see that there is independence between the Executive and this body. If they look to Scotland and see what is happening, that is another reason to support the case that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has made so compellingly. Therefore, I support him and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. If they should be pushed to a vote, our Benches will support them.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendments 24 and 30, to which I have added my name. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, as ever, has set out persuasively why we think Amendment 24 is so important. As he said, a strong, effective and trusted OEP is essential to underpin all the other measures in the Bill. As the OEP will be scrutinising the Government’s compliance with environmental law, it is vital that those points of separation, as well as interface, are set out clearly from the start. We cannot afford to fudge the relationship, which, I am sorry to say, the government amendments attempt to do.
Our amendment would take out Clause 25, which allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the OEP, and replace it with one that sets out that the OEP has “complete discretion” in its enforcement policy, exercising its enforcement functions and preparing a budget. It would also make it clear that the non-executive appointments must be approved by the relevant parliamentary committees.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I begin with Amendment 24 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and will take each of the issues raised by his amendment in turn.
Clause 25 does not provide the Secretary of State with any power to direct the OEP or to intervene in decision-making about specific cases. Indeed, the Bill states that the Secretary of State must have regard to the OEP’s independence. In fact, more than that, the OEP is required by the Bill to act objectively and impartially. So, it is not a matter of micromanaging the OEP; indeed, that is not possible within the context of the Bill we have here today. The Government have confidence that the OEP will develop an effective and proportionate enforcement policy. However, as the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to Parliament for the OEP, this guidance power is an important safeguard for accountability and to help ensure that the OEP continues to carry out its functions as intended. We have always been clear that the OEP should focus on the most serious, strategic cases and that this guidance power will not change that.
The Government have committed to provide a five-year indicative budget for the OEP, ring-fenced within each spending review period, to give the OEP greater financial certainty. This is an administrative matter and is not appropriate for primary legislation, but other bodies with multiannual funding commitments, such as the Office for Budget Responsibility, do not have this set out in legislation.
Regarding appointments to the OEP’s board, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the department’s public appointments. Therefore, Parliament can call on the Secretary of State to justify appointments at any time. The appointment of the OEP chair-designate, as noble Lords know, has already been made following a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing conducted by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Environmental Audit Select Committees. This process ensures fairness, accountability and independence, and I am happy to confirm our intention that future chair appointments will follow a similar process. All public appointees will ultimately remain accountable to Parliament.
Parliament may also choose to call a member of the OEP board to provide evidence of their suitability for the position after they have taken the post. However, as Ministers are accountable and responsible to Parliament for public appointments, it is appropriate that they retain the ability to make that final choice.
Amendment 30 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I hope she is at least partially reassured that the Northern Ireland department will be subject to the same constraints as the Secretary of State when exercising the guidance power. Northern Ireland Ministers have decided to bring forward the parallel amendments that I have presented today, and we will continue to work closely with them to ensure the best level of environmental protection across the devolved nations.
The Government carefully considered your Lordships’ comments in Committee, as we developed the amendments we have tabled. We are confident that our current position will set the OEP up to be genuinely independent and effective. I suspect we will have to test the opinion of the House but, nevertheless, I beg noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I am sorry; I would like to make a few comments about Amendment 24. I thought the agreement was to Amendments 22 and 23.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I am just putting the amendment. As far as I am aware, Amendment 22 has passed, so we now come to Amendment 23.
Amendment 23
“(6) Before issuing the guidance, the Secretary of State must—(a) prepare a draft, and(b) lay the draft before Parliament.(7) If before the end of the 21 day period—(a) either House of Parliament passes a resolution in respect of the draft guidance, or(b) a committee of either House of Parliament, or a joint committee of both Houses, makes recommendations in respect of the draft guidance,the Secretary of State must produce a response and lay it before Parliament.(8) The Secretary of State may prepare and lay before Parliament the final guidance, but not before—(a) if subsection (7) applies, the day on which the Secretary of State lays the response required by that subsection, or(b) otherwise, the end of the 21 day period.(9) The final guidance has effect when it is laid before Parliament.(10) The Secretary of State must publish the guidance when it comes into effect.(11) The “21 day period” is the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the draft guidance is laid under subsection (6).(12) “Sitting day” means a day on which both Houses of Parliament sit.(13) The Secretary of State may revise the guidance at any time (and subsections (6) to (12) apply in relation to any revised guidance).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for Parliamentary scrutiny of draft guidance under Clause 25.
Lord Krebs
“OEP independence
(1) The OEP has complete discretion in the carrying out of its functions, including in—(a) preparing its enforcement policy,(b) exercising its enforcement functions, and(c) preparing and publishing its budget.(2) At the start of each period of multi-annual funding and no later than 1 April 2023, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement setting out the multi-annual budget which they intend to provide to the OEP.(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement responding to any request from the OEP for additional funding due to a change in the body’s responsibilities or functions, within three months of that request being received.(4) In making or terminating appointments under paragraph 1 and paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Environmental Audit Committees of the House of Commons.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that the OEP is as independent as possible.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I apologise for my earlier interjection, out of order. I thank the Minister for his response to my amendment and Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short but interesting debate.
I reiterate what I said at the beginning and has been said by a number of other contributors to this debate: if we get it wrong on the office for environmental protection, the whole edifice of the Bill could fall. All the things the Bill attempts to achieve will, in the end, depend on having a strong, independent, powerful office for environmental protection. If we get it wrong, people out there who observe what Parliament is up to and care about the environment will not understand why we failed.
At the moment, the arrangement is rather like having a whistleblower who is told by the boss which areas he or she is not allowed to investigate. That is simply unacceptable. Unfortunately, we seem to be involved in a dialogue of the deaf. We keep on repeating the message, and it is strong and not from one particular party or group in the House—the view is held widely—and the Government, unfortunately, reiterate the same points over and over again. I feel the time has come to test the opinion of the House and I wish to do so.
“(2A) The OEP may include in the application for an environmental review a request that the court also review additional alleged conduct constituting a failure to comply with environmental law where—(a) the additional conduct is similar to, or related to, the conduct described in the decision notice, and(b) the additional conduct is conduct of—(i) the public authority to whom the decision notice was given, or(ii) another public authority, where that additional conduct indicates there may be systemic failures to comply with environmental law.(2B) Where subsection (2A) applies—(a) the OEP need not have given an information notice or a decision notice to the public authority to whom the additional conduct relates in respect of that additional conduct, and(b) the court may review that additional conduct if it thinks it reasonable to do so.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows greater flexibility to consider multiple instances of misconduct rolled up into one single application, rather than issuing separate proceedings in respect of each individual incident.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to take these amendments before the dinner break. Like other nobles Lords, I will be as brief as I can.
The purpose of these cross-party Amendments, 26, 27 and 28, in the now-familiar dentistry metaphor, is to provide the OEP with a working set of teeth. They do not give enforcement powers to the OEP itself, they do not allow it to claim damages and they do not replicate the fining power that gave the European Commission the big stick that it used so effectively to concentrate minds. All they do is allow the High Court its usual discretion to enforce the environmental duties of public bodies by the grant of appropriate remedies. That is a modest aim but also, I suggest, a necessary one if the OEP is to achieve even baseline credibility, whether at home or internationally, as an enforcement body.
The “key facts” note on the OEP, circulated earlier today, correctly states that the OEP will be able to bring legal proceedings against public authorities but is less forthcoming about when it can do that and to what purpose. Three other key facts, not dwelled upon in the Government’s note, lie behind these three amendments. First, the OEP is unique among interested persons and bodies in being disqualified from bringing proceedings for judicial review, save in urgent cases. My Amendment 28 seeks to correct that.
Secondly, the bespoke process of environmental review, designed for the OEP to keep public bodies up to the mark, is available only after each individual breach of duty and each repetition of such a breach has undergone the cumbersome pre-litigation process set out in Clauses 32 to 37. My Amendment 26 would introduce greater flexibility and indeed speed into that process.
Thirdly and most significantly, Clause 38(8), the subject of my Amendment 27, introduces to environmental review a presumption, unique I think in our law, against the grant of any meaningful remedy. Victory for the OEP is rewarded only by a statement of non-compliance, which has no legal effect and which the Minister accepted in Committee is “not … considered a remedy”.
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con)
My Lords, I am not a natural rebel but I stand in rebellion today. I am troubled by what I see before me. It is always difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, because he has nailed all the key elements. I seek not to repeat but rather to associate myself with what he has said.
I will draw attention to only one aspect. The Explanatory Notes, which, very helpfully, were sent out earlier today, drew attention to one aspect: that the smooth functioning of the planning system depends on investors and developers having confidence that, past a certain point, permission will be upheld. I cannot help but think that we are looking at the smooth functioning of the planning system rather than of the environment, and that would cause me some unease.
For that reason, I am afraid that I must support the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and will continue to do so until we can achieve a change, which I believe is both necessary and proper.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I spoke in support of the amendment in Committee, and I think it is right that I comment on the slightly changed amendment before us. I support it entirely and there are elements in it I would have thought the Government would welcome, particularly proposed new subsection 8A(b), where the court has to have regard to
“the likelihood that the grant of a remedy would cause”,
among other things,
“any detriment to good administration.”
This is a very carefully drafted amendment. It has all the elements one would expect to find in a Bill dealing with the subject we are concerned with. It is also looking at the interests of justice, which any court would want to do in any case. I support the amendment.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, we are all being very diffident this evening. I apologise because I did not speak at Second Reading or in Committee on this Bill, but I am as concerned as my noble friend Lord Duncan and the two noble Lords on the Cross-Benches about the way this Bill is going to deal with this particular subject. Unless this amendment is made to the Bill, we will be the poorer for it.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I spoke to and signed the amendment in Committee. I entirely support the new wording. I said in Committee that the judges could be trusted. The Government might have had a little doubt about some of it but, with the changes to the clause, I cannot see what greater protection any Government could legitimately seek.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and we wholeheartedly support it. My particular concern is around the planning issue, which the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, has rightly articulated. My worry is that the Government have introduced the provisions they have because they fear that there is currently too much weight given to environmental protection in the planning system. That is something we must oppose. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said that it
“biases the scales of justice”—[Official Report, 30/6/21; col. 810.]
and changes the balance away from the environment. That is the problem and that is why we on these Benches support this amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I add my voice in support of these amendments. We very much concur with the arguments put forward this evening. We agree that these proposals are quite modest. I think the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has been quite modest in his redrafting. I hope, as I said in the previous group, that if these amendments are passed this evening, the Government will use the opportunity to have a proper dialogue with those who have been working on these issues. I am sure the Minister has got the sense of the strength of feeling on this and we hope that we will not see these amendments in any shape or form coming back at a later stage. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their brisk contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Khan, is looking hungry. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Krebs, for their engagement throughout the various stages, including a number of discussions with me and separate discussions with officials. I have carefully considered the government position on these clauses and I hope I can persuade noble Lords that the approach we are taking is the right one.
First, on Amendment 26, the Government support the intention to ensure that the OEP’s enforcement procedures resolve issues as efficiently and effectively as possible. However, it is only right and appropriate that before the court is asked to examine issues in an environmental review, the OEP has given the public authority adequate opportunity to respond and to remedy the problem directly. This follows a similar principle to the pre-action protocols which must be followed for other types of legal proceedings, including, for example, judicial review, as well as personal injury and clinical negligence proceedings, where issues are set out in writing prior to court action.
Many issues will be resolved through constructive dialogue in the course of an OEP investigation and through the serving of an information notice. That is what we want. Where required, this would then be followed by a decision notice. This will ensure that potential failures are resolved at the earliest possible opportunity, avoiding the need for time-consuming and costly litigation in most cases, and better enabling the OEP to drive systemic change.
Turning to Amendment 27, I reiterate the importance of the existing provision under Clause 38(8). We have to recognise the unique context in which environmental reviews will be occurring, potentially many months after decisions were taken and outside normal judicial review time limits. Providing protection for third parties who may have acted in good faith on the basis of certain decisions is therefore essential to protect fairness and certainty, values that lie at the heart of our civil justice system.
As I have outlined before, judicial discretion alone would not be sufficient to provide this certainty, as the strict time limits to bring a judicial review themselves demonstrate. We do not solely rely on the courts to balance the impacts of delay against other factors in this context, as the resulting uncertainty would be too great and unfair on third parties. Environmental reviews will be taking place outside judicial review time limits, so alternative protections are necessary.
Furthermore, the provision in Clause 38 to protect third-party rights is not novel. Indeed, it is an extension of the existing position for challenges—for example, under Section 31(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Some noble Lords have argued today and in previous debates that the provision in Clause 38(8) renders the OEP’s enforcement framework redundant but that is absolutely not the case. It is important to note that restrictions in Clause 38(8) are unlikely to be triggered in most cases that the OEP will take forward.
In response to comments by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the Bill guides the OEP to focus on cases of national importance. Therefore, individual local planning decisions most likely to impact third parties are unlikely to be pursued. Even if they were pursued, the Bill sets out that the court is restricted from granting remedies only where to do so would cause “substantial” hardship or “substantial” prejudice to the rights of any person, or be detrimental to good administration. The court will have discretion to consider and apply the test as set out in the Bill, not Ministers or the Government.
Cases where remedies could require a change in policy or in the way in which legislation is to be interpreted would be unlikely to invoke those safeguards. Those are the cases that we expect the OEP to focus on. Take, for example, an alleged failure by government to meet a statutory environmental target. A court could consider granting a mandatory order requiring government action, and although that may have some impact on third parties such as local businesses, it is unlikely to amount to substantial hardship or prejudice. As I have tried to explain before, an individual or business must reasonably expect some changes in an evolving regulatory landscape. But that is different from the question of the status of an existing planning permission, for example, where there is a greater expectation of certainty. As such, the existing provision is appropriate, and this proposed amendment could cause damaging uncertainty.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 28. Clause 39(1) is vital to providing clarity when the OEP is considering enforcement action. The concern is that removing the urgency condition would create confusion and uncertainty as to which route the OEP should pursue for any given case. To enable the OEP to bring standard judicial reviews during the normal time limits would limit the possibility of the wider benefits that could have been delivered through the OEP’s bespoke notice stages.
By liaising directly with public authorities to investigate and resolve alleged serious breaches of environmental law in a targeted manner, the OEP will be able to drive systemic environmental improvements. This will lead to better outcomes for complainants, the public and the environment, wherever possible without the need to resort to costly or time-consuming litigation. Unlike judicial review, there are no time limits in which the OEP can apply for an environmental review. This is to allow the OEP sufficient time and opportunity to resolve the issue through its notice processes. It will give complainants the confidence to attempt to resolve matters through the internal complaints procedures of public authorities in the knowledge that, if the matters were not resolved, they could bring them to the attention of the OEP, who could bring legal challenge if necessary. The proposed amendment would therefore lead to unnecessary litigation, which would ultimately limit the OEP’s ability to effectively focus its activities on holding public authorities to account on serious breaches of environmental law and achieving long-term systemic change. I should again emphasise that the Government have taken considerable time to consider these matters, but we are confident in our position.
Before I conclude, I should emphasise that the OEP’s enforcement powers are different from, and will operate more effectively than, those of the European Commission. That point has been made by a number of noble Lords as a counterpoint. The OEP will be able to liaise directly with the public body in question to investigate and resolve alleged serious breaches of environmental law in a more targeted and timely manner. In environmental review, the OEP can apply for judicial review remedies such as mandatory quashing orders, subject to the appropriate safeguards, which will work to ensure compliance with environmental law. The EU Court of Justice cannot issue those kinds of remedies to member states.
I hope that I have at least gone some way towards reassuring noble Lords and I urge them to withdraw or not move their amendments.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short if somewhat one-sided debate and, of course, to the Minister for his characteristically courteous and speedily delivered response.
In view of the time, I do not seek to summarise the excellent points made in support of these amendments. I simply pick up one point made by the Minister when he spoke of the need for certainty, which, as our Amendment 27 accepts, is an important factor in the court’s discretion. The need for certain outcomes needs to be balanced against the need for lawful outcomes, which is I think the point that the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, was making; that balance can be performed by the courts only in the individual case and not by preordaining the result.
Having listen carefully to the Minister, I see a stark contrast between the wish to portray these clauses as an effective series of remedies and the reality that they fall well short. I regret that the Minister has not been able to give the requested assurances and, for that reason, I propose to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 27.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We are considering Amendment 26.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am so sorry. I meant to move the amendment but put only Amendment 27 to the vote. I must apologise that I did not rehearse myself in the proper language.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I only need the noble Lord to move formally Amendment 27.
Amendment 27
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
“(8) Where the court makes a statement of non-compliance it may grant any remedy that may be granted by it on a judicial review other than damages.(8A) In determining whether it would be in the interests of justice to grant a remedy, the court must have regard to—(a) the nature and consequences of the authority’s failure to comply with environmental law, and(b) the likelihood that the grant of a remedy would cause—(i) substantial hardship to, or substantial prejudice to the rights of, any person other than the authority, or(ii) any detriment to good administration.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the restrictions on the discretion of a court to grant a remedy where the court has found there to be a breach of environmental law, while requiring the court to have regard to relevant factors. The bar on awarding damages to the OEP is retained.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
On this amendment, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
““25A OEP independence in Northern Ireland(1) The OEP has complete discretion in the carrying out of its functions in Northern Ireland, including in—(a) preparing its enforcement policy,(b) exercising its enforcement functions, and(c) preparing and publishing its budget.(2) In making and terminating appointments under paragraph 2(2B) and paragraph 5(8B) of Schedule 1, the Northern Ireland Department must obtain the consent of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that the OEP is as independent as possible in Northern Ireland.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
Amendments 31 and 32 have been pre-empted so I shall not be calling them.
Environment Bill
Monday 13th September 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 43-IV Fourth marshalled list for Report - (13 Sep 2021)
15:50 - Division on Amendment 40 - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 167 - Amendment 40 agreed.
18:17 - Division on Amendment 52 - Ayes: 52 / Noes: 174 - Amendment 52 disagreed.
18:32 - Division on Amendment 53 - Ayes: 189 / Noes: 177 - Amendment 53 agreed.
20:05 - Division on Amendment 60 - Ayes: 184 / Noes: 147 - Amendment 60 agreed.
“(b) are made of plastic or any other single use material, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would broaden the proposed power in Clause 55 to enable regulations to be made about charges on all single use items, including plastic. This would provide a tool for Ministers to address single use culture and prevent existing materials being replaced by alternatives which cause similar levels of environmental harm.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving Amendment 40 in my name and that of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. This amendment broadens out the powers in Schedule 9, which currently allow charges to be levied against sellers of single-use plastic items. Our amendment would make it clear that a new charging regime should be for all single-use materials, not just plastic. It would ensure that single-use plastics are not simply replaced with other single-use materials that also cause environmental damage.
This is a simple but important amendment. It goes to the heart of the throwaway culture. There is a real concern that an inability to charge for single-use alternatives to single-use plastic might see the market switch to those alternatives rather than driving down consumption. We have seen evidence that the switch from plastic to single-use alternatives made from wood, paper or compostable materials is already happening, even when reusable options are already available. Far from helping to save the planet, these materials risk adding to our carbon emissions and depleting precious materials and forests elsewhere. For example, the Green Alliance has already calculated that switching consumption of plastic packaging to other materials used for packaging could triple carbon emissions.
These concerns were echoed by the businesses involved in the Aldersgate Group, which have written to noble Lords to say that the risk of plastic substitution in the Bill, as written, could undermine the drive towards a more circular economy and ending the throwaway society. The Commons EFRA report of 2019 concluded that
“reduction is the most important way to reduce waste, and … A fundamental shift away from all single use food and drink packaging, plastic or otherwise, is vital”.
We believe that the current wording in Schedule 9 is flawed and will encourage behaviours which the Government have not intended. If the Government are serious about resource efficiency and the circular economy, they must address this anomaly.
In response to a debate in Committee, the Minister stressed that plastic was a particularly pernicious material which persists for hundreds of years, and that this is why particular measures were necessary to address its unnecessary use. Of course we recognise that, but these provisions, as they stand, address only one element of the problem and do not address the inevitable move towards substitution which is bound to occur when charges for single-use plastics are introduced.
The Minister has also said that the Government already have wider powers to tackle alternatives to plastic through other measures, such as the extended producer responsibility scheme. But as we debated in Committee, the introduction of the extended producer responsibility scheme is already delayed, with the first such scheme on packaging already two years behind. Would it not be easier and more straightforward to introduce this simple amendment, which is properly scoped and provides for a precise power?
It is also worth noting that the delegated powers memorandum says of Clause 54:
“While these powers would be new, the provisions are modelled on existing powers to make regulations about carrier bag charges”.
Nevertheless, it stresses that these are new powers. Our amendment would simply extend these powers to all single-use materials.
In a previous debate we highlighted the need for a holistic approach to tackling the throwaway society and encouraging reuse of materials. This is exactly what is needed here, and it is what our amendment would achieve. I therefore hope that the Minister will reflect seriously on our amendment and commit to bringing back a government amendment along these lines at Third Reading. But if he is not prepared to make a concession along these lines, I give notice that I am minded to press for a vote on Amendment 40.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing forward the amendment, and also my noble friend the Minister for the work that the Government have done in this regard. May I take this opportunity to press my noble friend on one issue? The Government have been quite clear on single-use plastics and a potential returnable bottle scheme, as well as cotton buds. I am not clear what the position is on wet wipes, which I know cause huge problems for water companies and can block cisterns quite badly. Another growing problem, which may not be addressed by this amendment but appears elsewhere in the Bill, is fat balls from cooking that uses large amounts of fat. Where are we are on those issues?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to offer support to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, on this cross-party, broadly backed amendment and to encourage noble Lords to press it to a vote if we do not see progress.
We are in a situation rather like the “dieselgate” scandal, where we saw encouragement of a shift to diesel vehicles, with severe deleterious effects on human and environmental health. Those effects were multiplied by corruption and fraud in the car companies, but there was an underlying error in the decision being made. We need systems thinking to look holistically at the environmental impacts of laws, regulations and policies. The waste pyramid tells us that the first thing we should be doing is reducing the use of all materials—plastic is particularly pernicious, but all materials have an environmental cost—and then looking to reuse, with recycling a poor third choice.
It is important that the House offers strong support for this amendment in light of the article that appeared in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday. We were told—indeed, we seemed to be pressured by the Government—that too many amendments might embarrass Alok Sharma as chair of the COP 26 talks. Well, it is terribly important that we acknowledge—I hope the Minister will—that just as a puppy is not just for Christmas, the Environment Bill is not just for COP. A strong Environment Bill to show the world at COP is a positive side-effect, but what we are actually doing is creating the framework for the next decade and beyond in the UK. The Government’s focus must be on getting the strongest possible Environment Bill, as has clearly been the focus of this House.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Colville has today had to go to a family funeral, so he asked me to deliver his speech. I am very happy to do so, and I absolutely support this amendment. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and I completely agree with her about the shocking revelations in the press yesterday.
My noble friend Lord Colville says that many of our single-use items, particularly drinks containers, are made of aluminium. Not only does the manufacture of aluminium create 1% of global carbon emissions but the mining of bauxite, from which aluminium is refined, leaves behind a toxic waste called red mud. Its high alkalinity is extremely corrosive, damaging soil and destroying life forms. Aluminium smelters generate an additional 150 million tonnes of red mud each year. We must work to reduce such emissions; I believe this amendment would do that.
On the first day of Report, the Minister said:
“Globally, we extract three times the amount of resources from nature as we did in 1970, and that figure is set to double again within a generation”.—[Official Report, 6/9/21; col. 706.]
The Bill has so many laudable aspects, but it still does not bear down hard enough on the problem of our excessive and wasteful use of the planet’s resources and our careless discarding of single-use items. The attention the Bill gives to recycling is crucial and very welcome, but I urge the Minister to be more ambitious.
Like many noble Lords, I welcome the power in Schedule 9 to charge for single-use plastic items, but the Government already have plans to confront much of that problem, through the existing ban on plastic stirrers and cotton buds and the launch of a consultation this autumn on banning plastic cutlery and plates. If these are successful, the power in Schedule 9 to charge for single-use plastics will hardly be needed, but it does not deal with the threat of the substitution of single-use plastics with aluminium, wood or other precious materials.
The extended power put forward in the amendment for a charge to cover plastics or any other single-use material would deal with the problem quickly and reduce our resource use dramatically. When asked to support the amendment in Committee, the Minister responded that it was not necessary and said:
“Items that are not captured by Clause 54 could be captured by other measures, such as EPR or resource efficiency.”—[Official Report, 30/6/21; col. 914.]
Resource efficiency can do much to make producers responsible for the reduction in the use of raw materials, but to implement a scheme for each category of single-use item will take an amazing amount of work to design and a great deal of time and difficulty to implement. Look at the excellent ecodesign that introduces resource efficiency into energy-related products; it has taken four years of consultation and co-operation with stakeholders to get to a final scheme. That is a long time when we are threatened with the facts.
I am concerned that, as the Government progresses through resource efficiency schemes for big product areas such as textiles, they are never going to get round to the efficiency of wooden stirrers or paper plates. So will the Minister explain why he believes the amendment would not deal with this problem much more quickly and efficiently?
Wildlife and Countryside Link, representing a wide range of environmental organisations from CPRE to Keep Britain Tidy, said in its response to the consultation that there needs to be
“a clear focus on reduction and waste prevention to meet the UK’s ambitious climate change targets.”
The EPR policy could change its focus to emphasise further reduction of single-use items, or the Government could just accept this amendment, which would quickly and effectively mitigate many of these concerns. I ask noble Lords for their support on the amendment, because I do not want the good work of the Bill to be undermined by unintended consequences.
That is my noble friend Lord Colville’s excellent speech, which I was very pleased to deliver. Before I sit down, I would like to add a couple of points myself about the involvement of the fossil fuel industry in the world of plastics, which I think is often missed. The raw materials used to make fossil fuels and plastics are one and the same, but demand for fossil fuels is now on the decline in many parts of the world, so we see these two industries coming closer together. In fact, in the face of decreasing profit margins and the increasing demand for renewable energy, fossil fuels are finding new ways to keep themselves afloat—and, unfortunately, they have found plastic production.
Plastics are the fossil fuel industry’s new plan B. Most plastic is made from fossil fuels: we extract oil or gas from land and the seabed and transport it to something that is known as a cracker. Crackers are plants that use huge amounts of heat and pressure to break fossil fuels into the molecules that become the building blocks of polymers. For instance, propane gets cracked into propylene, which is turned into polypropylene, and then you have a plastic bottle. In the past, the industries were fairly separate, but now they are trying to integrate. Both face challenges.
According to UNEP, more than 127 countries have introduced regulation, but way more is needed. Every day it seems we can learn a new thing about what bad stuff plastics do. I did not know until recently that plastic aids the transmission of antibiotic-resistant genes, or that traces of plastic are found in human wombs—so babies can be swimming in microplastics. No country has fully banned it to my knowledge. There are so many kinds of single-use plastic that it is like cutting one of Medusa’s snakes just for three more heads to pop up. But we need something more systemic, and the Bill puts us on the right foot. We need to halt subsidies for petrochemicals, internalise the cost of plastics through taxes and extended producer responsibility, and consider the climate and biodiversity aspects of the plastics lifecycle before we grant permits for the construction and operation of these plants. We need to pass this amendment, and I am very happy to support it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I have campaigned against plastic and support most of the Government’s plans because of the permanent damage that plastic can cause, especially to our seas and rivers. I support the wide powers that the Government are taking in this area. However, focusing on single use is not sensible. I remember that, when I was in retail, a single bag for life needed to be used 80 times to match the efficiency of the light single-use plastic bag. We also need to think about the consumer. I feel there will be similar nonsenses if we try to ban the single use of other items. What is wrong with a coloured paper straw or a paper spoon to eat an ice cream? It will rot afterwards. I am also happy to see cans of Coke, especially if they can be recycled, as they would be if we made it a great deal easier for people to recycle. So I may be in a minority of one, but I think this amendment goes too far.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, on single-use plastic and other single-use material. As I indicated last week, we have become a throwaway culture and seem unable to motivate ourselves out of this. We as a country, therefore, need additional help for this to happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has introduced this amendment with her usual depth of knowledge and experience. On Monday, we had an extremely informative debate, with contributions on a number of aspects of the harm caused by different types of plastic to the environment. There are amendments for later days, when we will return to some of these aspects. Then, as now, we will refer to other single-use items that cause harm to us and our environment. Great care is needed in finding alternatives to single-use plastics so that we do not create a greater problem of carbon creation. The problem is with the throwaway culture, not with plastic alone.
According to a 2018 study by the Danish Ministry for Environment, environmental and social impacts associated with the paper supply chain are considerable, and include ozone depletion, human and ecosystem toxicity, and air and water pollution. The study found that a paper bag would have to be used 43 times to have an overall impact lower than that of the average plastic bag. Although its degeneration rate is far higher than that of plastic, it is the creation of the paper that has the carbon impact. It is important to be clear that we cannot move away from plastics to other non-sustainable, one-off alternatives, such as paper, without fully assessing the consequences.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, speaking on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and in her own right, made some very powerful points. The Government are currently consulting on banning further single-use plastic items, such as plates and cutlery. What are the Government intending to use in place of plastic? Will it be bamboo? What effect will using bamboo in this way have on the supply and growing of bamboo? This is just one example.
I support completely the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. We as a nation should have regard to the overall impact of single-use items, such as disposable nappies, which we will debate later. If we are to be a world leader on environmental issues, as the Government want us to be, reducing the use and impact of single-use items is key. We on these Benches fully support this vital amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which will ensure that the overall impact of the Environment Bill has a chance at being successful.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. The Government are committed to promoting resource efficiency and moving towards a circular economy. Before I start addressing Amendment 40, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I feel obliged to add my comments on the article that appeared yesterday in the Telegraph. I do not think any names were attached to the article, so it is very hard to know who to take this up with, but it certainly seemed to me to be almost entirely mischievous and not true. We do want to get this Bill done by COP 26—we do not have to, but we want to, for obvious reasons that we discussed in Committee—and we feel that it is in the national and international interest that we should pass the Bill in the strongest possible form before COP 26. No one involved in the passage of this Bill would put their name, privately or publicly, to the comments that appeared in the newspaper.
Turning to Amendment 40, the noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight the impact of materials other than plastic on the environment. A number of other noble Lords have done the same. I will not go into all the reasons why that matters, as we have covered the issue well during the passage of the Bill, and it has been covered again today. We know that our reckless and wasteful use of resources is putting the natural world under intolerable pressure. However, there is a particular and acute need to reduce consumption of single-use plastic and the particular and enormous environmental harm that it causes. That is why we have included specific powers in the Bill to impose charges on single-use plastics. These will provide a powerful and targeted tool to specifically address the issue of single- use plastics by directly incentivising consumers to use fewer of them.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, since we have raised the subject of the Telegraph, I want to add my quick twopenneth to that. I thank the Minister for what he said. I think we are all pleased to hear that he disassociated himself from its comments, because it is fairly clear to everyone involved in the Bill that we have been dealing with it in good faith and that nobody is trying to score any political points. I would also say that we are working to a timetable that the Government themselves set, and there is indeed plenty of time if we work together to get the Bill through in time for COP 26. We all understand the advantages of that, but we want to go there with a Bill that we genuinely feel proud of. I think that that is what everyone here is attempting to do.
I thank all noble Lords for their comments. My amendment is very simple and is about substitution. Businesses themselves are beginning to flag up and identify their concerns about that. That is why they have written to noble Lords on this subject, because they are seeing that this is the likely conclusion if we focus just on plastics. As noble Lords have said, there is a real danger of unintended consequences if we are not careful, so let us make sure that we drive down the use of single use overall. That is the way to deliver a reduction in consumption. We will do that only if we have a consistent approach across the board.
Either the powers already exist to deliver the ban on not only single-use plastics but other materials, in which case I do not quite see why Schedule 9 has been put in the Bill in the first place, or new and more simplified powers are needed, as per Schedule 9, in which case that is what we are attempting to do: to add our amendment to that schedule to make sure that the powers apply equally to plastics and plastic substitution. We have rehearsed the arguments as to why that is very well. So if we are in favour of the circular economy and reducing consumption, one step towards doing that is by supporting our Amendment 40. I therefore would like to test the opinion of the House.
“(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, the guidance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires guidance under inserted section 45AZE of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 concerning the separation of waste to be laid before Parliament and published.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am grateful for the efforts of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and other members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. My Bill team and I were greatly reassured by the assessment that the committee made of the Environment Bill, and I agree that there is an opportunity for us to go further. That is why I have accepted all the DPRRC’s recommendations and am pleased to table these amendments.
These technical amendments will increase parliamentary scrutiny in areas such as littering enforcement, vehicle recall, land drainage and local nature recovery strategies. I have also tabled Amendment 43, which was requested by the Scottish Government so that they will be able to make provision under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to be able to impose civil sanctions relating to electronic waste tracking. This will bring the Scottish Ministers’ powers in line with those of the Secretary of State in England, Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.
Finally, I have tabled Amendments 46, 47, 48 and 49. These are minor and technical amendments to measures on fly-tipping enforcement to clarify that authorised officers would be able to exercise their Schedule 10 powers relating to the search and seizure of evidence without a warrant in circumstances where consent has been given. This will enable enforcement officers to determine whether pollution control legislation is being complied with. This was always the intention; however, these amendments expressly set out that, where consent has been given, a warrant is not required.
I hope that noble Lords welcome these technical changes, which will increase parliamentary oversight and improve the Environment Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. It would be churlish of me not to congratulate my noble friend and the Defra Bill team on making these technical amendments. They were the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I am privileged to chair. On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister and the Defra team for making them. One of the powers has moved from negative to affirmative—no big deal, but we are very grateful for it. The others are textbook examples of what departments can do to improve parliamentary scrutiny. We were not demanding that the SIs be affirmative or that they be negative; we were simply saying, “Please lay them before Parliament and publish them.” They have agreed to do so.
In the report that we publish today on the police and sentencing Bill, which the House will consider tomorrow, we will be scathing in our condemnation because the Home Office has failed to do those simple things in its legislation. Let this be a lesson to it on what can be done.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I was going to prepare a 20-minute response to the Government’s amendments, but in the interest and spirit of getting to COP 26 faster, I will just say that we on these Benches welcome that the Government have listened to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and accepted its recommendations, which will be good for everybody involved and the wider stakeholders.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their short contributions to the debate, and I hope that they welcome these technical changes. I beg them to accept these amendments, so that they can become part of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Scottish Ministers to make provision under the new section 34CA(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 so as to empower the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to impose civil sanctions.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Environment Agency, the Natural Resources Body for Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to require payment of charges to recover the costs of their functions under regulations under Schedule 5 to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to require payment of charges to recover the costs of its functions under regulations under Schedule 5 to the Bill.
“(a) the consent of a person entitled to grant access to material on or accessible from the premises, or(b) ”.Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the powers of search etc in inserted paragraph (ka) of section 108(4) of the Environment Act 1995 may be exercised with consent as well as with a warrant.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Schedule 10, page 193, line 23.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Schedule 10, page 193, line 23.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Schedule 10, page 193, line 23.
“(4A) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament and publish guidance, and any revised guidance, issued by the Secretary of State under this section.(4B) The Welsh Ministers must lay before Senedd Cymru and publish guidance, and any revised guidance, issued by the Welsh Ministers under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires guidance under inserted section 88B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 concerning littering enforcement to be laid before Parliament or Senedd Cymru as appropriate, and published.
Baroness Sheehan
“Air quality: speed limits
(1) The national speed limit for restricted roads in England is 20 miles per hour.(2) Nothing in this section affects the power of traffic authorities responsible for such roads to make exceptions to the national speed limit where appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the number of fine particulates released into the air from non-exhaust emissions (NEE), such as brake, tyre and road surface wear, by lowering the speed of traffic and promote driving behaviour that reduces braking and higher-speed cornering. Lowering speed limits is also intended to reduce the projected increase in electricity demand on the grid as EVs replace ICE vehicles.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to this amendment in my name and the names of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The amendment aims to implement 20 mph as the default speed limit on residential roads. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is unable to be with us this afternoon but is keen to reiterate her support—
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I am sorry; I was so pleased to have made it here on time that I forgot to check that the noble Baroness was here. I will leave her to reiterate her support on her own behalf.
I thank the Minister for meeting me and colleagues during the Summer Recess. While we had a good meeting and I thank the Minister for his courtesy throughout, can he say whether he has looked further at the evidence that reducing vehicle speeds will be a necessary remedy to reduce non-exhaust emissions? In addition, and crucially, a lower speed limit on our roads will help to relieve the additional electricity demand that electric vehicles will put on the national grid and will help our fight against climate change.
Does the Minister accept that, in looking for solutions to reducing air pollution from transport and facilitating the rollout of electric vehicles, speed is a factor that cannot be ignored? Given the importance of improving the air we breathe in our everyday environment, I feel strongly that any remedy to reduce air pollution has a place in a seminal Environment Bill. However, I accept that it is for the Department for Transport to set speed limits. In that vein, I remind the Minister of his kind offer to facilitate a meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, in her capacity as Transport Minister. Will he confirm that he will do this, if he has not done so already?
In conclusion, we are speaking here of a remedy that will reduce fine particulates in our ambient air, for which the WHO has said that there is no safe limit. The rate of implementation of 20 mph speed limits is gathering pace, not just in the UK but across Europe. We on these Benches will be pursuing the 20’s Plenty agenda in the future, but we may need to leave it until the transport Bill is before us.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, after that welcome from the noble Baroness in her introduction, I feel that I should go next in speaking in support of this amendment. I should declare that I live in Cardiff, which is one of the pilot areas of the 20 miles per hour speed limit, and we have already found that the air quality has improved, but the transit time from one place to another has not increased—contrary to rumours that that had happened. The difference is that the traffic is calmer; children walking to and from school are safer; and there is less bad behaviour generally on the roads with people being aggravated and pulling away fast at lights.
I have spoken at length about the problem of non-exhaust pollution and that is all on the record, so I will not go over the damage caused to human health by that. However, I remind everyone that, as well as decreasing fatal accidents, the lower speed limit also decreases accidents where there are life-changing injuries.
Given that we are trying to increase walking and cycling and that the Highway Code has been rewritten, moving to 20 miles per hour on our roads generally is very sensible. I have noticed that in London, where some areas are limited to 20 and others are not, drivers are confused but it is easier for cyclists and pedestrians, and it is easier as a driver to see them if they are going just a little slower.
I am afraid I cannot see any arguments at all against the Government accepting this amendment, other than the theory that some people think it might take them longer to get from A to B. However, I do not think that has been proven in practice.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 55 in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Randall, and to my Amendment 56 also in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and co-president of London Councils, the body that represents the 32 London boroughs and the City of London Corporation.
Amendment 55 is a development of the amendments that I moved in Committee. It would grant local authorities a discretionary power to control emissions from combustion plant where they choose to declare an area as an air quality improvement area. Amendment 56 would increase the penalty for the offence of stationary idling committed in an air quality improvement area.
As we are all only too aware, air pollution has a terrible impact on human health, contributing to some 40,000 premature deaths in the UK every year. The Government have recognised the seriousness of the problem of poor air quality and that local authorities have an important role to play in delivering reductions in PM2.5. Indeed, local authorities have a statutory duty to reduce emissions in their area, but they do not have sufficient powers to take effective action to achieve such reductions. My amendments seek to give substance to remedying that.
Public attention has understandably been focused more on the need to cut emissions from vehicles, but very little has been said of non-road pollution and emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, dangerous carcinogens that penetrate deep into our lungs and bloodstream. Many emissions are from non-road sources, collectively referred to as combustion plant. As we make improvements in reducing emissions from vehicles, we must also shift our focus to include these other sources of pollution.
To illustrate the importance of tackling non-road emissions, I gave examples in Committee of the City of London. Under the Covid-19 lockdown last year—2020—the square mile saw a 40% decrease in levels of nitrogen oxide compared to 2019, before lockdown. However, levels of PM2.5, the pollutant most damaging to human health, remained at roughly the same level despite the significant reduction in transport activity.
Amendment 55 would insert a new clause granting unitary authorities and district councils in England, as well as the Court of Common Council of the City of London, the power under the proposed new clause to designate an area within its borders as an air quality improvement area if that area exceeds any air quality target for nitrogen dioxide, NO2; particulate matter, PM10; or fine particulate matter, PM2.5, as set out under Clause 1 or 2, or if the area exceeds the World Health Organization air quality guidance for those pollutants. This designation would in effect be a gateway to implementing a range of air quality measures provided for in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State.
The amendment would oblige the Secretary of State under subsection (5) to make regulations setting out the controls that may be applied by the local authority, providing local authorities with a menu of restrictions to choose from. That could include restrictions as to the type of plant by reference to the level of pollution emitted by that plant, or it could apply to plants such as boilers, generators, combined heat and power plant and non-road mobile machinery such as construction machinery.
The regulations could also contain restrictions on the operation of stationary generators in premises within the designated area except where the electricity supply to the premises was disrupted. Many office buildings have back-up diesel generators in the event of a power cut, but instead they are operated to lower the building’s electricity costs by selling electricity back to the grid. Providing for this restriction in the regulations would enable local authorities to set periods when the operation of these generators would be prohibited except in the case of a power cut.
Local authorities would be required by subsection (2) to specify in the designation which restrictions from the menu of restrictions set out in the regulations they wished to apply, in which area, to which types of plant, from which date and time and under which circumstances. The designating local authority would be required to publish details of any restrictions that it wished to implement at least two months before the designation took effect and to advertise the designation in newspapers circulating in the area and on the local authority’s website.
The regulatory framework established by the amendment would give the Secretary of State the flexibility to determine which restrictions should be made available to local authorities and would then leave local authorities the discretion to apply the restrictions that they knew would work best in their area. That would follow the example of the existing regulatory framework of smoke control areas, established by the Clean Air Act 1993, in ensuring that the cleanest applianceswere used in the most polluted areas.
At present, some local authorities attempt to use planning controls to regulate various types of polluting plant. Not surprisingly, that has proved ineffective because planning controls were never intended to be used in that manner. Similarly, attempts to use the environmental permitting framework to give local authorities a means of regulating polluting plants in their area do not really work. It is an unnecessarily cumbersome, expensive, bureaucratic and time-consuming way of dealing with smaller static plant, and does not work effectively for mobile plant. Neither does the existing framework of air quality management areas, set out in the Environment Act 1995, deliver the much-needed powers provided by Amendment 55.
Local authorities are keen to do more on air pollution and are in a good position to know the best way to do so in their area, but they find themselves unable to take the action required. The amendment would provide an easy mechanism for local authorities to act, providing a gateway to implementing any range of air quality measures provided for in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 56 relates to the stationary idling of vehicles. More action needs to be taken to reduce this avoidable pollution. Stationary idling is already illegal but the penalty of £20 is derisory these days and hardly a deterrent. The amendment would insert a new clause that would increase the penalty for stationary idling within the designated area to £100, rising to £150 in certain circumstances, in order to deter those who are unwilling to change their behaviour and do not respond to awareness campaigns. Above all, it better recognises the seriousness of the issue.
The amendments are intended to give local authorities the power to bring about the reduction in emissions that all of us, not least the Minister, want. They would equip local authorities with the tools to deliver on their new obligations under the Bill. We have an opportunity in the Bill to empower local authorities across the country to tackle more effectively the problem of non-road emissions, with the potential to make a significant impact in combating poor air quality.
The Minister has recognised that local authorities have an important role to play in improving air quality. The amendments would enable them to do so, and I look forward to their acceptance.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 51, which is a no-brainer. This whole group talks about a public health disaster. We have not understood the impact of these emissions on public health—and not just their immediate impact but their long-term impact. There is huge damage to the NHS because of the problems forced on it by these emissions, and these amendments are extremely well designed to fix some of those problems. I should declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I wholeheartedly support Amendment 55 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and congratulate him on a very thorough exposition of the reasons for it. I have signed Amendments 55, 56 and 57 because they are all very clearly linked. Quite honestly, the Bill really has to say something on air pollution.
It is worth pointing out, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, did, that his amendment has been—I was going to say “concocted” but there must be a better word—written by some very distinct groups. They are the City of London Corporation, London Councils, Clean Air in London, a Lib Dem Peer and a Green Peer. These are people you might not think would naturally link together—but on this issue we are speaking with one voice. There is a problem and we have to fix it, and this is how you can fix it.
The Bill would quite rightly amend the Environment Act 1995 to give local authorities new functions and duties. For example, they must have regard to the national strategy and identify relevant sources of emissions. Another part of the 1995 Act would be amended to include things such as that they
“must, for the purpose of securing … air quality standards and objectives … prepare an action plan”.
Again and again, the Government give duties and responsibilities to local authorities, which is very smart. But, at the same time, you cannot keep giving such a workload if you do not give people the resources to do it. Those resources are partly powers and partly money, and these tough duties are not matched by either powers or finance. We therefore need legislation that would give local authorities the powers they need to decarbonise buildings. This is the next step; we are always talking about transport, but buildings are also a huge source of carbon emissions, as are other non-traffic emissions such as those from construction equipment and stationary generators.
We also have to give the Secretary of State powers in regulations to set common standards that could be tightened over time. Ideally, the Secretary of State would encourage the use of zero-emission or ultra-low-emission appliances to align air pollution and climate efforts. Amendment 55 would strike the right balance between duties and powers for local authorities.
Amendment 56 is very sensible. It would make the problem of stationary idling much easier to tackle; it is a plague at the moment. I make myself very unpopular by going up to people who have their engines idling outside schools and so on, and telling them to turn them off. That is one of the things I do for fun, obviously.
My Amendment 57 is a sort of super-amendment that pushes farther. As your Lordships would expect from a Green, it is more radical. It is based on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, so in principle it has support from those other authorities—but not quite enough to put that into writing. I have to declare that I am a sinner; I installed a wood-burning stove in a flat that I used to own and I am really sorry about that. In fact, I burned incredibly dry wood—which makes it slightly better—because a scaffolding yard which was next door to my flat supplied me with bone-dry pine from their scaffolding. The people there actually drove the wrong way up a one-way street and up my drive to dump their dumpy bags outside my door. It was fantastic and the wood lasted quite a number of years.
To go back to the point, my amendment builds on the excellent Amendment 55 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in three important ways. First, it would emphasise the need to include fine particles: these PM2.5s, which we have heard so much about and which are so nasty, because they not only go into the lungs but pass through them into the bloodstream and other organs. They are highly damaging and we probably have not yet caught up with all the damage that they do, particularly to children. They have to go into the national air quality target set under either Clause 1 or Clause 2. As we heard earlier, this is the most harmful form of air pollution, affecting us all at some stage in our lives.
Secondly, my amendment would give metro mayors, alongside local authorities, powers to designate any part of their area exceeding WHO air-quality guidelines as an air-quality improvement area. That is a very useful power and they could set restrictions based on regulations made by the Secretary of State. This seems only right and fair if we are to avoid a patchwork of emissions standards in our largest cities, all of which are polluted.
Last but not least, my amendment would end the sale and use of wood-burning stoves in urban areas over seven years, as the original Clean Air Act was meant to do in 1956. This is important because Defra’s latest statistical release on air pollution said that the use of wood in domestic combustion activities accounted for 38% of PM2.5 emissions in 2019, and these emissions doubled between 2003 and 2019. So we have a real problem and I very much hope that that the Government are listening on this—but perhaps they are not.
Not only are wood stoves and fireplaces a major source of the most harmful air pollution, but the Climate Change Committee is clear that wood-burning stoves should not be counted towards either low-carbon heat targets or renewable targets. So I really hope that the Government are listening.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support all the amendments in this group and have put my name to two of them. I just want to intervene briefly on the issue of idling. Last week, when I walked from my Pimlico flat to this House—which takes about 25 minutes, mainly down backstreets—I passed 15 vehicles which were stationary and idling: cars, vans, buses and trucks. I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, had been with me, because I am far too diffident to bang on a roof and tell a driver to stop doing it—but next time I will invite her to join me.
Westminster City Council has a commendable campaign, public-relations wise, to stop idling—but it has no means of enforcing it. And even if the council did enforce it, the fine is so paltry that it is not a deterrent. This amendment would change that. It would make it easier to enforce and would make people take notice. It is a major contribution towards reducing air-quality problems in our cities and I hope that the House can support all these amendments.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, during our debate in Committee on a similar amendment to Amendment 51 the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist, said that
“local authorities already have the power to set 20 mph speed limits”—[Official Report, 5/7/21; col. 1081.]
on restricted roads, so my noble friend Lady Sheehan’s amendment was not necessary. Well, yes, it is true that they have the power, and many have used it to great effect—but it is a long-winded and expensive process. Local authorities have better things to do with their time and money, so making 20 miles an hour the default would not mean that all restricted roads would end up being limited to 20. Local authorities would still have the power to make them 30 miles an hour if they considered that would be safer and better for the local community. But surely it is right that these decisions are made locally, and in as expeditious a way as possible, particularly in areas of deprivation.
In her reply, the Minister referred to something in the Atkins report. Can she now provide the House with the evidence which she claimed suggested that 20 miles an hour limits could lead to higher casualty rates, and tell us who did that research? These allegations have been widely challenged, and the Minister needs to defend them as being robust if she wishes to rely on them.
My noble friend Lady Sheehan has outlined the benefits of 20 miles an hour limits, and I have seen them for myself in both Scotland and Wales. They are safer, quieter and healthier, they address some aspects of health inequality, they protect the national grid and they are more environmentally friendly—and that is how I would describe my noble friend’s proposal. If that is not enough, 20 miles an hour areas are also very popular with the public. They address non-exhaust emissions, as well as those produced by combustions—and we do not get rid of those by moving to electric cars; I have an electric car and I still produce small particulates from my car’s tyres and brakes. The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, did not give any good reasons, in her response in Committee, why this amendment should not be in the Bill; she was not convincing.
I turn to Amendment 55, from my noble friend Lord Tope. Again, the Minister was not convincing in Committee when we covered these issues. She claimed that current regulations are adequate to clean up the emissions from non-road combustion plant—or that at least they will be by 2030. That is nine years away, by which time more people will have died from the small particulates, NOx emissions, et cetera, that are emitted by dirty generators, boilers and so on.
The powers that my noble friend proposes do not currently exist; they are voluntary and additional to what local authorities already have, but they do not have to use them. If they think, with their local knowledge, that there is no need for them—because the air is already clean or because they are happy to rely on the measures outlined by the Minister in Committee—they do not have to declare an air quality improvement area. I emphasise that the powers are discretionary. Can the Minister say what harm would be done by giving local authorities these additional, discretionary powers?
The Minister hinted in Committee that she was afraid that decisions would be made that were, in the Government’s opinion, wrong. Well that is what can happen with devolution—and indeed Governments make wrong decisions too, especially this one—so that is no good reason for failing to accept this amendment.
Amendment 56 offers the Government a very simple way of reducing or stopping totally unnecessary emissions of CO2, NOx and small particulates. The idea that idling your engine outside a school brings a penalty of only £20 is pathetic. I have often seen parents sitting in their cars outside a school in the afternoon, waiting for their children, with their engines running as if in pole position at the start of a Grand Prix. If I had approached the driver to point out that he or she was in danger of attracting a fine of £20, I would have been laughed out of the village. Much more effective would be a fine of £100, rising to £150; I might even be persuaded to bang on the window and warn the driver, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. If the Minister could tell me how many drivers have been deterred from doing this by this tiny fine I might reconsider my view, but, as things stand, I think that she should accept Amendment 56.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with Amendment 56 on stationary idling. It is an existing offence, and all we are being asked is to put the fine up to a more realistic level. It is certainly a problem that particularly concerns—I do not know if I should name them specifically—Uber-type drivers sitting waiting for fares.
I do not support any of the other amendments. I think it would be difficult if the House put some of these things through without fuller consideration and costings.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, in my opinion this is quite an important set of amendments because they focus on some specific causes of air pollution. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, ably introduced her Amendment 51, on the impact of speed on air quality, as she did in Committee, and spoke passionately about why we need to reduce speed limits to reduce PM2.5. We have heard about research on the impact of road traffic, and the fact that it is responsible for up to 80% of particulate pollution in the UK, but it is also likely that this is an underestimate. The noble Baroness explained how particulates arise from the friction between tyre rubber and road surfaces and the impact of speed on climate change.
Amendment 51 in particular considers a 20 miles an hour speed limit. It is worth noting that the UK default speed limit of 30 miles an hour is 60% higher than that in most continental European towns, where 30 kilometres an hour, or 18.6 miles an hour, is the norm. Imperial College has reported that, at 20 miles an hour, brake and tyre wear is significantly reduced. When the 30 kilometres an hour zones were introduced in Germany, in the 1980s, car drivers changed gear less often, braked less often and required less fuel.
Congestion is also a factor in air pollution, as emissions from a standing vehicle are higher than those from a moving one; this was demonstrated during the debate we had on idling engines. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, also referred to the fact that lower speeds improve traffic flow through junctions and can actually help to reduce congestion.
I turn to Amendment 55, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and others, and Amendment 57, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I will talk to them together, because they both propose air quality improvement areas. In the introduction to his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, talked about why local authorities are an important part of tackling air pollution, and why they need the powers to make a genuine difference. He spoke particularly about the issue of combustion plants in this context.
Amendment 57 builds on Amendment 55, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, explained very clearly. The need to include PM2.5 when setting a national air quality target is critical. We have previously debated the importance of meeting the WHO targets for this, and we also know that, next week, there is likely to be an announcement that the guidelines will be tightened even further.
The noble Baroness then talked about how her amendment would give metro mayors powers to designate air quality improvement areas. This is important, because it helps to avoid a patchwork of different emissions standards in our larger cities, and the noble Baroness talked about how important that is.
The noble Baroness spoke next about the third part of her amendment, which seeks to end the sale and use of wood-burning stoves in urban areas. Again, we have heard in the debate how important this is in helping to reduce PM2.5 emissions in our cities. The Climate Change Committee has also made it clear that wood-burning stoves should not be counted towards either low-carbon heat targets or renewable targets.
Finally, on Amendment 56, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, idling creates air pollution and is really unnecessary. An idling engine burns fuel less efficiently than when the vehicle is moving, and so it produces more emissions than when it is travelling. Additionally, the toxic gases produced by idling are emitted in the same place, which means that localised air pollution is higher. This is particularly important near schools, because research shows that exposing children to high levels of air pollution can stunt lung growth and cause behavioural and mental health problems. Those of us who are drivers have a personal responsibility here; whether we are parked outside a school, picking someone up from the station or waiting in a car park, we all must do our bit by switching off our engines to reduce our emissions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, reminded us, idling is an offence in law, but there are clearly issues around enforcement and penalties. My noble friend Lord Whitty talked about the difficulties that Westminster Council is having, for example, and this was mentioned by other noble Lords. As I said at the beginning, this is an important group of amendments, focusing on things the Government can do to act quickly to reduce air pollution. I await the Minister’s response with interest.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I begin by thanking noble Lords for the quality of their contributions on the important issue of air quality throughout these proceedings, including in Committee. I agree that ambitious action is needed, which is why the Bill requires the Government to set two targets on air quality, including for fine particulate matter, the particulate most harmful to human health. These will be supported by a robust set of measures in the Bill which enable the action required to meet those targets. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, that the department will organise a meeting for her and the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, with the Minister, if this has not been organised already. In light of her point about the impact on electricity demand from the speeds of electric vehicles, we will write to the Department for Transport for clarification on that issue.
Turning to Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Baroness, the Government support the use of 20 miles per hour speed limits or zones in the right places, depending on local circumstances. Local authorities have the power to set these limits, and I am confident that it is better for these decisions to be taken locally, taking a balanced account of the full range of impacts of changing speed limits, including economic and environmental effects. The Air Quality Expert Group report into non-exhaust emissions from road traffic concluded that the most effective traffic pollution mitigation strategies reduce the overall volume of traffic, lower the speed where traffic is free flowing—for example, on motorways—and promote driving behaviour that reduces braking and higher-speed cornering. We agree that we need to reduce PM2.5 emissions from tyre and brake wear. In towns and cities where traffic is not free flowing, the best way to do this is by encouraging fewer vehicle journeys rather than slower journeys. We do not want our recovery from this pandemic to be car-led. That is why the Government are continuing with our ambitious plans to increase active travel, with a long-term vision for half of all journeys in towns and cities to be walked or cycled by 2030, backed by £2 billion of investment over five years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked a number of questions. I believe she is mistaken about what I said in Committee. We have now checked Hansard, but I would like more time to go through it in detail. If what she said about casualty rates is relevant to that we will, in any event, write to clarify the point I made. She also asked some other questions, which I will come to later. We want to encourage more people to make sustainable, healthier travel choices that help improve air quality for local communities.
I turn to Amendments 55 and 57. Through the Bill, we are strengthening the local air quality management framework to bring in a broader range of partners to work with local authorities to improve air quality, and to make it easier for them to use their powers to tackle, for example, domestic solid fuel burning, a key source of PM2.5. I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about the cumbersome processes that local authorities have to go through and we are aware of the issues with procedures for making these orders. In 2020, we published a report, Traffic Regulation Orders, identifying improvements to the legislative process in England, and we plan to consult later this year on potential legislative reforms to make it easier and quicker to make orders. There are already controls in place for many of the sources of pollution of concern that noble Lords have cited, for example through environmental permitting.
I set out in detail in Committee the many levers that local authorities already have to improve air quality in their areas, so I do not propose to repeat them here, but for tackling non-road emissions, specifically non-road mobile machinery, there are already emissions standards that non-road mobile machinery must comply with before it is sold, and the Government recently agreed to increase the stringency of these standards. Our existing regulatory regime also already sets emissions controls targeting medium combustion plants. This regime requires all plants in scope, such as the plants referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, to be registered or permitted, and sets limits on the levels of pollutants that these plants can emit. Going forward, our clean air strategy committed to consider the case for tighter emissions standards for medium combustion plants to those already introduced and to consider how to tackle emissions from smaller plants which do not fall within the scope of these regulations or eco-design regulations. I believe it is better to continue to strengthen the existing approaches than to create a new framework which would add to an already complex regulatory picture. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is aware that Defra officials recently met representatives of the City of London, and other local authorities, to understand how to tackle the specific issues that this amendment intends to address, using our existing powers.
On the noble Baroness’s Amendment 57, which would introduce a ban on wood-burning appliances, we recognise that many people rely on wood-burning stoves and open fires, which use natural fuel. Because of this, our recent domestic fuels legislation does not introduce an outright and indiscriminate ban. Instead, we have taken action through the Air Quality (Domestic Solid Fuels Standards) (England) Regulations 2020, which came into force in May, to encourage people to move away from using more polluting fuels, such as wet wood, to less polluting fuels, such as dry wood. The proposals are therefore aimed at protecting health by phasing out the most polluting fuels used for domestic combustion in England and encouraging people to burn less. This work is supported by an information campaign to encourage people to burn better and to reduce harmful emissions.
The regulations require that wood sold in smaller units must have a moisture content of 20% or less, phase out the supply of traditional house coal for domestic burning, and require that all manufactured solid fuels meet sulphur and smoke emissions limits, to tackle the most harmful emissions from domestic burning. However, we need to be mindful of the contribution that wood burning makes in areas where particulate levels are already high, such as in city and town centres. That is why local authorities already have the power to declare smoke control areas. We continue to undertake regular monitoring of emission sources to inform our work to tackle human health risks robustly, and in setting and working towards the new air quality targets we will consider whether stricter measures are needed.
Turning to Amendment 56 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, while this amendment would increase penalties for drivers idling unnecessarily, the priority must be to change motorists’ behaviour. With or without the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, we must encourage them not to idle—which is, after all, wasting expensive fuel—and instead push motorists towards using the technological solutions now available, rather than penalise them. Vehicle technology has moved on significantly and can play a part in addressing idling, including stop-start technology and low or zero-emission vehicles. If needed, however, powers are already available to local authorities to tackle unnecessary idling. Local authorities, as the existing guidance makes clear, should utilise a range of methods to encourage motorists to change their behaviour, including public information campaigns.
Although it seems a very simple idea to increase fines, the Department for Transport undertook a study on fines and concluded that increasing the level was not the best way of addressing the issue. Higher fines of up to £1,000 on conviction may also be issued if the police carry out enforcement against idling where a driver refuses to stop running their engine. This, of course, is rather more than the noble Lord’s suggested penalty, although I acknowledge that this is on conviction, rather than an on-the-spot fine. So, although I agree with the intended outcome of the noble Lord’s amendment, the Government’s position is that higher penalties are not the best approach to address this issue, so I beg noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I thank the Minister. I have one quick question for her. She said that the Government do not want slower traffic, they just want fewer cars on the road, but that flies in the face of what public opinion says on slower traffic. Wherever 20 miles per hour limits have been introduced, they have been very popular. Will she quickly address that? Is it in order for me to ask her to elucidate?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am happy to elucidate. I do not believe I said I want just to reduce traffic; I said that both solutions will produce the desired outcome—both fewer vehicles and slower traffic.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
“Air quality and human health in rural areas: application of pesticides
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision prohibiting the application of pesticides for the purposes of agriculture or horticulture near—(a) buildings used for human habitation, and(b) public or private buildings and associated open spaces where members of the public may be present, including but not limited to—(i) schools and childcare nurseries, and(ii) hospitals and health care facilities.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify a minimum distance from any of the locations listed under subsection (1) to be maintained during the application of any pesticide.(3) In determining the distance in subsection (2) the Secretary of State must be guided by the optimum distance that would make a significant difference in air quality for people using the locations listed in subsection (1).(4) In this section “public building” includes any building used for the purpose of education. (5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
In order to improve air quality and thereby protect human health and the environment in rural areas, this new Clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to prohibit the application of chemical pesticides near buildings and open spaces used by residents and members of the public.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment should be recognised as absolutely necessary and straightforward but it is one, unfortunately, that the Government have resisted. Like the air quality debate that we have just had, it concerns human health, but it also has wider environmental implications. The detrimental effect of chemical pesticide spraying on those who live, work and congregate close to where spraying is carried out is well established. The medical effects are now well known—although, as the Minister himself had to admit the other week, not the particular effects of specific combinations of chemicals included in the cocktail of chemicals that are often sprayed these days.
In earlier stages of this Bill and the Agriculture Bill, the detrimental effects of spraying on individuals and families over long periods have been spelled out in great detail; they are familiar to GPs and medics here and around the world. Some effects are acute and some short term, such as breathing difficulties; some are utterly chronic, and some are lethal. The most vulnerable are those right next to the spraying and, in particular, those who are subject to repeated doses because they live there.
Noble Lords will be aware of the views from most scientists, the royal commission and, broadly speaking, global medical opinion. Noble Lords will also have been made aware of particular concerns of individuals who have been affected and have suffered chronic ill health and eventual disability because of this exposure. I have met some of the victims and have heard of large numbers of others.
It is the essential human issue that we are attempting to address in this amendment, but there are, of course, wider arguments. In the terms of some of the responses during Committee and through the passage of the Agriculture Bill, the arguments got mixed up. It is true that many people, including myself, would wish to see the eventual phasing out of all chemical pesticides. The numbers of people wishing for that outcome apparently, according to the news last week, include President Macron. However, irrespective of my views on the longer term, this is a very specific issue, for now. It means that we would protect from current pesticides the health and well-being of literally thousands, or potentially hundreds of thousands, of rural residents in this country. This amendment is not about the bigger picture; it is very specifically about the protection of our rural residents in their homes, gardens, schools and public places. It is an in principle amendment, leaving details subject to the regulatory process. Protection for our rural population is essential, but the regulatory process will obviously allow opinions on the detail. If we adopt this amendment tonight, that process will start now.
Unfortunately, the Government have found all sorts of reasons for resisting this amendment, or a similar amendment, starting with the early stages of the Agriculture Bill. Ministers have adduced a whole range of metamorphosing reasons for opposing the amendment. At first, they said that it was unnecessary because Ministers already had the power to make regulations on distancing of spraying of pesticides and, at that time, they sort of did—but it was under EU law, which left it discretionary on the member state to implement it. We never used that discretion and, with the end of the transition period, that power disappeared; it was not transposed into UK law. The reality is that that power had been there for over a decade and successive Governments had never used it; that is why we need a specific amendment requiring the Government to introduce regulations to implement that principle and not leave permissive powers mouldering on the statue book for another two decades.
The Government then argued that this country’s licensing system for pesticides was world beating—to use that phrase—and did not need any improvements, and that the danger of residents spraying pesticides in their houses and gardens was negligible these days. Yet the Minister was unable to tell the House what tests were made on cocktails of pesticides and, also, on medical evidence, which in particular my noble friend—or, I should say, my noble co-signatory—Lady Finlay adduced during the passage of the Agriculture Bill and this Bill.
There are multiple incidents of acute harm, burns and breathing problems but, far more disturbingly, there are large numbers of cases where long-term effects are seen on neurological and immune systems, lung function and foetal health. These are dangerous. Of course, we are protecting other people; those who use the pesticides are protected by very strict health and safety regulations, wear protective clothing and are usually within a cab. Consumers are protected by very strict rules about pesticide residues being left on vegetables and fruit that reach our shops and markets. The people who are not protected are those who live in our countryside, right next to where this spraying is carried out. I find that omission appalling, and I do not understand why the Government are so reluctant to do something about it. I hope that I have the wholehearted support of this House in instructing the Government to do something about it. As I say, the details of that can be sorted out in regulation, but let us at least make the principle clear tonight.
In Committee, I refrained from quoting anybody, but a couple of examples caught my eye when I was going through this the other night. One woman said:
“My family have always lived next to fields sprayed with chemicals. My husband and my son died from neurological diseases. Our neighbouring farmer and his wife both have MS”—
and, she says, it is all down to those chemicals. Another said:
“I am sprayed with cocktails of pesticides by my neighbour, a fruit farmer, around 20 times per year. As a toxicologist I know that these agents are not meant to be used anywhere near residences and yet my home is covered with these chemicals every time he sprays”.
The Government themselves recognise this issue. In the codes of practice, they require farmers and others to notify nearby premises, but that is not enforced, and, in most cases, it does not happen. There is no such notification and, even when it does happen, there is no notification of what precisely is being sprayed because, by and large, by that stage, the particular application is not clear. However, it is clear everywhere else; it is clear to the medics and to the manufacturers, who put very strong warnings against inhalation or skin contact on the containers for these pesticides—and rightly so, because they are being responsible. I am asking the Government to take their responsibilities at least as seriously and today adopt an amendment that will give some hope to those families who historically have seriously suffered debilitation and sometimes worse, and to ensure that it does not affect families in the next generation.
I hope that the Minister will change course on this issue, accepting the need to look at it again and to take action to introduce regulation. Unfortunately, successive Governments have not done that, which is why I require the amendment to instruct the Government to take action. I hope that the House fully supports me on because too many people’s lives have been blighted to ignore this problem. I hope that the House can support this amendment today.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment, and I support it very strongly. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will test the opinion of the House.
We have major problems with these chemicals. First, our testing regime tests single pesticides, but does not look at combinations or mixtures of pesticides. Secondly, people are required to notify local premises prior to spraying, but there are two difficulties with this: as downwind is not necessarily a short distance, these chemicals can travel very long distances, and you cannot predict the direction the wind is blowing. Another difficulty is that they sit on the land on crops, and when the sun comes out, they vaporise. Even though people might have been warned about spraying, the vaporisation means that the amount in the air goes up again and it is spread still further towards people living in the vicinity.
I have a list of references from different parts of the scientific literature which I will not go through in detail now, as it is not the time. But I point out that pesticides can cause deformities in unborn offspring, cancers, and mutations that poison the nervous system and block the natural defences of the immune system. The irreversible effects are permanent and cannot be changed once they have occurred. I have looked after an awful lot of cancer patients, many coming from farming communities in Wales. When they are young and ask me about exposure to chemicals, it is very difficult to have that conversation, because by then they, or maybe their child, is already so seriously ill or dying, that everything is irreversible. We cannot carry on doing this and polluting the environment without thinking again. Article 3(14) of EU Regulation 1107/2009 defines rural residents living in the locality of pesticide-sprayed crops as “vulnerable groups,” and they are recognised as having high pesticide exposure over the long term.
The side effects of the individual chemical agents are quite scary. When one looks at the cumulative effects long term, we cannot continue to ignore them. The effect on rural residents will go on and on, even for those living at sizeable distances. I hope that the House will reflect on the debate we had on the Agriculture Bill, when the Minister at the time, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, told the Committee that we need a population in good health to cope with the threat of infection during the pandemic. We cannot carry on having a rural community that is being poisoned by its own actions in an attempt to supply us with food which is cheap and probably underpriced for the value which should go to farmers for responsible farming. I hope that this House will support this amendment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 52 to which I have added my name, and the very important contributions, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I am of course passionate because this is a matter of great importance. As I have said previously, on both the Agriculture Bill and in Committee for this Bill, we have a history of underplaying certain risks to human health, which we only find out about later. I am thinking of tobacco, asbestos, air quality—which we have just been discussing —and various things which cause harm. It must be obvious that these chemical pesticides—because of the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff—are nothing but harmful.
I am particularly concerned about cocktails of chemicals. I am not a chemist and did not do much science at school, but I know that if one mixes certain chemicals, they have a completely different effect and can be even more toxic. Do these chemicals accumulate in the soil, and not simply vaporise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said? That is something we should be looking at.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 123 is in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who has already indicated his support, and the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury; I am extremely grateful for their support. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Whitty, and I make a passing reference to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. There are compelling cases for both their amendments too, but I do not intend to speak to them.
The debate in Committee revealed strong support from all parts of the House for this amendment—indeed, I cannot recall anyone who spoke against it. Even the Minister himself spoke for the amendment in part, when he was persuaded by a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that the amendment was a no-brainer. To that extent, he accepted it, but we will come to the Government’s resistance in a moment.
This amendment proposes a new clause which provides an effective regulation to protect wildlife, the environment and human health by replacing toxic lead ammunition, principally for shooting game, with alternatives. It is intended to provide regulatory protection for wildlife and the environment and to improve human health and protect humans by replacing toxic lead gunshot with much safer alternatives. It also intends to ensure a supply of healthy game for the market and meet the requirements of shooting, food retail and conservation stakeholders.
This amendment is not precisely the one that was before your Lordships’ House in Committee. The date of its provisions coming into effect has changed slightly to 31 July 2023—a move of a few months in 2023—to respond to arguments and advice that I received directly and indirectly from ammunition manufacturers that it would be more appropriate not to seek to ban the use of lead ammunition in the middle of a game season, when people had already stocked up, as it were, for the purpose of shooting. It seemed to be a compelling argument. They were on board. They also said, quite understandably, that if we are to make this change, there needs to be compulsion that has effect and is logical so that they can ramp up the manufacturing. So, there is a change in that respect.
I do not intend to go into all the 30 years of evidence there is that we should not be doing this, but we know that lead is a poison. We ban it in many other areas of life. It seems crazy that we allow it to be used in this way when it gets directly into the food chain. In his response in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, confirmed that the Government want action to ban the use of lead in a way which harms the environment and human or animal health. He is a lifelong—certainly adult life-long—proponent of that and makes no bones about it. He rejected an amendment of this nature because it was not comprehensive and did not deal with the issue of lead in target shooting and other parts of that element of the sport.
The Minister supported the Government’s preferred approach, which is to use the GB REACH process—I say the “GB REACH process” because the EU REACH process applies to Northern Ireland and, indeed, may be being debated in your Lordships’ Grand Committee—which, in my view and in the view of many other noble Lords, will take an unconscionable length of time and will unnecessarily expose tens, if not thousands, of children to potential harm. I remind your Lordships’ House that the Minister, Rebecca Pow, said in launching the REACH process:
“A large volume of lead ammunition is discharged every year over the countryside, causing harm to the environment, wildlife and people”,
and that
“Addressing the impacts of lead ammunition will mark a significant step forward in helping to protect wildlife, people, and the environment.”
In concluding, the Minister offered the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, a meeting. It took place on 5 August with the Minister, officials and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, present. I got an indirect invitation to the meeting, which I also attended. Since then, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has had further communication with the Bill team, as has the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury. I shall leave both noble Lords to share with your Lordships’ House what was discussed, if it can be shared. I thank the Minister and his team for their engagement with this process, and I thank the noble Lords for ensuring that I was included.
But I understand that the Bill team’s position on lead shot is that the time it will take for the GB REACH restriction dossier to be prepared is required to build a comprehensive case for the restriction. I think that is one of their arguments. They also argue that this requires up-to-date GB-wide specific evidence and that the Government need to make sure that the final decision on this is watertight from an evidential and legal perspective. I have not practised law for a long time, but I respect this position and understand it. But I do not accept without evidence that this is necessarily a block to dealing with what we can deal with today, which is harm to people, animals and the environment. I will come back to that.
So where do we stand today? First, lead is a poison and should be banned, except where it is a necessity to use it and there is no alternative, where it should be closely regulated. That is what we do in every other aspect of our lives. We have known that lead shot has been poisoning animals, humans and the environment for decades. We have reached the stage where, in the face of the comprehensive knowledge that we now have of the value of the environment and its biodiversity to every single aspect of our life, something has to be done about this. The obvious thing is for its use in a way that creates a poisonous effect to be banned.
There already exists a comprehensive case for this amendment—supported by specific GB evidence over decades—to protect human health, wildlife health and the environment. There exists support for the need for the change from all major stakeholders: shooters, game dealers, distributors, retailers, scientists, conservationists, and even the Houses of Parliament. Both Houses, through their committees, unanimously agreed to ban the sale of lead-shot game in our restaurants so that we do not poison ourselves. It has support from Parliament already. I have to say I find it difficult to explain to people outside why we cannot ban for their consumption what we have banned for our own. This does not seem a tenable position to be in.
There already exists acknowledgement that alternatives exist and are effective. They have existed for 25 years in Denmark. Not only do they have a burgeoning shooting business—in fact, my country, Scotland, has lots of Danes shooting there in all the shooting seasons who tell me that they do it in Denmark very successfully, and they win medals from sports shooting targets with steel ammunition. There already exists an acknowledgement of the need for change to support a market for healthy game meat, which we should encourage people to eat. So there are strong socioeconomic arguments too.
Any further unnecessary delay will result in the death and suffering of hundreds of thousands more birds, the risk of irreversibly reducing the IQs of thousands—possibly tens of thousands—more children, and the deposit of thousands of tonnes more lead shot into the environment, adding to the existing toxic legacy, all of which are unnecessary and fully avoidable.
The case for this amendment is made and is clear cut. Dealing with this now will not only save time and taxpayers’ money by avoiding another unnecessary review but give GB REACH more valuable time to research and debate the issues of lead bullets and target shooting, for which there is certainly a case but where we appreciate that more work with stakeholders may well be required.
Finally, my understanding is that it has been suggested from “sources” that the GB REACH process can achieve the objective of a comprehensive ban with effect from 31 July 2023, the date on which this amendment is due to come into force. If the Minister is inclined to offer that in his response, it will have to be considered, and I am certainly willing to do so. I know that those who support the amendment and have put their name to it are also willing to consider that as a solution to this problem.
However, I am confident that if I test the opinion of this House, a majority will support this amendment. There are two possibilities for avoiding that, as I see them. The first alternative is that, beyond the assertion that GB REACH is the only way forward, the Minister can point me and my noble friends who support this amendment to the legal provisions that support this conclusion and not just keep asserting it without doing so. I have not yet seen a reasoned argument of this nature. It has been absent from all the discussions I have been involved in thus far with the Bill team, either directly or secondarily. I have it on good authority from lawyers working on it at the moment that it is not necessary to do it down that route and that this route, which the Danes use, could be used, too, with effect and without challenge.
Secondly, if the Minister gives a strong enough commitment to persuade the House that there is a strong probability that there will be a comprehensive ban on the use of lead ammunition by a date around the one which we propose in this amendment, or by a date certain, I will consider not having to further embarrass the Government by dividing the House on this issue.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support Amendment 123, from the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. I declare an interest, as on the record from previous debates on this Bill. I will not cover again all the points I made both at Second Reading and in Committee.
It is a fact that lead is a poison. I have an enthusiasm in supporting this amendment that comes entirely from my love of the shooting sports, in particular game shooting. Noble Lords will recall that I have probably been supporting all the shooting sports in this House since I came here 40 years ago, very often as a lone voice. Shooting is not exactly something that many of your Lordships are fondly in love with. I want everything I shoot to go into the food chain for human consumption. It is good, wholesome, low-calorie, low-cholesterol food that is both nutritious and delicious.
I am a realist and a very small minority of my shooting colleagues—I do not call them friends because they are not—could not give a fig whether they sell their game into the marketplace for human consumption. So far as they are concerned, they can dispose of it by other means. I find that absolutely despicable and disgusting. There is absolutely no place in my shooting world for people like that, who taint the vast majority of the game shooting enthusiasts of this country, who behave very responsibly indeed and desire, like me, to be able to ensure a growing market of consumers for the game that we produce. That is why I am standing here, pleading with your Lordships about lead.
This amendment will not affect target and clay pigeon shooters. We do not eat targets and clay pigeons. Clay pigeon shooters and target shooters shoot 60% of all the lead shot-cartridges produced in this country. Game shooters shoot 40%. Nine shooting bodies or bodies supporting the shooting sports, including what used to be the Game Conservancy Trust—the GWCT, which my noble friend Lord Caithness and I have a lot to do with—stated some while ago that they intended voluntarily to cease shooting with lead shot. That was done about a couple of years ago, in my memory. I believe that they are now backtracking, and this is another reason why I support this amendment very strongly. The amendment provides certainty for the shooters. It gives certainty to the supermarkets, which are going to stop producing food that has lead shot in it. The stated intention of these nine bodies was to give up lead in a five-year timeframe. There is your timeframe. There is nothing wrong in giving a timeframe. It gives support to the shooters. It gives support to everybody involved with the game-producing industry. We all know then what we are doing and by when we have to do it.
My shooting friends—and I had an invitation from one very nicely this morning in the post—are all saying now, “Will you kindly stop using lead on our estates? We would like you to go and use non-toxic shot, because we cannot sell the birds at the end of this coming season to the Game Dealers Association, because it has already stated that it will not take toxic-shot birds and there goes our market entirely.”
The supermarket chains, especially Waitrose, have for quite a while now had a strategy and process whereby they are stopping accepting lead-shot and toxic-shot game. They believe that the market is going to go much better for non-toxic-shot game. Waitrose mentioned to me that it can sell 1 million more units of game a year to the consumer. That is good for shooting, and that is why I am standing here saying this.
I believe that there is no earthly, legal or operational reason why Her Majesty’s Government cannot agree to this amendment, which covers only game shooting. It does not include clay pigeons shooting, which, as I mentioned, uses by far the largest amount of lead shot in the country. The Government can take on clay pigeon shooters on a different day and take them through a consultation. It will take them years to do it, but I would like to see game shooting legislated for now.
I urge my noble friend the Minister to accept these amendments or to accept Amendment 123, because it is sensible and easy.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 52, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to which I was pleased to attach my name. It also has the cross-party and non-party support of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I will also briefly address the other two amendments here.
Your Lordships’ House might not be surprised to know that my arguments around Amendment 123 might be slightly differently expressed, and I might have drafted the amendment slightly differently. None the less, the fact that we are still pumping lead out into our environment is disgraceful. We hear the phrase “world-leading” a great deal. As we have heard, Denmark banned lead shot for hunting 25 years ago. California did it last year. If you look around the world, it has taken an unconscionably long time but we have just seen Algeria become the last country in the world to stop selling leaded petrol. We have known for a long time the damage lead does. We cannot justify continuing to use it in this way. This might have been an amendment for which the term “no-brainer” was invented, when you think about the fact that this is damaging the brains of children in particular. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, we have banned lead-shot game here in this House but have not acted outside the House. That really cannot be defended. It is untenable.
Amendment 53 looks at protecting nature from the toxic, disastrous chemicals that are pesticides, but I really want to focus on Amendment 52. We have been debating for some time and I want to come back to briefly highlight the powerful points made particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Many Members of your Lordships’ House, particularly those sitting opposite, will be able to picture the scene: an air-conditioned cab with air filtration; an operator equipped with a whole range of complex, high-tech protective equipment; and a child playing in a garden right beside where the person in all that protective equipment is applying chemicals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said she sees the other side of this in her professional practice. People—sometimes young people, sometimes very young people—with cancers, with neurodegenerative diseases. Once the noble Baroness sees them, it is essentially too late. We cannot allow this to continue. This House has many times expressed its strong support for this amendment. I stress that these three amendments are not an either/or, pick-and-match lot. All these amendments should be in the Bill.
I very much hope that, given the direction of travel and where push pressure is coming from, the noble Lord will concede on Amendment 123. We have to vote. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to put this to the vote. We have to get both Amendments 52 and 53 through. This is not an either/or option.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I just want to say a few words about these chemicals and to talk about it from the point of view of the industry and cheap food.
In 1947, the manufacturers of DDT ran an advert in Time magazine showing smiling cartoon farm animals and a rosy-cheeked housewife who sang “DDT is good for me-e-e!”, along with the claim that DDT was the “benefactor of all humanity”. That same year, they had a British colonialist sprinkling DDT over a bowl of porridge and then eating it in a bid to persuade local people in east Africa that this chemical was harmless.
We can see, if we cut forward to today, that Silent Spring was written in 1962 and DDT became recognised as something that was harmful to animals, nature, biodiversity and, indeed, humans. Yet, today, we see a very different story. In 1990, we treated 45 million hectares with pesticides. By 2016, this had risen to 73 million hectares, although the actual area of crops had remained the same. However, we were putting many times more pesticides on to those same crops, on to a weakening soil, in our attempt to keep producing ever more cheap food to feed our population.
There are very familiar names in the industry—Bayer, Monsanto and Syngenta—and it is reckoned that they make about 35% of their total global revenue by selling these sorts of pesticides around the world. Farmers get trapped into that same cycle. It is something that we have to break.
This amendment is very important to me, because I feel a great distrust of the Government at the moment, for instance over the ban of neonicotinoids. They are now banned in America and across the whole of Europe; indeed, when we were still within the European Union, we banned them as well. However, we have now let them back in and they are allowed to be used on sugar beet. This feels to me like a small open door that could get bigger. I quote Dave Goulson, from the University of Sussex, who wrote a fantastic book about the decline of insects. Mentioning neonicotinoids, he says:
“The toxicity takes your breath away—just five maize seeds treated with neonicotinoids are enough to kill a grey partridge.”
No one can spray 17,000 tonnes of poison across a landscape without doing massive damage as it spreads. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, so wisely said, we now know about DDT—and, actually, we know about this stuff too. It is no accident that it kills animals, insects and every single small thing around.
These amendments are absolutely imperative, right across so many parts of this Bill: biodiversity, habitats and human health. Also, there are other ways of doing it; there are intelligent, responsible uses of gene editing and many natural solutions to keep crops safe and ensure that we have good, healthy food that does not destroy either our planet or ourselves.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness; she has made a very powerful speech and covered a lot of the points that I wanted to raise. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, also made a powerful and passionate speech. We all know that some pesticides are lethal when applied badly or in the wrong conditions. A lot of farmers do it absolutely correctly but, sadly, a minority do not necessarily adhere to the rules or the conditions. As the food section of the United Nations has reminded us, we also need to bear in mind that crop yields currently drop by 26% to 40% if one does not have the right chemicals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, was absolutely right that there are alternatives coming through in gene editing; that must be the future. It would be an ideal situation if we could get rid of most harmful pesticides through gene editing, to keep food production up. The noble Baroness also reminded us what a complete mess we have made in our farming over past years, which has affected biodiversity, the soil and nature. A serious revolution is taking place now to correct that.
I turn to Amendment 123 and support what the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, has said. Yes, there is an informal agreement to phase out lead shot within five years, but that is too long a timescale. It is perfectly possible to do it to an earlier timescale. It would be inconvenient for some industries, I agree, but my mind goes back to when I was a Minister and we started to phase out CFCs. Industries came to my door in their droves, saying, “You cannot do this”, “We will have to rejig our plant”, “We can’t possibly do it in the timescale you are proposing.” In fact, they did it in a quicker timescale than I wanted at the time. If one gives industries a set date, they can do it; they will meet it. It is a pity that most of the steel now has to come from China, but that is another story. I support the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, has said, and I so agree with my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury: it is for the good of shooting that this amendment is necessary.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I am afraid that I will add a little un-unanimity to this debate, which seems to have been completely one-sided so far. I declare my farming interests as set out in the register and note that there is a thriving apiary on my farm, to which the greatest threats are from weather and woodpeckers—if noble Lords want to know why woodpeckers, it is because they break into the hives during the winter and eat the queen bee.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 53 in my name and shall speak to Amendments 52 and 123. All the amendments deal with different poisons that should be banned, or at least controlled. I thank the Bill team for its time and useful briefing on Friday. We have debated at length the impact of pesticides on both the population and pollinating insects during the Agriculture Bill and in Committee on this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke passionately, as always—as did others—about the impact of pesticides on humans unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity of spraying. That is a serious matter, and I hope that the Minister will have concessions to offer the noble Lord and other signatories to that amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, gave the excellent example of the promotion of DDT. There should not be another example similar to that witnessed with the use of organophosphate sheep dips, when it took a huge campaign on the part of those affected before the substance was banned. Pesticides have detrimental effects on humans, and the Government should acknowledge that.
I now turn to Amendment 53, relating to the effect of pesticide use on pollinators, particularly bees. I am grateful to Buglife for its briefings. I am sure the Minister will refer the House to the integrated pest management strategy, which covers some of the ground. However, this does not provide the safeguards needed. The widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides resulted in a reduction in the overwintering success of honey bee hives, significant declines of 40% in wild bee species studied and was implicated in butterfly population decline. This resulted in reduced pollination services and crop yields. However, despite the acknowledgement by the then Minister in 2010 that the pre-approval tests for pesticides were inadequate to protect pollinators, and the production in 2013 of a testing guide document by the European Food Safety Authority, the UK has yet to introduce any new tests to help ensure that future pesticides are pollinator-safe. In order to comply, an independent, competent authority is needed, as detailed in proposed new subsections (1) to (4) of Amendment 53.
I acknowledge the national action plan on pesticides and its aim to reduce the need for chemical pesticides, but it does not mean that they will be phased out. The Future Farming scheme will help with transition to a non-pesticide control, but this is yet to have effect.
The public are passionate about bees. One needs only to see the many products on sale with the symbol of bees and their honeycombs to acknowledge just how popular they are. Those can range from miracle face creams through to cushions and scarves, from socks through to high-fashion items, kitchen utensils and even furniture. There is also the huge popularity of honey—a truly natural product. The bee is popular, and the public wish it to be protected and wish to be consulted on anything which might have an impact on pollinators. This amendment ensures that that could happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has referred to a 30% to 40% reduction in crop yield if PPPs are not used, but if crops are not pollinated because of the decline in pollinators, there is likely to be a similar loss in yield.
With reference to proposed new subsection (9), the devolved Administrations have a significant role here, and the Minister should consult them. Authorisation of use includes derogation. As a nation, we must strive to avoid a similar circumstance to where a Minister, overriding the advice of his officials, authorises the use of glyphosate-based herbicides, which can cause high levels of mortality in bumblebees. This came to public attention only due to an FoI. The public need to have confidence that the Government will do the right thing.
Different groups of pollinators are affected by pesticides in different ways, so it is important that a range of pollinators is included in the pre-approval testing process. This amendment would ensure that tests are undertaken on acute and chronic effects on honey bees, bumblebees, solitary bees, butterflies and hover-flies, but also that independent science relevant to any pollinator is considered.
I regret to say that, despite the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that everything is tested, on Friday, officials said that it was impossible to test everything. The various mixtures of chemicals—the so-called cocktails—are unlikely all to be tested. There may be a shift to less toxic mixtures, but insufficient research on their effect has so far been done, and it is important to protect honey bees and wild pollinators.
Turning briefly to Amendment 123, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, who spoke passionately about it, phasing out the use of lead ammunition has been slow. In Committee, we heard powerful evidence of the effect of lead poisoning on the health of both children and adults. No matter how careful you are in the preparation of game for the table, lead shot often escapes notice and is unwittingly eaten. I was very interested in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, of lead shot in millet. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, spoke from vast experience of shooting. Alternatives to lead shot are available. I fully support the transition away from lead to safer alternatives. This amendment, if added to the Bill, would ensure that that would happen sooner rather than later. I look forward to the Minister’s response to those three very important amendments.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest through my involvement at Rothamsted Research. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in a clearly very important debate. Amendments 52 and 53 tackle the pernicious effects that pesticides are having on our environment and on human and insect health. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Whitty once again raises the important human health implications of spraying noxious chemicals in fields next to residential and workplace areas. He asks that regulations should set out minimum distances from homes, schools and public places. We do not think this is an unreasonable request. As he said, at least farm workers have protective clothing and some sort of choice about their work environment, whereas local people have no choice and no information about what is being sprayed on particular days. As we have discovered in the past, the health implications of exposure to such chemicals can sometimes take years to be revealed, as the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, of DDT, clearly demonstrated.
Of course we welcome the Government’s overarching commitment to reducing pesticide use. We see that there are considerable advantages to precision applications and integrated pest management for the future, but the very fact that the Government are taking those steps is an acknowledgement of the dangers of widespread pesticide use. In the meantime, until those techniques become commonplace, we should at least be taking steps to protect public health, and my noble friend’s amendment is one step towards doing this.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I start by assuring your Lordships’ House that, in line with this amendment, the Government’s objective is to reduce the use of and risks and impacts associated with pesticides. Logically, that has to be the objective, given everything we know about the effects of pouring so many chemicals into our natural environment over so many decades.
The national action plan on the sustainable use of pesticides sets out the ambition to improve indicators of pesticide usage, risk and impacts. This was the subject of a recent public consultation. The summary of responses will be published shortly and a final revised national action plan will be published later this year. As we set out in the draft plan, the Government are committed to producing targets for the reduction of the risks associated with pesticide use. We are developing new metrics to better understand the pressures that pesticides put on the environment and will use these tools to target the most toxic pesticides.
Central to the strategy is integrated pest management. Through future schemes, we will support farmers, land managers and so on to maximise nature-based solutions and switch to lower-toxicity, higher-precision methods of pest control. The aim is to drive down dependency on pesticides and to allow our farmers to produce high-quality food with less risk to people and the environment.
On Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the Government agree that pesticides should not be used where they may harm human health. Pesticides should be authorised only where a scientific assessment shows that they are not supposed to have any harmful effects on human health. In addition, pesticide users are supposed to take all reasonable precautions to protect human health and the environment, and must ensure that the pesticide is confined to the area intended to be treated. They must minimise their use around public buildings and vulnerable groups. That includes the situations noted in the noble Lord’s amendment, such as around schools, hospitals, children, and rural residents, who could be exposed more regularly. It is an offence to use pesticides in contravention of these requirements, and one that comes with an unlimited fine.
I share concerns raised by a number of noble Lord, including in particular my noble friend Lord Randall, about the potential impact of mixtures of pesticides. Clearly it is not possible to assess directly the human health and environmental impacts of the millions of potential combinations of chemicals in the natural environment. According to the toxicologist Professor Vyvyan Howard, if you were to test just the 1,000 commonest toxic chemicals in unique combinations of three, that would require at least 166 million different experiments. That would not even take into account the need to study varying doses. So we have over the years created an enormous problem for ourselves.
However, the risks from products are increasingly tested, as well as individual active substances. This means that mixtures of active substances are assessed where they are included in the same product and where they therefore will interact with other chemicals. There are regulatory controls, and associated conditions of authorisation, which could include no-spray zones, buffer zones and so on. That should ensure that people are protected. Applied properly, these controls should permit pesticide use only where they are safe, but where the application of these existing controls has not been sufficiently robust in the past—a point again made by my noble friend Lord Randall—that will be identified in the revised national action plan.
On Amendment 53, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, protecting pollinators is a priority for all the reasons we discussed in Committee, which I will not repeat. We are restoring and creating habitats for pollinators to thrive and redressing pressures by supporting a shift towards greater use of integrated pest management techniques. That includes increasing the use of nature-based, low-toxicity solutions and precision technologies to manage pests, all of which will benefit pollinators. Current legislation requires that pesticide products and their active substances have
“no unacceptable effects on the environment, having particular regard to … its impact on non-target species”,
which includes impacts on bees and other important pollinators.
Risk assessments made for active substances are subject to public consultation. These assessments establish the key risks posed by pesticide substances in representative conditions of use.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, let me say briefly that we have not changed our rules on neonicotinoids; the rules now are exactly the same as the ones we inherited when we left the European Union. The Government remain of the view that the scientific advice on neonicotinoids, particularly in relation to their impact on pollinators, is correct. This year, an emergency authorisation was granted for the use of a neonicotinoid seed treatment to address a particular problem in relation to the sugar beet crop. Controls were set but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, the conditions of the authorisation were not met and the exemption was therefore not used.
We know that there has been a dramatic decline in pollinators both here and across much of the world. We recognise the need to work harder and faster to identify and reduce the causes. The revised national action plan will address this, alongside our wider action for nature, including through the national pollinator strategy and the powerful package of new policies and tools introduced through this Bill, including our 2030 target that we discussed on Wednesday last week.
Turning to Amendment 123 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, the Government recognise the need to address the issue of lead shot. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. Incidentally, I strongly endorse my noble friend’s views on the different approaches to shooting and enjoyed the vigour with which he delivered them.
As I highlighted in Committee, the Government are committed to addressing the impacts of lead in ammunition. In March, we asked the Health and Safety Executive to produce a UK REACH draft restriction dossier considering the risks posed by lead shot in all civilian ammunition. That process has now started, and the HSE published its call for evidence last month. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and John Batley for our meeting last month, which was more positive than the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, implied a few moments ago. They will recognise from that meeting—at least I hope they do—that the Government share their ambition, although they highlighted concerns, principally around the timeframes associated with the REACH process. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that I share that frustration.
However, since then, Defra has engaged at length with the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency, and I am pleased to confirm that the Health and Safety Executive is due to provide its final recommendations by April 2023. The Secretary of State then has until July of that year to decide how to proceed and to propose a draft restriction, if that is what the Secretary of State decides and what the science determines. As I understand it, that timeframe does not compare unfavourably with the proposed amendment, which would take effect from 31 July 2023; it is certainly in the same ballpark.
In addition, the UK REACH process has a far more extensive coverage of lead ammunition, as the restriction dossier will consider all civilian uses of lead ammunition in all environments. The proposed amendment seeks only to limit the use of lead shot in shotguns for the purpose of killing an animal and excludes, for example, the use of lead shot for clay pigeon shooting. Most critically, any restriction would apply across Great Britain, whereas the proposed amendment would apply only to England.
We know that there are difficulties in the detection and enforcement of the existing ban on shooting over wetlands. However, we believe that there is a strong risk that the proposed amendment will also be difficult to enforce. In contrast, we are confident that the robustness of the UK REACH process will ensure that any restriction can be enforced effectively.
For these reasons, we believe that the UK REACH process is a more effective way to address the complexity of the issue. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Browne, not to press his amendment and hope that I have sufficiently assured the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have to tell the Minister that I am deeply disappointed by that reply. He started out well by indicating that there is an historical problem that we need to tackle, but he then defended the current system as being adequate. He took almost the same line as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I ask both of them: if the present system is pretty much adequate, how come a number of cases of serious inducement of disease are still turning up in our GPs’ surgeries and our hospitals—and, in relation to pollinators, why are whole populations of bees and other pollinators in serious decline? If the present system worked, at least broadly speaking, we would not see these phenomena.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, says that we will wipe out large parts of food production if we do this, but that is not the case. We are saying that we should protect the areas where people live and are vulnerable, and we propose that regulations should be introduced to do that. We were fobbed off during the passage of the then Agriculture Bill in a number of different ways, such as being told to put things in the Environment Bill instead or that it would be in the national action programme. There is hardly a word in that programme, as currently drafted, about the vulnerability of residents and other populations.
I feel sorry for the Minister in many respects, because I happen to know that, in a previous life, he strongly supported strengthening regulations regarding the exposure of rural populations, and indeed the effect on pollinators. I find it odd that, having recognised the problem and doing so again now, he is not prepared to respond to the appeals from the Front Benches of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party to say something new or give a bigger commitment. At the beginning of his response, I sort of expected that we would at least get something. We got nothing. I regret that.
The Minister is in an impossible position, but he must accept that he needs to do something immediately to consider new regulations in this area, because it is palpably obvious that the present regulations are not working. To go back to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who suggested that the spraying of pesticides does not occur during the day or close to where children are, we recently saw a film about pesticides being produced perhaps 10 yards away from where children were playing. The system is not working; the Minister has to recognise that. He can look at what the precise details of the regulations should be, but he should accept the principle in my amendment now.
With regret, I am going to test the opinion of the House.
“Protection of pollinators from pesticides
(1) A competent authority must not authorise for use any pesticide product, active ingredient, safener or synergist unless it is satisfied that there will be no significant short-term negative effect, and no long-term negative effect, on the health of honeybees or wild pollinator populations.(2) A pollinator risk assessment report relating to the relevant substance must be published by an expert body.(3) The expert body must consist of individuals free from vested interests in pesticide use, who shall have been independently appointed.(4) The pollinator risk assessment report must include—(a) data examining acute and chronic effects of the relevant substance on honeybees, bumblebees, solitary bees, butterflies and hoverflies,(b) all relevant available scientific evidence relating to any pollinators,(c) conclusions relating to the likely acute and chronic effects of the relevant substance on honeybees, bumblebees, solitary bees, butterflies, hoverflies and other pollinators,(d) an assessment of the likelihood of synergistic effects, and(e) the identification of any risks to pollinators where the available evidence is insufficient to reach a conclusion.(5) The expert body must consult the public on the draft content of the pollinator risk assessment report.(6) When making any authorisation decision the competent authority must—(a) aim to achieve a high level of protection for pollinators,(b) be satisfied that the requirements of subsections (2) to (5) have been met,(c) consult all relevant authorities with environmental responsibilities, (d) consult such other persons as the competent authority considers appropriate,(e) lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement explaining why the competent authority is satisfied that the requirements of subsection (1) have been met,(f) ensure the public has been informed by public notice early in the decision-making procedure, and in an adequate, timely and effective manner, that a decision will be made, and(g) ensure the public has been consulted on the decision that the competent authority intends to make, including on any mitigation or restriction measures that are proposed.(7) The consultation period for the purposes of subsection (6)(g) must be of at least three months, except for emergency derogations where the period will be at least four weeks.(8) This section comes into force on 1 February 2023.(9) In this section—“authorisation of use” includes authorisation by derogation;“competent authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;(c) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;(d) the Secretary of State when acting with the consent of either or both the Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales and the Scottish Ministers in relation to Scotland.”Member’s explanatory statement
The aim of this new Clause is to fix a gap in the pesticide authorisation process which currently omits any assessment on the long-term effects of pesticides on honey bees and omits any assessment of the effects on wild pollinators.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this response and acknowledge the work that Defra is undertaking to restore pollinator habitats. However, the national action plan and the revised integrated pest management strategy are not sufficient protection for pollinators that have delicate systems. Food production is important and pollinators are key to this.
Given the time constraints, I will not continue. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations under Clause 74 to be subject to affirmative procedure.
The Duke of Wellington
“(2A) A drainage and sewerage management plan must require the undertaker to implement, in conjunction with local authorities, the progressive separation of the foul water and surface water systems where possible.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to secure the separation, where possible, of drainage systems from the sewerage systems through a legal obligation placed on the water companies and local authorities in order to reduce harm from untreated discharges.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendments 59 and 60, in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Quin, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, to whom I am very grateful for their support.
These are not glamorous or intellectually stimulating amendments, such as others we debated last week, but their purpose is both high-minded and supported by the public. I cannot resist referring to a petition circulating in recent days, which already has more than 90,000 signatures, calling on the Government to place a duty on water companies not to emit sewage. I had nothing to do with the petition.
The amendments simply seek to write into an Act of Parliament a legal commitment to clean up rivers. It is surprising, shocking and indeed revolting that, in the 21st century, in a civilised and developed country, there were, according to the Environment Agency, in 2020, 400,000 discharges of sewage in England and another 100,000 in Wales; that is more than half a million discharges of sewage into rivers in England and Wales.
Since the Bill left the other place earlier this year, the Government have moved a long way, and I recognise that. First, they took over some elements of a Private Member’s Bill tabled by the right honourable Philip Dunne, Member of Parliament for Ludlow, who is also chair of the Environmental Audit Committee in the House of Commons. Clause 80 of the Bill comes from Philip Dunne’s Bill. It requires the Secretary of State to prepare a plan to reduce untreated discharges.
Since Committee, the Government have tabled further amendments: Amendments 61, 62 and 63. I thank the Minister for two meetings which the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and I had with him during the Summer Recess. I am also very grateful to the Minister in the other place, Rebecca Pow, who asked me to meet her on Teams two weeks ago, with her officials, to inform me that these amendments were to be tabled the following day. I very much welcome the amendments, particularly Amendment 63, where, for the first time, the Government are using the word “elimination” rather than just “reduction”. Amendments 61 and 62 concern very welcome increases in reporting and monitoring.
I will now explain the need for Amendment 59 to Clause 79. This seeks to separate foul water from surface water. It is surface water from heavy rainfall that often overwhelms a sewage plant, which of course is designed mainly to deal with sewage. In his letter to Peers of 27 August, the Minister announced that the Government will review Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act. If the Minister can confirm from the Dispatch Box that this would have the same effect as my Amendment 59, we will have no need to press that amendment. However, I hope he will accept that the purpose of Amendment 59 is essential, as it is surface water that can so often cause storm overflows.
I turn to Amendment 60 to Clause 80. The clause and the further amendments are still missing perhaps the most important part of Philip Dunne’s Bill, which was the duty to be placed on water companies to take all reasonable steps to ensure that untreated sewage is not discharged into inland waters. My Amendment 60 seeks to put that legal duty into the Bill. In addition, the amendment would require water companies to demonstrate continuous improvement and progressive reductions in the harm caused by the discharges.
Proposed subsection (2) in Amendment 60 addresses another problem. There is considerable evidence that the Environment Agency and others are not prosecuting most of the discharges, even though many are apparently illegal. It is therefore important to write into the Bill a requirement on the various bodies to exercise their powers of enforcement.
I understand that one of the reasons why the Government are reluctant to place a legal duty on the water companies to take all reasonable steps to prevent discharges is that they have been advised that this might affect the investment decisions of the water companies and put sewage treatment ahead of other possible investments. I do not find that argument at all persuasive—in fact I think it demonstrates the absolute need for the amendment and the necessity of placing a legal duty on the companies to bring to an end these damaging discharges.
That necessity is no better demonstrated than by a press release from Ofwat, the water industry regulator. It announced, on the very day when we were debating the environment in the Queen’s Speech, a new water sector investment of £2.8 billion into the green recovery. But if we read the press release further, we see that only £157 million—just over 5% of the investment—was to help to eliminate the harm caused by storm overflows. Only a legal duty would move these investments higher up the list of priorities.
I do not underestimate the cost of modernising the sewerage network, and I understand that the Government will have reservations about imposing a required investment on the water companies. However, as I said at Second Reading, it should be possible to find a formula that involves some modest grants, some long-term borrowing, reduced dividends and above-inflation increases in wastewater or sewerage charges to residential and commercial users.
I turn to subsection (2) of proposed new section 141E, to be inserted in Clause 80. In Committee I tabled an amendment on this. As the Bill is currently drafted, a discharge is not considered to be a discharge if it has been caused by electrical or mechanical failure! That strikes me as an enormous loophole, and it can only have been included at the request of the water companies. In our meeting with the Minister, we were assured that, despite the wording of that subsection, discharges as a result of electrical or mechanical failure will still need to be disclosed. I ask the Minister to repeat that assurance from the Dispatch Box. However, I then wonder why subsection (2) is necessary at all. Will the Minister not consider deleting the subsection entirely at Third Reading? It appears totally unnecessary and possibly undermines part of the purpose of Chapter 4, and Clause 80 in particular.
While the country drives towards carbon net zero and improving air and soil quality, we surely cannot allow water quality to be compromised by regular discharges of untreated sewage into the aquatic environment. The Bill aims, and government policy is, to leave the environment for future generations in a better state. I cannot believe that any Defra Minister does not want to clean up our rivers, and the only way to ensure that is to include in the Bill a legal duty to prevent discharges. Not including such a duty will inevitably lead to delays, more plans, excuses and further delays.
On my way to the House today I received, very kindly, another email from Rebecca Pow. In it she describes everything that the Government are doing, but then in the paper produced by the department there is a section of frequently asked questions. It reads:
“Why are you not placing a duty on water companies to reduce storm overflows?”,
to which the reply is this:
“The Environment Bill places a new duty on water companies to produce Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans setting out how”,
and so on. That is my point—there is yet another plan. I am sorry to say this, and I am grateful to the Minister for alerting me to everything that the department has done.
I hope not to divide the House on Amendment 59 —that of course depends on the Minister’s response—but I intend to do so on Amendment 60. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and with his permission, I shall speak to Amendment 82. I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for moving his amendment so eloquently. I have known the noble Duke since 1982, when I was a humble adviser to the Conservatives in the European Parliament, and I am delighted to follow him today.
Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, has been unavoidably detained in Norfolk, but he is in a very privileged position and knowledgeable in this regard: following the devastating floods in East Anglia in 2020, he took up the position of independent chair of the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance. I will set out his remarks at the outset and then add a few of my own.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her support of the amendment I wish to speak to; Amendment 83, in my name, dealing with the chalk stream restoration strategy. I also place on record my thanks to the Bill team for discussions that we were able to have in connection with the extent and impact of the strategy that we are proposing. I also thank the Angling Trust for its technical support in preparing the amendment.
Throughout the passage of this Environment Bill through your Lordships’ House, noble Lords have regularly raised their concerns over the deterioration of our chalk streams through appalling neglect, to the extent that many see streams’ diverse ecosystems under severe threat to their very survival. Your Lordships are not alone. Environmental charities, not-for-profit trusts, specialist scientific bodies and even the privatised water companies have joined the call for a national strategy to restore our chalk streams. The naturalist Chris Packham for one, movingly described the deterioration of the River Itchen over time, as he walked beside the river from Eastleigh to Winchester, recalling his childhood days.
One Saturday morning this August, I was able to greet some 25 members of organisations from across the south-east of England, from Hertfordshire to the north, Kent in the east, and Dorset in the west. They were setting out on a river walk beside the Itchen, not unlike that of Chris Packham. They represented literally thousands of people, all deeply concerned about the threats to our unique chalk streams, and keenly following our proceedings in Parliament, whether it be about the River Arle, the Itchen, the Loddon in Hampshire or the Chess in Buckinghamshire, or winterbourne streams, which traditionally disappear in the summer to reappear through the chalk springs as autumn approaches—only now some of them do not.
Giving evidence to the Environmental Audit Select Committee, Mr Feargal Sharkey said, in terms, that the River Avon catchment comprises five chalk streams, with some of the rarest habitats in the country. It is designated as a special area of conservation, with some of the highest legal protection we have, and yet Wessex Water has spent close to 27,000 hours dumping sewage into five of our rarest ecosystems, home to an endangered species of salmon that finds refuge only in the Hampshire Avon.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support very briefly the amendments moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I was glad to be able to co-sign these amendments in a way that, I hope, will stress the cross-party nature of the support for them.
Public concern about sewage discharge is increasing daily, particularly among the public in those areas that are badly affected. Indeed, many people are astonished, because they did not imagine that raw sewage could be discharged into our rivers and seas, and certainly not on the scale that it is happening.
There are considerable problems around the country. Speaking to another amendment that I support, the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, talked about the situation affecting chalk streams. He mentioned, among others, the River Chess in Buckinghamshire. I would mention the River Lark, near Bury St Edmunds, which also has problems arising from abstraction. There are many other rivers around the country that are very precious natural resources, including my own home river, the River Coquet in Northumberland.
I know that the Minister has had meetings with the noble Duke and with many others, and I recognise the amendments that have been put forward, particularly on real-time reporting, which is extremely important. However, action is needed on a significant scale and, in dealing with this problem, costly though it is, we cannot just do a little in a lot of rivers: that would just be a sticking-plaster. We need a much more ambitious programme.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the amendments, and if they do not and they are pushed to a vote, I will be very happy to support them.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, as this is the first time that I have addressed the Chamber in person since March of last year, I put on record my appreciation of the Zoom facility that made it possible for me to participate from home and thank all the staff who made it possible. It enabled me to play a small part in Committee on this Bill, but it was a limited contribution: while Zoom worked well for general debates, it was not ideal for committee work.
I am glad, therefore, in supporting Amendment 59, moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington—and indeed Amendment 60—to build on the comments made in Committee on the important issue of water pollution and quality. I thank the dozens of people who have written to us expressing their concern about this matter—it clearly touches a raw nerve.
The factors causing us in Wales to fail to meet the “good” status designation within the water framework directive are, first, agriculture-related and diffuse pollution; secondly, metal and coal mine pollution; and, thirdly, waste water, which is a water company responsibility and the subject of Amendments 59 and 60. It is worth noting, to put it in context, that in Wales the figure for pollution arising from waste water is 14%, compared with, I believe, some 50% in England.
It is only fair to note, therefore, that Dŵr Cymru—Welsh Water—has put in considerable investment in regard to this matter. For example, no less than £100 million has been spent in Llanelli alone over a five-year period. That accounts for about 50% of the streets that are potentially impacted by this problem. It has spent £100 million on addressing this very issue—and that is only one of many old industrial areas that need such investment. Welsh Water estimates that it needs between £9 billion and £14 billion over three decades to fully resolve the problem. So the scale of the challenge—to resolve these issues—requires a central government capital programme in both Wales and England.
One of the sources of difficulty in Wales in not meeting the “good” status designation within the water framework arises from phosphates, emanating from animal manures and chicken farms. That of course is addressed elsewhere in our discussion.
One matter of concern to me—I would be grateful to the Minister for his observations on this—is that within England there seems to be a target of reducing spill numbers rather than emphasising water quality as a focus. Clearly, a reduction in spill numbers will help, but it is the overall impact on water quality that really matters. Despite the valid concerns expressed in Committee and today about the situation in Wales, which can impact on England when rivers cross the border, it is worth noting that the proportion of rivers which reach “good” status in Wales is twice as high as that in England.
From the viewpoint of Dŵr Cymru—Welsh Water—two other priorities are, first, banning wet wipes which contain plastic, as mentioned in an earlier debate, and which are a major factor in blocking pipes, leading to severe pollution problems; and, secondly, reversing the trend of the continual increase in impermeable areas, which worsens the impact of CSO spills as there is nowhere else for the water to run. Incidentally, one challenge for Welsh Water is the fact that there are currently over 68,000 unregistered septic tanks in Wales. That gives your Lordships an idea of the problem. The avoidance of pollution from those tanks must also be one of the challenges to be addressed.
Some of the matters which I have highlighted are purely for Wales and must be addressed by the Welsh Government and Welsh Water. Others have a cross-border dimension relating to rivers which flow from Wales to England, and yet others are general issues which need to be addressed on a UK basis. Government amendment 128 extends to England and Wales; I would be glad if the Minister can confirm that he has the agreement of the Welsh Government on that amendment’s provisions.
I commend Amendments 59 and 60 as ones which focus on these issues and give the Government a chance to show that they are serious about them. I shall certainly support the amendment of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, if he presses it to a vote.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the aim of the noble Duke’s amendments will be something that we all appreciate. I just wonder exactly how all this difficulty arises. Rainwater and groundwater are separate from sewage and will surely be very different in quality. While they may have some very small pollutants in them, generally speaking they are pretty wholesome.
It seems very strange to require that a water system should receive the sewerage system. Long ago, when I was at the Scottish Bar, I was instructed by a company that was then a water company in Scotland. The director of that company made it very clear to me that water and sewage were different things, and the last thing he would wish to agree to was to combine the two. Apart from anything else, the likelihood was that the groundwater and surface water would be greater in volume than the sewage. It therefore seems that the amendment that is proposed to change the system is very good, except that it would seem to require that it be done by the undertaker—which I take to be the water company. At the moment, the water company is under an obligation to accept the sewage. That must surely stop. It must be a ridiculous system that puts together two such completely different elements.
I very much support the amendment proposed in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, a little while ago. We need to come out of the idea of putting these together and separate them, because the floodwater difficulties are great enough. To add sewerage responsibilities to those of flooding seems an extraordinary example of what one should not do.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 59 and 60, so ably spoken to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, whom I hope I can call my noble friend. I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for the engagement and time they have given us in discussing these important amendments. I welcome the Government’s own Amendments 61, 62 and 63. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government might go further. I also commend the work of my right honourable friend Philip Dunne, in the other place, who has done so much important work on this issue.
As we have heard, there were 400,000 sewage discharges in 2020. This is not a rare occurrence. Water companies have underinvested in sewerage infrastructure. I hope that the Government can overcome their reluctance to impose a duty on them in this Bill to act and invest urgently, as is required. Without such a statutory requirement as specified in these amendments, water companies will continue to be able to put profits and dividends above public health and protection of our precious waterways. I recognise and welcome that the Government have strengthened the duties on these companies, and the expectations to address storm overflows in the drainage and wastewater management plans that will be statutorily required by Clause 79(3)(g). But these plans will not even be consulted on until next summer, let alone be introduced or acted upon. So far, according to a very helpful briefing produced by Defra, water companies have committed just £1.1 billion to investigate and improve storm overflows. This is insufficient for the scale of the problem to be tackled.
I welcome the Storm Overflows Taskforce announced last August, which
“has agreed to set a long term goal to eliminate harm from storm overflows.”
This, too, is most welcome but, so far, this involves improving monitoring and transparency rather than meaningful action to reduce sewage overflows into rivers and waterways. So far, the Environment Agency has clearly struggled to assess compliance with discharge rules and impose enforcement action or fines to galvanise noticeable action and stop or reduce these overflows.
Research on sewerage from Professor Peter Hammond and Professor Jamie Woodward of Manchester University has found clear evidence that untreated sewage or wastewater are being routinely discharged outside the conditions allowed by the Environment Agency permits. It is vital that regulation of discharges of untreated sewage and wastewater are tightened, and these amendments would assist in this regard. The Government’s plan is to set targets on reducing pollution from wastewater, agriculture and so on, but setting targets is not an active reduction of this pollutant.
I find it difficult to understand why the Minister and his department are so reluctant to put a duty now on the water companies directly to ensure they reduce and ultimately eliminate discharges of raw and partially treated sewerage into our rivers and waterways. The companies, represented by Water UK in an interesting briefing, have urged us to move focus away from end-of-pipe to look instead at the way surface water is managed, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh was commenting upon. It is true that developers are too often connecting to sewage systems that cannot cope, but this is only part of the problem, and it needs to be resolved by implementing Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Of course, sustainable drainage systems are important, and connection to a public sewer should not be automatic and needs to be conditional on official approval.
I hope the Minister can provide the reassurances sought by my noble friend the Duke of Wellington so that he will not press Amendment 59. Amendment 60 places a duty
“on sewerage undertakers to take all reasonable steps to ensure untreated sewage is not discharged”
and
“demonstrate improvements in the sewerage systems and progressive reductions in the harm caused.”
In this ground-breaking Bill, how can we not impose that type of duty? Of course, the amendment also requires the Secretary of State and director of the Environment Agency to “secure compliance.” Too often, companies have been allowed to self-report. But, so far, the Government are saying they are fully committed to producing a report on actions required to achieve total elimination so they can fully understand the costs and impacts of doing so. But Amendment 60 would accelerate action on the ground. I hope that, ultimately, the Minister might be persuaded about the merits of supporting this amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is an interesting issue. The question, of course, is: where does the blame lie? Sewage spills happen and they are intensely damaging for humans and for ecosystems, yet we have heard some explanations that almost seem conflicting. We can argue that it is we who cause the problem because of the way that we dispose of our own waste, or that it is the fault of the water companies, which are clearly incompetent at times—I shall be supporting the noble Duke’s amendment. As I argued in the debate on the office for environmental protection, we have to penalise them for these spillages. In many cases it might be the developers’ fault for building on land they should not have built on, or it might the local authority’s fault for allowing developers to build on, for example, flood plains where they should not be building. At the moment, however, it is the water companies, and we really have to take this seriously.
I am supporting all the amendments as they all seem perfectly acceptable. The Green Party’s view is that all new developments should have a proper, sustainable drainage system so that the sorts of spillages that we are hearing about simply do not happen. However, this has clearly not been achieved and it is a big problem. I have signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on chalk streams. I was going to eulogise about them, but I think I was given the same briefing, as other people have covered more or less the same territory.
I thank Feargal Sharkey, who was the lead singer in a punk band, the Undertones—I am afraid I have never heard of it. He is apparently a lifelong fly-fisherman, but is now dedicating his life to chalk streams and he sent an excellent briefing. Chalk streams are very precious and special, and we do not treat them very well. If not one of our chalk streams currently achieves a good overall environmental health status, that is quite shocking; we really need to do something about it.
I was incredibly impressed by the PR machine of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I have had dozens of emails supporting his amendment. I admire that; perhaps he could share with me exactly how he got it to work.
This is, again, clearly an issue that the Government should have put in the original Environment Bill. This is an old Bill in the sense that it was originally written in 2019. It was pathetic then and it is pathetic still. Can the Government please do a little rethinking and include this issue in the Bill?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The arguments have been very well and fulsomely made, building a consensus. Will noble Lords who still wish to speak make their speeches as short as possible and introduce some new arguments?
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
Indeed, I have a new point to add, which has not been made—there is no point in frowning, I say to my noble friend.
I thank the Minister for bringing forward the government amendments and for his commitment to reviewing Schedule 3. That was something that I asked for in Committee and I am delighted that he is going to do it. Has he been briefed on the latest research from the University of Manchester, which has demonstrated a direct link between poor wastewater management and high levels of microplastic pollution in the United Kingdom? When we have these overflows, the microplastics go out into the water system—not only the rivers, but the sea, thus negating a whole lot of good that the Government have been trying to do in reducing microplastics. If this were not enough of a bad situation before, it is now really bad.
My noble friend’s Amendment 63 proposes including a report
“on elimination of discharges from storm overflows”.
I merely ask, what next after subsection (3)? It is good to have a report and lay it before Parliament, but what action will be taken? That is the only thing that matters now. I support these amendments, and support very strongly what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern said: we should be aiming to separate the sewage from the wastewater. No new developments should be allowed to discharge automatically into the current sewerage system unless agreed by the water authority; there must be other alternatives.
I have one final comment for my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. If she expects a developer to make a commitment towards future expenditure on one of these systems, I am afraid she is whistling in the wind. The developers will not do so; if necessary, they would go into bankruptcy and set up a new company to avoid any liability.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, in view of the time and the Minister’s admonition, I shall be brief. I am very pleased to support the amendments in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and thank him for working so collaboratively on them. The arguments for them have been compellingly made so I will not add to them. I am also pleased to support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Chidgey on the important issue of chalk streams, and in principle support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
I hope the Government will listen carefully to the arguments but if the noble Duke chooses to put Amendment 60 to the vote, he will have the support of these Benches.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 59 and 60 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and offer our firm support should he decide to test the opinion of the House. I will also briefly talk to Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and to Amendment 83 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, to which I have added my name.
We had lengthy debates on water issues in Committee so I start by thanking the Government, as other noble Lords have done, for subsequently tabling amendments to address many of the concerns that were raised. I also thank the Defra officials for their time in meeting me and my noble friend Lady Jones to go through the amendments in detail. The Minister has clearly introduced these changes but while we welcome them, we believe that in some areas they do not go far enough to address the genuine concerns raised by noble Lords. Government Amendment 61 regarding near real-time reporting states that the duration and volume of storm overflow discharges will be reported, yet the proposed amendment does not mention volume. Will the Government consider adding volume reporting into this amendment to ensure that that is a requirement?
I commend the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for his diligence and persistence in pressing his concerns in his Amendments 59 and 60. Amendment 59 covers drainage and sewerage management systems. While we welcome the new requirement that Clause 79 inserts into the Water Industry Act 1991 that enables companies to take a strategic approach to wastewater management that is clearly needed, we still believe that it should be strengthened. Amendment 59 would do this by bringing in an overarching purpose for the plans, requiring companies to deliver continuous improvement of sewage treatment plants and the separation of surface water from foul water.
I know from discussions with Defra officials that there are concerns about the huge cost of this, but I hope to hear from the Minister a commitment from the Government that this is being taken very seriously and that it will be set as a top priority for water companies and Ofwat. I also hope he will provide the noble Duke with the assurances that he has requested on this amendment.
Water UK has raised concerns about the way in which we manage surface and groundwaters as the default remains to push through these foul water systems which overloads their capacity. As this is currently out of the water sector’s remit to control, I would like to hear from the Minister whether there are any plans to review this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, also drew attention to this.
I turn now to Amendment 60. We know that Clause 80 is designed to amend the Water Industry Act 1991. As my noble friend Lady Quin said, people are horrified to hear that sewage is still discharged into our waterways. We are disappointed that this clause is weaker and less ambitious than the original Private Member’s Bill proposed by Philip Dunne MP, who was here earlier but seems to have left. We know that existing laws are completely inadequate. The Environment Agency has also conceded that with significant pressures on its funding in recent years it has had to reduce overall monitoring and enforcement activity
“below the level we would wish”.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, drew attention to the lack of enforcement.
I remind your Lordships’ House that the Environment Agency has seen its funding cut by 60% and, according to official Environment Agency data analysed by National World, prosecutions of companies and organisations for environmental crime in England plummeted by 86% between 2000 and 2019. The number of charges also fell by 84% in that period. Does the Minister recognise that if the Government truly are serious about tackling pollution, they must fund the Environment Agency properly so that it can do the job that it was set up to do? Water companies must be made to undertake the improvements to the system needed if we are to address the current crisis in sewerage pollution. We commend the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for his informed and persuasive arguments, and support him.
Turning briefly to Amendment 82, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her introduction. We believe that a sustainable drainage hierarchy is extremely important. The noble Baroness mentioned Cumbria; I emphasise, as someone who lives in a high flood-risk area, that the importance of this for local flood risk cannot be underestimated.
Turning finally to Amendment 83 on chalk streams, I honestly am astounded that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has not heard of the Undertones. That is quite extraordinary and possibly what I have been most shocked about during these debates. Moving to chalk streams, according to Wikipedia, which I know is not always 100% accurate, there are 210 chalk streams in the world, 160 of them in England. However, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, in his excellent introduction, it seems that this is probably a bit of an underestimate.
Today and in Committee we heard eloquently from the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, and others, about how urgent it is to act to save our chalk streams. I hope that the Minister has listened to his concerns on this and the other areas of real concern that we have been debating today.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Tackling storm overflows in England is a government priority, and the Government are acting decisively through this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, my noble friend Lady Altmann and many others for the pressure that they have exerted on the issue of storm overflows. These new government amendments, which the Rivers Trust has welcomed as a
“significant victory for river health and ... river users”
are a credit to their work.
I am pleased to bring forward government Amendments, 61, 62 and 63, to add further duties on water companies and the Government. This strengthens the package of government amendments brought forward on this issue in Committee. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, we have secured the agreement of the Welsh Government to these amendments.
Amendments 61 and 62 are designed to increase the accountability on water companies and to provide greater transparency for the public on the frequency and impact of storm overflows. Companies will be required to report on storm overflows in near real time, meaning within an hour of them occurring, in a way that is easy for the public to access and understand. They will be required to monitor continuously the water quality upstream and downstream of both storm overflows and sewage treatment works. This will give regulators and the public crucial indicators of the health of our waters, including dissolved oxygen, ammonia, temperature and pH values, and turbidity. The information obtained from these two duties, along with the annual reporting required by the amendment that I introduced in Committee, will finally require full transparency from water companies about their impact on our waters. We have made this expectation clear in our draft strategic policy statement to Ofwat. For the first time, the Government will be telling the industry’s economic regulator that we expect water companies to take steps to “significantly reduce storm overflows”. Therefore, with respect to the noble Duke, the Duke of Westminster—
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am so sorry—Westminster, Wellington. I meant the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. My apologies; it has been a long session.
With respect to the noble Duke, it is not right to say that the Government are reluctant to influence investment decisions of the water companies. That is exactly what we are doing. We will also make it clear in the guidance that we will shortly be giving to water companies regarding the preparation of their drainage and sewerage management plans. These are a statutory requirement under the Bill and we expect them to include considered actions for reducing storm overflows and their harm. I am confident that this action, driven by the Bill, is the right approach. However, as I said in Committee, if those plans are not sufficiently ambitious, the Government will not hesitate to use our direction-making power under Clause 79 to require them to take more action. This is a direct power over the water companies and, as I said, we will not hesitate to use it.
Very briefly, in response to the comments from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, he is right in what he says, but the operation of overflows during emergencies is covered separately through permits for emergency overflows or through defences under the environmental permitting regulations—so, for example, to avoid damage to human health or even human life. It is extremely rare and covers events such as asset failure.
None the less, I know that the noble Lord and many others are keen to see a road map towards the complete elimination of storm overflows, as am I and my colleagues in Defra. I want to be clear that in the government plan, we will absolutely commit to pushing as far as it is possible to go. The reality is that, as our actions to considerably reduce overflows are successful, the remaining overflows are likely to be much more challenging to resolve and may therefore involve greater costs, with marginal, slight benefits. That is why the initial assessments suggest that elimination could cost more than £150 billion, which we foresee would likely mean increased customer bills and trade-offs against other water industry priorities.
We need better evidence to be certain of that—a point made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. To this end, Amendment 63 requires the Government to investigate and map out the actions needed to eliminate storm overflows and to report to Parliament, before 1 September next year, on how elimination could be achieved and the corresponding benefits and costs. The point about the report is that it will provide the public, Parliament and the water industry with up-front, clear and comprehensive information on the feasibility and cost of elimination. It will tell us what we can do. Between that government plan on storm overflows and the new elimination report, we will set out transparently and precisely how far we can then go. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, that this issue is taken extremely seriously by all my colleagues in Defra. Whatever the outcome of that report, it will inform our next steps and the commitments we make.
In the meantime, in addition to the action I have already set out, I am pleased to confirm today that the Government will undertake a review of the case for implementing Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in England. This schedule would set mandatory build standards for sustainable drainage schemes—or SUDS—on new developments. We agree with noble Lords and others about the importance of using SUDS to reduce rainwater going into sewers, which in turn reduces the frequency of storm overflows, as well as providing multifunctional benefits for reducing flood risk and enhancing nature. Schedule 3 would allow us to do this, but we need first to ensure that it is still fit for purpose.
Commencing in October this year, Defra officials will work closely with MHCLG, local planning authorities, developers and SUDS experts as we assess the current situation with regard to the construction of SUDS and the potential for the schedule to improve this, as well as implementation options and the benefits and costs of those options. This information will also feed into the development of the Government’s plan on storm overflows, on which we will also consult in spring next year. The Government believe that this is the appropriate and best approach towards reducing the volume of rainwater entering combined sewerage systems, which is rightly a concern of both Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt.
Regarding Amendment 82 specifically, I am grateful to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for conveying his message to us and for taking the time to meet me recently on this issue. The importance of sustainable drainage for managing surface water on new developments is made clear in planning policy. A hierarchy for the management of surface water on new developments is also included in the building regulations of 2010, and Schedule 3, once we have reviewed the case for its implementation, would make the connection of surface water to foul sewer conditional on local planning approval of the developer’s proposed SUDS. The noble Baroness asked why we need another review. I simply say that the Government have to understand the possible options, benefits and costs for implementing any policy and legislation. While there is a wide range of evidence on the issue of Schedule 3, since 2010 there have been a lot of changes in the planning systems and advancements in SUDS technology. The review will enable us to understand the current landscape and the issues properly and to make an up-to-date and informed decision on implementation.
In response to the noble Baroness’s questions on SUDS maintenance, Schedule 3 sets out that the maintenance body is a SUDS approval body as part of a local planning authority. The review will consider whether this continues to be the most appropriate and the right approach, as well as looking at other options.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Just before my noble friend sits down, I did ask one question: what has changed since the regulations, which were to impose exactly what he intends to do, were rejected in 2012 for being too expensive? When we met, my noble friend said that the aim of the Government’s policy now was to end the automatic right to connect and make it conditional—but conditional upon what?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
What has changed is the technology and the SUDS—for example, rain gardens and swales et cetera. The planning system has changed in any number of ways, as my noble friend knows from her time in the coalition Government and since. That has given rise to a need to re-evaluate and work out what the appropriate policy should be.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I know that we are all anxious to move on. However, I must first point out quickly to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I certainly do not have a PR machine: I was as surprised as anyone that so many emails were sent to Members of this House.
I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate. I particularly want to thank the Minister here and the Minister in the other place for everything they have done in recent weeks to improve the Bill; they have certainly strengthened it, and many of their amendments are very welcome to many of us.
I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances on Amendment 59. I personally am happy to accept those and will seek permission to withdraw the amendment. However, on Amendment 60, I am sorry to say, despite all the Minister’s efforts, I do not believe that more plans, reporting and monitoring will do the business, and so I intend to divide the House on that amendment.
The Duke of Wellington
“141ZA Duty on sewerage undertakers to take all reasonable steps to ensure untreated sewage is not discharged from storm overflows(1) A sewerage undertaker must demonstrate improvements in the sewerage systems and progressive reductions in the harm caused by untreated sewage discharges.(2) The Secretary of State, the Director and the Environment Agency must exercise their respective functions under this and any other Act to secure compliance with this duty.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of the amendment is to try to eliminate, not simply reduce, the harm caused to the environment and individual and public health by the discharge of untreated sewage into rivers, and to ensure that the various agencies use their powers of enforcement.
“Reporting on discharges from storm overflows
In Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (as inserted by section 80 above), after section 141D insert—“141DA Reporting on discharges from storm overflows(1) Where there is a discharge from a storm overflow of a sewerage undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in England, the undertaker must publish the following information—(a) that there has been a discharge from the storm overflow;(b) the location of the storm overflow;(c) when the discharge began;(d) when the discharge ended.(2) The information referred to in subsection (1)(a) to (c) must be published within an hour of the discharge beginning; and that referred to in subsection (1)(d) within an hour of it ending.(3) The information must—(a) be in a form which allows the public readily to understand it, and(b) be published in a way which makes it readily accessible to the public.(4) The duty of a sewerage undertaker under this section is enforceable under section 18 by—(a) the Secretary of State, or(b) the Authority, with the consent of or in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for exceptions from the duty in subsection (1) or (2) (for example, by reference to descriptions of storm overflows, frequency of discharge or the level of risk to water quality).(6) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(7) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires sewerage undertakers in England to report in near-real time on the duration of storm overflow discharges.
“Monitoring quality of water potentially affected by discharges
(1) In Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after section 141DA insert—“141DB Monitoring quality of water potentially affected by discharges from storm overflows and sewage disposal works(1) A sewerage undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in England must continuously monitor the quality of water upstream and downstream of an asset within subsection (2) for the purpose of obtaining the information referred to in subsection (3).(2) The assets referred to in subsection (1) are—(a) a storm overflow of the sewerage undertaker, and(b) sewage disposal works comprised in the sewerage system of the sewerage undertaker,where the storm overflow or works discharge into a watercourse.(3) The information referred to in subsection (1) is information as to the quality of the water by reference to—(a) levels of dissolved oxygen,(b) temperature and pH values,(c) turbidity,(d) levels of ammonia, and(e) anything else specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(4) The duty of a sewerage undertaker under this section is enforceable under section 18 by—(a) the Secretary of State, or(b) the Authority, with the consent of or in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make —(a) provision as how the duty under subsection (1) is to be carried out (for example, provision as to the type of monitor to be used and where monitors must be placed);(b) provision for exceptions from the duty in subsection (1) (for example, by reference to descriptions of asset, frequency of discharge from an asset or the level of risk to water quality);(c) provision for the publication by sewerage undertakers of information obtained pursuant to subsection (1).(6) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(7) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”(2) In section 213 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (power to make regulations) in subsection (1), for “or 105A” substitute “105A, 141DA or 141DB”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires sewerage undertakers to monitor and report on the quality of water in watercourses potentially impacted by discharges from storm overflows and sewage disposal works.
“Report on elimination of discharges from storm overflows
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on— (a) the actions that would be needed to eliminate discharges from the storm overflows of sewerage undertakers whose areas are wholly or mainly in England, and(b) the costs and benefits of those actions.(2) The Secretary of State must publish the report before 1 September 2022.(3) The report must be laid before Parliament once it is published.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to produce a report on the actions that would be needed to eliminate discharges from storm overflows in England, and their costs and benefits, before 1 September 2022.
Environment Bill
Wednesday 15th September 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 43-IV Fourth marshalled list for Report - (13 Sep 2021)
16:18 - Division on Amendment 99 - Ayes: 201 / Noes: 186 - Amendment 99 agreed.
17:11 - Division on Amendment 100 - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 189 - Amendment 100 agreed.
18:18 - Division on Amendment 108A - Ayes: 183 / Noes: 177 - Amendment 108A agreed.
19:05 - Division on Amendment 110 - Ayes: 162 / Noes: 144 - Amendment 110 agreed.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, before we begin proceedings, I remind noble Lords that the Bill needs to conclude today, and we have 12 groups to get through. I do not propose to outline all the rules of engagement again; suffice to say that only the mover of an amendment may speak after the Minister. Other Members speaking after the Minister may do so only to ask short questions of elucidation. I remind noble Lords that brevity is king in all things and please could they try not to repeat arguments already made in the same debate.
Amendment 99
Lord Krebs
“Habitats Regulations: limits on powers to amend
(1) The Secretary of State may only make regulations under section 108 or 109—(a) for the purposes of—(i) securing compliance with an international environmental obligation, or(ii) contributing to the favourable conservation status of species or habitats or the favourable condition of protected sites; (b) if the regulations do not reduce the level of protection provided by the Habitats Regulations, including protection for protected species, habitats or sites; and(c) following public consultation and consultation with—(i) the Office for Environmental Protection,(ii) Natural England,(iii) the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and(iv) other relevant expert bodies.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that powers to amend the Habitats Regulations may only be used for the purposes of environmental improvement following consultation. It ensures that the level of environmental protection that must be maintained includes protection for important habitats, sites and species as well as overall environmental protection.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, the amendment is in my name together with those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
The amendment replaces four amendments that we debated in Committee. It has the same intent as those four amendments: to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot amend the habitats regulations without due process and constraints.
Bearing in mind the admonition we recently heard, let me recap very briefly. The habitats regulations protect our most valuable conservation sites, habitats and species. While these sites account for only a modest proportion of our land and marine area, they certainly punch well above their weight when it comes to protection of species. Unlike the targets in Clause 3, which apply to the country as a whole, the habitats regulations refer to specific places. This is an important distinction.
Clauses 108 and 109 allow the Secretary of State to amend these regulations, and they do not give enough safeguards to ensure that our most valuable habitats will be protected in future. Amendment 99 would provide those safeguards, stating explicitly that any changes to the habitat regulations would not breach any of our international obligations, would contribute to enhancing the conservation of habitat sites and species and would not reduce current levels of protection. It would also require the Government to consult the appropriate statutory expert bodies and other relevant experts. In short, it places in the Bill the commitments that the Government have already made in debate in Committee, when the Minister reassured us on every point.
So what is not to like? The Minister told us that key reasons for Clauses 108 and 109 were contributing to “international obligations” and ensuring
“our protected sites can be restored to good condition”.
This is made clear in Amendment 99. He also told us that the powers in these clauses would be used only to strengthen environmental protection. However, as it stands this would be a test of the Secretary of State being satisfied that protections are not reduced. Although the Minister described this as a “high bar”, it is a subjective judgment. Amendment 99 would replace this subjective test, whereby Ministers mark their own homework, with an objective requirement. The Minister pointed out that the Secretary of State’s judgment could be challenged in the courts, but that seems to me to be setting up a system that would generate money for lawyers and take up large amounts of time with uncertain outcomes. Why not simplify with Amendment 99?
The Minister said that the Government would consult the office for environmental protection before making any changes to the habitats regulations. Amendment 99 extends the consultation requirement to include other relevant bodies. He also referred to a review led by the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, but did not tell us who was consulted in this review and what its impact will be. Perhaps he can expand on this in his reply.
As I have already mentioned, a crucial difference between the habitats regulations and the Clause 3 commitments is that the habitats regulations protect particular sites, habitats and species, while the Clause 3 targets do not. The Minister told us that Clause 108 is
“designed to allow requirements to specify … protections for habitats and species”.—[Official Report, 12/7/2021; cols. 1620-1.]
However, this does not guarantee those protections. The Minister also told us in Committee that the habitats regulations had not worked. I am not sure to which studies he is referring, but the evidence, as I understand it, from peer-reviewed literature, is that protected species fare better in countries where protection of the kind provided by the habitats regulations is most extensive and long-standing. This is not to say that things could not be improved. However, the Minister did not give us specific examples of how the powers of Clauses 108 and 109 would lead to an improvement. In fact, we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that this was a post-Brexit opportunity to cut red tape and bureaucracy—hardly a reassuring message.
In summary, I have not heard any convincing arguments against the habitats regulations being maintained, and Amendment 99 will ensure that any changes in future will strengthen rather than weaken them. I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say in his reply but, as things stand, I would wish to test the opinion of the House on this crucial amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, your Lordships’ House will hear from me a great deal later on, so I will be very brief in this contribution. I have attached my name to this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which of course has full cross-party and non-party backing. The noble Lord has set out an overwhelmingly powerful case for why we should have this amendment.
I make two comments. We were promised non-regression with Brexit, and this would restore some of the protections that we lost with Brexit and, more than non-regression, we were promised improvements. This is simply standing still, so the Government really must commit to this amendment.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, it was very long ago and far away that the birth of the habitats regulations took place, but it was something on which the EU was led by the UK. Since then, the impact in terms of improved protection for habitat sites and species has been huge. The SACs and SPAs that they created are the very jewels in the crown of UK nature and the countryside.
Clauses 108 and 109 as they stand state that any changes to the habitats regulations should not reduce the level of environmental protection provided, but the judge on whether a change represents a reduction in protection is left to the Secretary of State—he is going to mark his own homework. This would be after consultation of course, but the clauses do not say who he will consult.
Let us face it: we know that, in some quarters, the habitats regulations have long been a post-Brexit target for pulling their teeth. There is a unique hatred of the habitats regulations in some quarters. They are seen as getting in the way of development, but that is usually inappropriate development. There is an antagonism that is in the same camp as the sweeping zonal proposals in the planning system changes, which we hear the Government have been forced to abandon. The Secretary of State has asked the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, who was briefly in his place, to chair a habitats regulations assessment working group, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said. It is described as a small and informal group, but I think it is a bit of a giveaway that one member of this four-person group is also working with the Government on their planning reforms. It is so small and informal that it has not yet published any outcomes of its review. Can the Minister tell us when it will report and who it is consulting?
The Government say that they need to amend the habitats regulations to meet the Environment Bill targets and the environmental improvement plans, but measures to meet those could easily have been in addition to, not instead of, the habitats regulations. We should be rejoicing in what the UK-inspired habitats regulations have achieved in reducing annual damage to and loss of our key wildlife sites—from 17% each year before the regulations were introduced to 0.17% after their introduction.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, assured us that the proposed new powers were to improve the condition of our sites. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, would set these good intentions in law.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I hope that the Climate Change Committee will be one of the appropriate organisations to which this amendment applies; I declare an interest in that sense. There is nothing in this amendment that the Minister has not committed himself to already. All it would do is make sure of the advantages that we have in the habitats directive, which was taken into our own law. The Climate Change Committee has taken to it very strongly because of the additional advantages of sequestration and the treatment of land, which this helps in a significant way. I find it very difficult to see why the Government cannot accept it, unless there is somebody hidden away in No. 10 who has a plot.
I therefore hope that my noble friend realises what will happen if the Government do not accept this: he will have to whip the Conservative Party to vote against the very things that he says he will do. All this amendment would do is to make sure that any successive Minister would also have to do those things. That is, after all, a legacy that he would no doubt like to leave.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, Clause 109(3) says:
“The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section only if satisfied that the regulations do not reduce the level of environmental protection provided by the Habitats Regulations.”
I suggest that all the Minister needs to do from this point of view is delete the words “satisfied that”.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I add the support of our Benches for this important regulation on day four of Report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, the habitats regulations are the jewel in the crown in terms of protecting our sites of most special protection for our wildlife and our birds, our bitterns and our nightingales.
It has not been mentioned in this debate so far today that the proposals from the Government to amend these regulations were smuggled in on Report down the other end. These are incredibly important regulations. No one is saying that things must be set in stone for ever, but if they are to be changed, it should be done with full and clear consultation and for the right purpose.
The Minister said in Committee, “They’re not working.” I live in Surrey, which is one of the most densely populated areas, and they are working there. With the Thames Basin initiative of 11 planning authorities, we are managing to build the houses and protect the sites at the same time. If there are going to be changes, the Government should ensure that there is no regression, which this amendment would guarantee, and that there is consultation with experts. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, that might be a slightly broader list than that suggested in the amendment so far but certainly there needs to be that expert consultation.
If this amendment is not accepted, it will leave the impression that there are other reasons why the Government are prepared, at a time when we are facing a nature crisis, to sweep aside these most important protections. That will make people feel that perhaps it is because they want to ensure that planning regulations are given a light touch, which, frankly, is not appropriate given the environmental challenge and crisis that we face.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to which I have added my name.
The noble Lord has set out in detail why we have concerns about Clauses 108 and 109 and why the safeguards in our amendment are so important. There is real concern that the government clauses will weaken the protection of our most valued species and habitats which the habitats directive conferred. There is also concern that the clauses give the Secretary of State undue discretionary powers to change the rules in the future.
The Minister will no doubt argue that there is no need to worry and that the wording in the clauses give sufficient protection that the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity will be assured. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others have explained, there is a difference between a general commitment to biodiversity and the specific protection of individual habitats and species. The new objectives are simply not a substitute for those of the nature directives, which have provided the first line of defence for our most precious habitats over many years.
If we are not careful, these new powers could be used to deconstruct the strict protections for the UK’s finest wildlife sites by referencing other enabling clauses in the Bill. This is why we believe that the general commitment to enhanced biodiversity and to halting species decline, which is elsewhere in the Bill, need to go hand in hand with the more specific guarantees set out in our amendment. This would ensure that any regulations made under these clauses delivered compliance with international obligations, and, crucially, improved the conservation status of species or habitats. It would also deliver the non-regression promises that the Government made when we left the EU.
In response to the debate in Committee, the Minister spelled out that the Government are planning a Green Paper in the autumn with the aim of providing a “fit-for-purpose regulatory framework” to deliver the Government’s ambitions for nature. However, we know that historically, the Government’s idea of “fit-for-purpose regulation” is less regulation and less protection, and we also know that a Green Paper could take a very long time to reach conclusions that can be enacted. We are being asked to put our faith in a process which is stepping into the unknown, and it is quite likely that by the time that process is completed, a different set of Ministers will be in play, with a different set of priorities. Therefore, the proposal for a Green Paper simply adds to our concerns.
Over the summer, we were grateful to have a meeting with the Defra officials dealing with this issue, who sought to reassure us that this was about improving nature recovery rather than watering it down. But of course they do not yet know the content of the Green Paper or its likely outcome. In the meantime, all we have before us is the wording in Clauses 108 and 109 and the rather amorphous phrase that the Secretary of State must “have regard to” the importance of furthering conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.
As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made clear, it should not be for the Secretary of State to make that call, or to be satisfied that the regulations do not reduce environmental protection for what my noble friend Lady Young rightly described as the jewels in the crown of the countryside. This decision needs to be authenticated by objective scientific bodies such as those set out in our amendment. I hope that noble Lords, having listened to the debate, will understand the strength of our concerns and will agree to support the amendment.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions during this debate. The Bill takes the world-leading step of requiring a new, historic and legally binding target to halt species decline by 2030. The powers in Clauses 108 and 109 form an integral part of our strategy to achieve this.
The first of those powers enables the amendment to Regulation 9 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Currently, that regulation requires Ministers and public authorities to comply with or have regard to the requirements of the habitats and wild birds directives. However, these requirements are not explicitly set out anywhere. This has provided scope for differing interpretations and disagreement, as well as potential for legal challenge.
Instead of spending time and taxpayers’ money on battles in the courtroom, we want to try to focus on ensuring that the protection of our designated sites and species is based on robust science and technical expertise. The Government will publish a Green Paper later this year, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, acknowledged, which will set out clearly, plainly and transparently our view of the current requirements of Regulation 9 and remove that uncertainty. We will consult on and agree the conservation requirements necessary to meet our biodiversity targets and improve the natural environment. This will support our aim to focus on the scientific evidence as well as our national priorities for nature restoration.
The second power concerns the amendment to Part 6 of the regulations, which enables us to review the current habitats regulations assessment process. My noble friend Lord Benyon is chairing a small working group that is gathering information from experts regarding our current HRA process, to inform any future decisions on the use of these powers. The group is consulting a wide range of experts with direct experience of HRA, including the competent authorities, statutory advisers, environmental NGOs, developers, town and country planners and land managers. The group includes Minister Pow, Tony Juniper—he is chair of Natural England—and Christopher Katkowski QC. It will input options for proposals and questions to the Green Paper, which will then be subject to extensive consultation.
A clearer, quicker and more easily understood process will support environmental protection by focusing on the issues that really matter for protected sites. I am reminded that Lord Justice Sullivan, when the regulations were formulated, recommended that we needed a system that was simple and not too full of hurdles that could end up causing excessive battles in the courtrooms. It feels to me that, in part, that is where things have ended up.
However, I can commit to this House that no changes will be made without extensive consultation and strong parliamentary scrutiny. Consultation will include the office for environmental protection and statutory nature conservation bodies. It will also include key environmental NGOs, farmers and land managers to name a few. Those commitments are reinforced in Clauses 108(5) and 109(3), so that, in making regulations using these powers, Ministers must be satisfied that they do not reduce existing protections. In addition, we have added a specific requirement that Ministers justify to Parliament that any new regulations using these powers meet the test. This is a meaningful scrutiny mechanism with strong safeguards ensuring that we will not reduce the level of environmental protection.
I know some noble Lords are concerned that the changes will undermine the specific protections currently conferred by the habitats and wild birds directives, and I want to be clear that Clause 108(3) allows for requirements or objectives to be specified in relation to the 2030 species target or other long-term biodiversity targets and to improve our natural environment. These requirements and objectives can specify, among other things, how we must protect habitats and species, and at what scale, to ensure we can reverse biodiversity loss.
Additionally, many of the requirements in the directives derive in turn from multilateral environmental agreements, of which the UK is a contracting party and was instrumental in promoting—in particular, the Berne convention. We remain bound by international law and committed to those obligations to contribute to the conservation status of these habitats and species within their natural range and to continue to co-operate internationally to do so. We remain equally bound by and committed to conserving the marine environment under the Ospar convention; migratory species under the Bonn convention; wetlands under the Ramsar Convention; and, more broadly, the Convention on Biological Diversity.
I hope I have gone some way to reassure noble Lords that this power has been tightly drafted, with strong safeguards in place on its use, and that Amendment 99 is therefore not necessary. Climate change and biodiversity loss present huge long-term challenges that literally threaten our future if left unchecked. We need to act now, through this Bill, to halt the decline of species by 2030 and, as noble Lords will know, we will be legally obliged to do so when the Bill becomes an Act, as we hope it will. The habitats regulation assessment is a key mechanism for preventing deterioration of our most valuable habitats. We want to strengthen that protection and investigate ways in which the habitats regulation assessment could support better environmental outcomes. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and the Minister for his response. I want to make just three points. The first is that, listening carefully to what he said, I reiterate the question that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, put to him: there is nothing that the Government are not already committed to in this amendment, so why not accept it? I have not heard the argument against it. I have heard the argument for it from the Minister.
The second point concerns the Green Paper, which loomed large in the Minister’s response. There seems to be one species that might be protected by the Green Paper: the pig—the pig in the poke. We do not know what is going to be in the Green Paper. We have had a list of names of people who might be consulted, but we do not know what form the consultation has taken.
The third point is that the Minister referred to the need to have a regulatory regime that is quicker, easier and simpler. That rings alarm bells for me. Ease, simplicity and speed are not necessarily merits that one wishes to pursue if one’s aim is to protect the natural environment. I am afraid that although I have heard responses in detail to Amendment 99, I am not convinced that they provide a satisfactory end point, and therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Duty to implement an enhanced protection standard for ancient woodland in England
(1) The Government must implement an enhanced protection standard for ancient woodland, hereafter referred to as the “ancient woodland standard” in England as set out in subsections (2), (3) and (4) and this must have immediate effect.(2) The ancient woodland standard must set out the steps necessary to prevent further loss of ancient woodland in England.(3) The ancient woodland standard commits the Government to adopting a standard of protection which must be a requirement for all companies, persons or organisations involved in developments affecting ancient woodlands in England.(4) This standard must be that— (a) any development that causes direct loss to ancient woodland or ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees must be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and, in addition, a suitable compensation strategy must be in place prior to development commencing,(b) any development adjacent to ancient woodland must incorporate a minimum 50-metre buffer to provide protection, reduce indirect damage and provide space for natural regeneration,(c) any ancient or veteran trees must be retained within a development site, including a root protection area and appropriate buffer zone.(5) This buffer zone must be whichever is greater of—(a) an area which is a radius of 15 times the diameter of the tree with no cap, or(b) 5 metres beyond the crown.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to address the more than 800 ancient woodlands in England that are currently threatened by development. As a large number of these threats result from indirect effects of development next to ancient woodland, these changes will improve the weight afforded to protecting these irreplaceable habitats in planning policy.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 100 seeks proper protection standards for ancient woodland. I am sure noble Lords have heard me bang on about ancient woodland enough, but I will bang on one more time. I thank my noble friend Lord Whitty, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for putting their names to this amendment and declare my interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust—sorry, chair; I am not allowed to call myself chairman.
Ancient woodland is important. It is one of our most precious habitats. By definition, ancient woodlands are more than 400 years old, and they have developed over that long time a huge richness in biodiversity, communities and indeed history. They sequester much carbon and will continue to do so into the future. Over the next 100 years, they will double the amount of carbon stocks that they sequester.
The public love these woods. They make them feel good. They are the cathedrals of the natural world, so they are important. They are also irreplaceable. A new wood will not have the richness of an ancient woodland for 400 years at least. I had a bit of a laugh with the Public Bill Office, which challenged the word “irreplaceable” in the Member’s explanatory statement as that might be too subjective and campaigning, but before I could object and explain that “irreplaceable” was factual, they came back and said that, yes of course, I was right: ancient woodland is irreplaceable. Well done, Public Bill Office.
Ancient woodlands are important and irreplaceable, yet 800 ancient woodlands in England are under threat right now, mostly from housing and infrastructure development. Over the past 20 years, nearly 1,000 ancient woodlands have been permanently lost or damaged. We are down to the last fragments of what would have been extensive tree cover in England. It is ironic that the Government have a strong and much-welcomed policy to increase tree cover, but the invaluable remains of what we previously had as tree cover do not have any effective level of protection.
The National Planning Policy Framework advises planners and developers not to develop on ancient woodland except in “wholly exceptional” circumstances, but the NPPF is not always observed and does not apply to major infrastructure projects—hence the 800 ancient woodlands currently under threat. I was grateful for the Minister’s assurances that the planning reforms that the Government are contemplating will not dilute the modest protection given in the NPPF, but we have not yet seen the planning reforms.
I tabled an amendment in Committee based on giving protection by using the well-trodden SSSI process. I was very grateful to the many noble Lords who agreed that ancient woodland needs enhanced protection, but I recognise that some were uneasy about the SSSI route. My Amendment 100 is much simpler and lays a straightforward requirement on Government to implement an enhanced protection standard for ancient woodland, which would have as its objective the prevention of further loss and damage, and would apply to all developments affecting ancient woodlands in England.
The amendment specifies some simple components of a standard. First, developments should be permitted only in wholly exceptional circumstances and, in those cases, a suitable compensation strategy should be in place. Secondly, there should be a requirement for buffer strips in any development adjacent to an ancient woodland, since much of the damage is caused by adjacent development. Thirdly, any ancient or veteran trees within a development site should be protected, with proper buffering again and with root protection. I hope noble Lords find this simple amendment much more supportable.
In Committee, the Minister helpfully outlined the Government’s commitment, through the England Trees Action Plan 2021-2024, to additional support for long-established woods, which are defined as woods established before 1840, and to support measures to remove inappropriate conifer overplanting on ancient woodland sites. But these measures will not stop the threat from developments to our existing important, wonderful and irreplaceable ancient woodland sites. These sites need statutory protection, which they currently lack. I hope the Minister accepts my amendment.
Without statutory protection, we will see the remaining fragments diminish, afflicted by continued development and climate change, and being too small to survive. Our children and their children will weep at our neglect. I beg to move.
May I also say a few words about Amendment 101?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Baroness has moved her amendment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
I was delighted to add my name to the noble Baroness’s amendment, because I fully support her in this. I enjoy her banging on about ancient woodlands but, for those noble Lords who do not, there is a simple remedy: vote for the amendment.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to support the noble Baroness in this amendment. It is astonishing that we even have to have this debate and consider this amendment. Trees are astonishing. There is a tree a few miles from where I live in Somerset that was living before Stonehenge was a twinkle in a Stone Age eye. Not far from me is the tallest tree in England, inside a wood that is known as Atlantic rainforest. As the noble Baroness just said, we have 800 ancient woods that are currently under threat. I imagine Historic England would have something to say if that number of its buildings were being threatened with demolition right now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has brought forward a simple proposition that requires the Government to develop and implement an ancient woodland standard of protection on a statutory basis. This would mean that our last remaining fragments of ancient woodland —as she said, the cathedrals of our natural life—are protected. These are not made by man, yet it always seems to me that we favour the buildings that we make ourselves, as though they are somehow better.
It is no excuse to say that to plant trees is a reason to cut down ancient woodland; They will not absorb enough carbon, as it will take them 400 years to become as rich. To my mind, it is like saying that we can replace a building like Blenheim Palace with a Wimpey housing development in its grounds and somehow say that it makes society better. I urge noble Lords to vote for this.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I also added my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. This Bill is all about biodiversity—plants, insects, mammals, worms, butterflies and micro-organisms. It is all about sustainable ecosystems and healthy soil, the look and feel of our countryside, our heritage and people’s enjoyment of that countryside.
Ancient woodlands tick just about every box in that list and more, and they constitute only 2.5% of our landmass. Surely we should be able to protect them, yet many are under threat, directly and indirectly. I am fortunate; if I go out of my back gate and look over to the left, I see one of the most magnificent sights—Duncliffe Hill in north Dorset. It is less than three miles away and it is my destination for walking. When you get there, it is a truly magical place, particularly at bluebell time but also at most times of the year. It is home to almost every organism that we have in our natural environment, from lichens to roe deer.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches very much support the amendment, and if the noble Baroness decides to divide the House then we shall support her in that vote. Following on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as I understand it from the Woodland Trust publication, 97.5% of the rest of the land could be developed in order to avoid ancient woodland. For me, this amendment is so important because of the biodiversity of these woodlands and the species under threat in this 2.5% of our precious land.
There are two amendments in this group. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, will be speaking to hers later on, but I want to say that a tree strategy is important in how we move forward in the area of woodland forests and trees. I noted in the Conservative manifesto of 2019—the current government programme—a target to plant 75,000 acres of woodland per year by the end of this Parliament. You cannot do that without a sensible strategy that makes sure there is a balance between climate change and biodiversity, and that these plantings last and tie in with nature recovery strategies; you cannot do it with just a huge, broad target. I welcome the scale of the ambition, but we have to have a strategy to go along with it. We on these Benches very much support Amendment 101 and believe it is an excellent way to move forward.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register and confirm that I am the owner of, and actively manage and love, ancient woodland.
I do not support Amendment 100 as I do not believe in the sacrosanct protection that appears to be its purpose. First, not all woodland designated as ancient is of such high environmental value that it requires such protection—particularly PAWS, which are ancient woodland sites where semi-natural woodland has been replaced with a plantation. Secondly, there is also currently an opportunity to negotiate strong mitigation that will offer bigger and better woodland habitat if development is in or adjacent to ancient woodland. This amendment might preclude this.
The standards proposed are very similar to what already exists in the joint standing advice that the Forestry Commission and Natural England have issued, which is a material consideration for planning authorities, as is the National Planning Policy Framework, as has been mentioned. It states in paragraph 180(c) that, when determining planning applications, planning authorities should apply the following principle:
“development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists”.
The framework also covers infrastructure projects, including
“nationally significant infrastructure projects … where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat”,
the only difference being the greatly expanded buffer zones.
Definitions are key to preventing well-intentioned legislation constraining legitimate forestry work. For instance, what do the proposers of this amendment mean by, first, “development”? Does it include woodland creation, rides, forest roading, culverting and widening access points on highways? Secondly, does the policy to
“prevent further loss of ancient woodland”
prevent restocking PAWS with conifers and non-native broad-leaves, planting up the edges of ancient woodland sites with non-native species and widening access points? Thirdly, is “ancient woodland” the Forestry Commission category or based on a looser definition of woodland indicators? Fourthly, the amendment mentions “a suitable compensation strategy”—decided by whom and how calibrated?
This amendment should be rejected. I suggest that the best thing the Government can do to help ancient woodland is to fund and unashamedly support the eradication of the grey squirrel and massively reduce deer pressure.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I am as keen on the environment as anyone else, but I suggest that it is incumbent on the proposers of these two amendments to explain what is supposed to happen when a piece of major national infrastructure, such as High Speed 2, comes into conflict with a small area of ancient woodland.
Secondly, as regards new planting and new planting targets, we all have to bear in mind that, at present, there is an acute shortage of plants available to go into the ground. Therefore, the Government should be extremely cautious about just increasing their targets for new planting.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I was very much in sympathy with similar amendments in Committee, but I have a feeling that this amendment presses the argument just a step too far.
Perhaps I can provide an answer to my noble friend Lord Hylton’s question. I sat on the committee that looked at the HS2 line to Crewe, and I can say to him that it would be impossible, because of veteran trees along the line, to carry out that development as was proposed.
One remembers that this amendment directs attention not only to ancient trees but to veterans. It also asks us to accept that every single tree
“must be retained within a development site, including a root protection area and appropriate buffer zone.”
One can think of development sites of great areas where that might just be possible, but there are many others where it would effectively extinguish the possibility of development. So I feel that this amendment, although very well intentioned—I am so much in sympathy with what the noble Baroness seeks to do—just presses it a little too far, with language that does not allow any latitude at all for exceptional cases.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have to question the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, of HS2 as affecting a
“small area of ancient woodland”,
given that the Woodland Trust says that 108 areas of ancient woodland are at risk of “loss or damage”. However, it will probably please your Lordships’ House to know that I will not restart the HS2 debate at this moment.
I will focus on Amendment 100, to which we in the Green Party would have attached one of our names, had there been space. We are talking about something very ancient and precious, and we can make comparisons with cathedrals and indeed with your Lordships’ House. I was on the site of what is supposed to be the Norwich western link, standing at the base of an oak tree that was a sapling when Queen Elizabeth I was on the throne. An ancient woodland containing trees like that is comparable to your Lordships’ House or a cathedral. Think about the protections we offer to those and all the money we are thinking about putting in to preserving this building; we are in a different place on that.
We often think of ancient woodland as being out in the countryside somewhere. I want to be a little parochial and point out that Sheffield has 80 ancient woodlands within its boundary. I want to think and talk about the benefits to human health and well-being of having these ancient woodlands—indeed, London has some of them, and, when I lived here, I used to walk in them as well. They have enormous human health benefits that we have to take account of.
Returning to the subject of walking through ancient woodland in Sheffield or the threatened woodland in Norwich, we are talking about not just trees here but crucial, utterly irreplaceable habitats for bats and insects. These woodlands would have a chance truly to flourish without air pollution and other factors. Lichens and mosses—crucial, complex organisms that are absolutely foundational to rich, healthy ecosystems—depend on those ancient trees to thrive and indeed survive. So I commend both these amendments to your Lordships’ House, and I encourage the noble Baroness to press Amendment 100 in particular to a vote.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak in favour Amendment 100, in the name of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, and Amendment 101 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. We regard both these amendments as important.
As I said in Committee, the Bill is woefully lacking in any reference to a tree strategy and the need to protect our existing woodland stock as well as to increase the percentage of England under tree cover. The only such reference in the Bill is to felling street trees, and although this is an important issue, the crucial importance of preserving our ancient woodland and the need to deliver the protection and expansion of trees in woodlands in the future is not recognised.
As noble Lords have said, a comprehensive strategy is important not just to enhance biodiversity but in order to play a crucial role in carbon capture and sequestration. This has been emphasised by the Committee on Climate Change, which has pointed out that the UK tree-planting effort has “consistently fallen below” the target needed to achieve net zero by 2050.
Of course, we recognise that the Government have produced a tree action plan, but it is non-statutory and lacks the clarity and targets to deliver the necessary transformation of our landscapes and to tackle climate change. This is why we believe that a tree strategy with statutory and interim targets should be in the Bill. It should include measures to guarantee the preservation of ancient woodland, an emphasis on broad-leaf native woodland and greater powers to protect trees from disease and pests by encouraging domestic nurseries to produce more resilient saplings. It should also recognise the importance of smaller woodlands in creating biodiverse nature corridors and enhancing public enjoyment at a local level—a point made by my noble friend Lord Whitty.
Although we welcome the Government’s commitment to planting 30,000 hectares a year by the end of this Parliament, the Minister will know all too well that non-statutory tree-planting targets have come and gone in the past, as the earlier promise to plant 11 million trees demonstrates. So, I hope that, when he responds, the Minister can explain why a statutory tree strategy is missing from the Bill when there are already a number of strategies for other parts of nature development in it.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for butting in; I realise that it is not proper procedure to do so after the Front Bench has spoken but I have somehow got lost in what proper procedure is. I wish to make two quick points before the Minister replies, with the indulgence of the House.
First, with respect to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, we need to bear in mind that, in the 20th century, a semi-natural woodland had a far better chance of staying that way if it was in private hands rather than belonging to the Forestry Commission. The Government, as an owner of woodland, need to look to their own house.
Secondly, on the other amendment and the target of 30,000 hectares a year, I would just point out that this policy is being eyed up with relish by the commercial forestry industry. There is a huge amount of momentum behind the planting of alien Sitka spruce trees, particularly in the uplands, which will have a damaging and detrimental effect on the environment. I therefore have some sympathy for the second of these amendments.
Again, I apologise for butting in.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I, too, apologise but I wanted to say that I regard this amendment as not just important but essential. These woodlands and trees, whether they be ancient or veteran, are crucial. They are part of the heart of our country. If you remove them, they will be gone for ever. It is similar to removing ancient and important buildings. I well remember when Mr Heath was being pressured to allow the whole of the Treasury and Foreign Office to be swept away so that we could have more efficient offices; we would have had another Marsham Street there. My God, what a thought.
If we do not accept this amendment—perhaps the Minister will accept it, or say that he will do something —we will send completely the wrong signal to the outside world: that we do not mind about something about which we care deeply.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Turning to Amendment 101, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I thank her for her amendment and for her ambition to see more trees planted and protected. It is an ambition that she knows I share. As I mentioned in Committee, we are taking steps to plant more trees and protect woodlands. This was set out in the England Trees Action Plan which was published in May. The Government have already committed to at least treble planting rates in England over this Parliament and to increase tree planting across the UK to 30,000 hectares per year by the end of the Parliament, which is broadly in line with the 75,000 hectares that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned. In the England Trees Action Plan, the Government also took the significant step of committing to consulting on a new, long-term tree target through a public consultation on Environment Bill targets, expected in early next year. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, such a target would be legally binding, not just aspirational. This amendment is therefore not needed.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her amendment on ancient woodlands. Ancient woodlands are protected under the National Planning Policy Framework. The Government also have standing advice for local authority planners which is to be used as a material consideration when making planning decision proposals affecting ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees. We think that the majority of the proposals suggested in this amendment are already covered under the National Planning Policy Framework and the Forestry Commission and Natural England’s ancient woodland standing advice. The Government will keep under review cases where loss or deterioration of ancient woodland has been or is justified on the basis of “wholly exceptional” circumstances and will encourage them to be brought to our attention at Defra at an early stage. That message has gone out. We will also revise guidance to planners making decisions on what is considered wholly exceptional to avoid some of the circumstances that the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, mentioned.
As recently committed to in the England Trees Action Plan, we will build on these protections, including by introducing a new category of long-established woodland—they are woodlands that have been around since 1840—and we will consult on the protections they are afforded in the planning system. We also committed within the action plan that the Government will update the ancient woodland inventory to cover the whole of England, including smaller ancient woodland sites of one-quarter of a hectare. As I mentioned in Committee, our England Trees Action Plan also includes new steps to protect and restore ancient woodlands through management and restoration. Our new England woodland creation offer will fund landowners to buffer and expand ancient woodland sites by planting native broad-leaf woodland, and the Government will update the Keepers of Time policy on the management of ancient woodland, veteran trees and other semi-natural woodland.
In addition, the Secretary of State and I have been in regular discussions with colleagues in MHCLG to explore further measures that can be included in the upcoming planning Bill to build on the protections that are there to avoid the kind of outcome that the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, fears. This will also be high on my list of issues to discuss with the new Secretary of State for MHCLG, Michael Gove, who shares this House’s interest in ancient trees and their protection.
I hope I have reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the action the Government are taking and will take to protect ancient woodland and of the importance of the such precious environments. I beg her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their comments and support, and thank the Minister for his response. I was particularly taken by the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who basically said that we would not play as fast and loose with heritage buildings as we do with ancient woodland. I think the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about how the additional protection would work can be met by saying that the amendment gives considerable leeway to government to design the protection measure, and many of his points could be addressed during that design effort.
As the Minister said, the current protection is enshrined in the National Planning Policy Framework and standing advice, but I am not reassured by that, because, with 800 cases of imminent damage on the books at the moment, it is clear that the NPPF and the standing advice are not working. No amount of revising guidance to planners will bring the level of statutory protection that is required.
I very much welcome all the changes that the Minister said, as he did in Committee, that they are hoping to make to the woodland inventory, management schemes and the Keepers of Time policy, but they do not really address the development issues. I would not want to hang my hat on measures in the planning Bill until we see the Bill and the colour of the new Minister’s coat, now that he will be running MHCLG.
Having heard considerable support around the House for my amendment, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
“2A_(1) A regulated person in relation to a forest risk commodity must not use that commodity, or a product derived from that commodity, in their UK commercial activities unless the source organism was not grown, raised, or cultivated on land that was forest at the date this paragraph comes into force, or an earlier date specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, and has since been degraded or converted to agricultural use.(2) Without limiting sub-paragraph (1), forest is regarded as degraded if its tree canopy cover (excluding trees planted for the purpose of producing timber or other commodities) has decreased due to human activity.(3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to source organisms grown, raised or cultivated by indigenous peoples, or other communities with customary land use rights, in accordance with their customary rights and practices.(4) A regulated person in relation to a forest risk commodity must not use that commodity, or a product derived from that commodity, unless free, prior and informed consent has been obtained in relation to that commodity from indigenous peoples in accordance with their rights under international law, and from other local communities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require, with exceptions, that a regulated person does not use forest risk commodities or products derived from those commodities in their UK commercial activities if they are derived from land that is deforested after the commencement of Schedule 17 or an earlier date set by regulation.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I once again reiterate my conservation and wildlife interests as in the register, particularly, in relation to these amendments, as a vice-president of Fauna and Flora International. I shall speak to a number of amendments in this group in my name. I will try to be brief, but they cover three distinct and important issues. In Committee, at the behest of my Whips—as always, I listen to the Whips—I rather gabbled through the arguments and although it read all right in Hansard, I am not sure anybody really listened to it. I will try to be a bit slower this time and ask for noble Lords’ indulgence.
Amendment 106 relates to the due diligence framework, which was a relatively late addition to the Bill, and is in broad terms very welcome. I congratulate the Government heartily on bringing it forward; indeed, I believe the Government fully understand this and rightly put a global halt to deforestation at the centre of their agenda for the COP summit in Glasgow. These measures are the first of their kind and we should be justly proud of our Government. They are the Government’s response to the Global Resource Initiative task force’s recommendation from March 2020 for a mandatory due diligence obligation on companies that place commodities and derived products that contribute to deforestation, whether legal or illegal under local laws, on the UK market. The GRI made other recommendations which are yet to be embraced in legislation. I hope that these might be returned to at the earliest opportunity, such as the need to ensure that similar principles are applied to the finance industry.
The question that we must ask ourselves is whether the Government’s approach is the right one. We know that action to tackle deforestation is not only a political and moral imperative; it is also an economic one, given the vital role that the world’s forests play in storing carbon, providing a home for some of our most spectacular and endangered wildlife on this precious planet, sourcing medicines and other valuable products, and in sustaining local livelihoods and cultures. The Government’s approach is focused on illegal deforestation. I fully understand the reasons for that, but will it be enough?
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 108A, 108B and 108C. Before I say anything else, I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, had planned to be here to speak in favour of these amendments. Unfortunately he has been pulled away to a meeting and may not be able to get back to the Chamber in time.
The aims of the amendments are to ensure the earliest possible review of the deforestation provisions in Schedule 17 and, in the case of Amendment 108C, to enable Ministers by regulations, without delay—that being the important point—to extend their controls over UK use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity to legally deforested land. As noble Lords know, Schedule 17 currently applies restrictions on UK companies in relation only to commodities produced on illegally deforested land. This very much leaves all the power in the hands of the Government. This is very important when one is trying to gain their support on an issue.
I fully support all the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Indeed, I moved a similar amendment to Amendment 106 in Committee. That amendment would immediately extend the Schedule 17 provision to all deforested land, whether it has been done legally or illegally. Of course, this is ideally what should and needs to happen to save the planet. I support the noble Lord’s arguments but will not repeat them in view of the time.
According to one estimate, 15 billion trees are cut down each year over a land area equivalent to three and a half times the size of Wales. This is, of course, devastating for climate change and therefore the planet. Any delay in discouraging such deforestation is therefore obviously extremely serious.
In a very useful meeting with the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for which I thank the Minister very much, the Minister made it clear that he is negotiating with lots of other countries on this issue and explained that he needs to be seen to try limiting our controls to illegally deforested land initially to bring other countries along with us. Obviously, lots of countries working together to discourage deforestation is far preferable to just one country operating alone. However, I pointed out that having lots of countries doing something that actually makes no difference is not that useful, because countries such as Brazil will simply sidestep the policy set out in this Bill, and where are we? Nowhere at all, actually. Nevertheless, I respect the Minister’s wish to give this a try, but that underlines the importance of being able to rectify it as soon as we can.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, explained the importance of a comprehensive law on deforestation from the point of view of our employers. Again, I will not repeat his arguments.
As I said, Schedule 17 as it stands limits the scope of our controls over commercial activity in forest risk commodities to those produced in illegally deforested land. There is no real prospect of this position being changed for years to come, as the Bill stands. That is my great concern, because every year really matters in this field. We would have two or three years before a review and then goodness knows how many years before we could have a piece of primary legislation. As noble Lords know, we really could wait many years for that. How many billions of trees will be lost before the UK takes meaningful action? It does not bear thinking about.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Randall’s amendments, particularly Amendment 121. This would enable global footprint targets to be part of regulations. That in turn can give us much more confidence that we really will manage to stick to these necessary dates and deadlines.
In Committee, my noble friend the Minister pointed out that the Clause 1 power might be used to set a global footprint target. That is certainly helpful. However, the Bill is unclear about timescales. Within its current scope, long-term targets have to be for at least 15 years. As my noble friend Lord Randall just observed, the latter focus already becomes anomalous if, for example, targets cannot apply for a period less than 15 years, such as that until 2030, which is exactly by when we are told as a nation that we should reduce the United Kingdom’s global footprint by three-quarters.
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that while the implementation of Amendment 121 guards against slippage, putting these targets into regulations would also give a strong message internationally that, in this matter, the United Kingdom is committed to leading good practice?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the three noble Lords who have already spoken on this group. They have given us a comprehensive explanation of why we need all these amendments. I shall speak chiefly to Amendment 121 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the global footprint timetable. It has already been clearly set out why this amendment needs to pass: we need drastic action now.
A large number of amendments in Committee addressed the broader issues here. There was the call to look at not just resource efficiency but cutting total resource use in Part 1. There was the call to move towards the Treasury managing our economy for the purposes of people and planet, not chasing after growth that we cannot have more of on a finite planet. Your Lordships have heard the Government’s cries about their desire to progress the Bill quickly, so many of these amendments have not been put. They have been boiled down to some very clear, simple essentials that need to happen. I offer support for all these amendments.
The questions that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, asked were very clear and important, but I will address a direct question to the Minister on Schedule 17. It is crucial that Schedule 17 covers the main commodities driving global deforestation, so can he confirm that it will cover beef and leather, cocoa, palm oil, pulp and paper, rubber and soy? They are not currently defined in the schedule, and there is concern that any limits to the approach would utterly undermine the intentions expressed in this provision and by the Government.
I also want briefly to address Amendment 107 on the rights of indigenous people. We know that many of the parts of the world that still remain relatively pristine rely heavily on indigenous people to protect them, and how often their rights to do so and to live their lives are threatened by mining companies associated with us—often large multinationals with close ties to the UK. When one considers that and our historic legacy, as well as the impact of colonialism on those communities, we have a particular responsibility to ensure, practically and morally, that they are being listened to.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on his speech and his due diligence on this issue, which is crucial in terms of deforestation. We have the frustration whereby we want extraterritoriality, which we do not normally have in the UK, but we can influence some of these matters only through supply chains and our own British corporates. The United States seems to get away with extraterritoriality in relation to more or less everything. We do not have that privilege.
As regards this approach, I also like the reference to recognising indigenous people. It is clear and obvious that it is so much more effective to keep forests rather than start to regrow them. That is the other side of the coin, as it were, to the previous debate and perhaps is even more important. That is why these Benches are very much in favour of the system proposed—although one of the big challenges that we have faced regarding environmental regulation and the Bill is enforcement and making sure that the regulations that we make can operate and are policed. We have the FSC, the Forest Stewardship Council, which works okay but all of us know of instances of duplicity in the system—not in the work of the FSC itself but among those copying and wrongly branding products. That challenge remains, but that does not mean that we should not move ahead in these areas.
I want also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on his pioneering work on the global footprint. We have mentioned a number of areas but the Dasgupta review, sponsored by the Treasury, again stressed that in terms of natural capital we are extracting far more than we are putting back into the planet. I suspect that the noble Lord is not expecting the Minister to accept the amendment but I hope that the Government will do further work in this area. I agree strongly with a point that the noble Lord made: if we can become the leader of standards in this area, it would be incredibly important.
Lastly, I come to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on urgency. That is the word I hear from her and she is absolutely right. We have so little time in so many of these areas and here, through these amendments—which I hope the Government and the Minister will accept—we have an opportunity to wind up that urgency and start to make right what we need to do soon and so urgently.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I have put my name, although only online, to my noble friend Lady Meacher’s amendments as well as to Amendment 121 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall.
We outsource so many things in this country that globalisation has destroyed any sense we have of how products get to us or what they are made of. Just look at the list of ingredients that go into a cheap ready meal. They will certainly contain stuff that one’s grand- mother would not recognise and probably include ingredients such as soy. Manufacturers are keen to keep us ignorant of those chains.
Much of what happens on Amazonian land, in the forests of Brazil and other parts of South America, is the growing of soy and feed crops for cattle, which then go to feed us. From an environmental and energy point of view, that is a travesty. I am not even counting the transport involved. We are colluding—for many people, I am sure, completely unwittingly—in pulling and cutting down ancient rainforests for the simple reason that the loggers and farmers can get away with it. We actually do not know about it. It is time to stop it and for us to stop buying those kinds of products, but we have to know and have transparency.
Amendment 108C also makes it clear that we must be aware not just of illegal deforestation, which varies between countries and often between jurisdictions, but of what might today be considered legal. Brazil’s forest laws have changed in the past decade but that does not mean that we should lay off the pressure. The good news is that 81% of the biggest UK companies in the forest risk supply chains have stated that they aim to remove all deforestation from their supply chains, and 22 major UK businesses recently called on the UK Government to develop a legal framework to halt it. Citizens also support such a move. In the Government’s own consultation, 99% of all residents supported the introduction of just this kind of legislation. However, in the meantime we continue to see ghastly pictures of the Amazon on fire. Scientists know that decades of human activity and a changing climate have pushed the jungle near to a tipping point; 17% of it is nearly destroyed and the tipping point will soon be reached.
That brings me neatly to Amendment 121 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and I congratulate him on his speech and for all his work. The day that the UK overshot our planetary boundaries was 29 July this year—the day that demand for ecological resources and services in any given year exceeded what the earth can generate. It hardly needs to be explained why that matters. I understand that all the measures in the Bill are effectively working to ensure that we live in harmony with the earth and that we do not use more than we can regenerate. However, it is also easy to see that it is not entirely working. We are a long way from that but we are not the first country to take measures. We therefore need to measure the progress, even though it is difficult to do so.
I have just finished reading a chapter from a new edition of Jared Diamond’s extraordinary book, Collapse, about Easter Island, which was the home of a once-thriving community who drove themselves almost into extinction over a period of about 250 years. They had amazing trees called Chilean pines, from which big canoes could be produced that were capable of going out far into the Pacific Ocean. One can tell from dietary remains that at that point the people ate big fish such as tuna, and porpoises, dolphins and so on, and were very healthy. Indeed, the society was so wealthy and healthy that they could spend their time making the extraordinary heads found on Easter Island. At one point, the people cut down the last Chilean pine. No one thought that it mattered because they then made smaller canoes. Unfortunately, their diet worsened, as did the soil because there were no trees. When travellers visited that society in the middle of the 1850s—not really that long ago—they found a bunch of people in rags who were impoverished and soil that was incapable of producing many crops.
That is a metaphor for our time, because the point is that it happened not with a bang but a whimper. Right now, one could say that the earth was beginning to scream. When we saw Covid coming, that was a bang and we were able to respond, but what we are doing now is slowly grinding down the planet to a point at which one day, we might end up like the people of Easter Island.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we have been debating a number of amendments in this group that seek to strengthen Schedule 17. The first is Amendment 106 on forestry commodities, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. He has clearly explained what his amendment sets out to achieve and, importantly, why it is needed. His speech may have been longer than normal, but it was important to hear his words.
In the 25-year environment plan, the UK Government articulated an ambitious set of goals and actions, including that
“our consumption and impact on natural capital are sustainable, at home and overseas”.
Unfortunately, as in a number of other policy areas, the Environment Bill does not adequately deliver on this commitment.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this hugely important debate. The UK has a strong history of supporting supply and demand-side measures to tackle deforestation, including the commissioning of the GRI, which my noble friend Lord Randall mentioned, to provide us with advice on how we could strengthen our efforts to tread more lightly on the environment. We welcome the widespread support that we have received for the Government’s work in this area, including our public consultation on due diligence legislation last year. That legislation is a world first and the Government are committed to ensuring that it is effective in addressing illegal deforestation and cleaning up our supply chains.
As I mentioned in Committee, a significant proportion of global deforestation is illegal. At least 69% of tropical deforestation for commercial agriculture between 2013 and 2019 was conducted in violation of national laws—it is closer to 90% in some key areas, including parts of the Amazon. Our due diligence provisions will directly tackle this deforestation. I just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that dealing with illegal deforestation—as I said, it amounts to 90% in key parts of the Amazon—does not equal, to quote her, “nothing”. Tackling such a vast proportion of the problem that we are addressing cannot simply be described as “nothing”. If we can stop illegal deforestation, we can all be pretty happy. Equally, no one is pretending that that is the whole solution.
I want to talk specifically to Amendments 106 and 108C, tabled by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, respectively. I reiterate my strong view that this legislation is the best and most strategic way that we can make a truly global impact and I will try to again explain why. Our legality-based approach allows us to lead the charge on tackling illegal deforestation, while working in partnership with producer country Governments and communities and respecting their laws. This is critical. The UK is a big market, but we are nowhere near big enough alone to change a global dynamic on deforestation. It will only be through building a coalition of countries—producer and consumer countries—committed to working with us that we will have the capacity to flip the market in favour of forests. That is a major piece of work that we are doing both as part of the run-up to COP 26 but also beyond. We are already seeing real progress in that coalition-building exercise.
While I completely agree with the sentiment of these amendments, all our diplomatic work so far tells us that they would undermine our ability to coalition-build and, therefore, the UK’s wider efforts to support sustainable supply chains. The principal reason is that they would alter a core intention of this policy, which aims to respect producer countries’ laws and responsibilities. That is not to say that there are no concerns on wider issues surrounding legal deforestation and other drivers of deforestation. There are of course many such concerns.
However, there is no single silver bullet that will tackle all these issues at once, and I do not pretend that our due diligence measures alone will do the job. They are hugely important and will help us to deal with a significant chunk of the problem, but they are not the silver bullet; they are just one part of a wider package of measures to improve the sustainability of our supply chains. For example, I co-chair the Forest, Agriculture and Commodity Trade Dialogue as part of COP 26. Through this, we are working with a growing network of producer and consumer countries to develop a shared road map of actions to protect forests and other ecosystems while promoting sustainable development and trade. My officials and I are also working extremely hard to secure a range of outcomes at COP 26 that, combined, will enable us to turn the corner on deforestation as a matter of urgency. Much work remains to be done in the run-up to COP, but I am optimistic that we will get there.
Our global Forest Governance, Markets and Climate programme promotes inclusive policy-making, working with Governments, local business and NGOs—including indigenous peoples and local communities—and strengthens the rule of law that helps indigenous peoples and local communities to clarify and secure their rights to forest resources that they ought already to have. Additionally, the UK welcomes and has been actively helping to shape the development of the Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance—or LEAF—Coalition. LEAF aims to mobilise many hundreds of millions of pounds in financing, kicking off what is expected to—and I believe will—become one of the largest ever public-private efforts to protect tropical forests and support sustainable development. At the heart of the LEAF programme is a recognition of the vital role of indigenous people and the threats that they face.
Turning to Amendments 108A and 108B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, again I agree that of course it is important we have strong reviews in place to ensure that the legislation works. That is why Schedule 17 contains a provision requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the law’s effectiveness every two years once it has come into force and set out any steps needed to be taken as a result of that review. The amendment would limit the Government’s ability to conduct an effective and meaningful first review of the legislation. Businesses would have had hardly any experience of the regulations by that point, and there would be hardly any data available for the first review to really understand if they were working. Two years seems to me about the right time for us to be able to assess the efficacy and usefulness of this legislation. I reassure the noble Baroness that, if we do not see progress towards delivering the legislation’s very clear objectives that we are looking for, or if we see perverse outcomes of the sort that the noble Baroness and others have cited, we will take whatever action is necessary.
This leads me on to Amendments 107 and 108, tabled by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. Schedule 17 sets out what these reviews should consider in particular, but they are not limited to just these factors and we can review other aspects too. As part of the review, we have the ability to monitor the protections of indigenous peoples and groups. Indeed, the Government absolutely recognise the critically important role that indigenous peoples and local communities play in protecting forests. It is not a coincidence that the majority of intact ecosystems today are lived in and looked after by indigenous people. Equally, those same people often face existential threats and appalling violence, as the Global Witness report pointed out.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in relation to COP 26, I cannot go into all the details now but it is certainly the case that indigenous people, including from Brazil but from other parts of the world as well, will play a very significant role in COP 26 and the run-up to COP 26. Indeed, I have meetings tomorrow with indigenous groups to help to try to put a bit of meat on that particular bone, because we want that participation not to be a box-ticking exercise but something really meaningful. We are also working through the former DfID component of the FCDO to see what more we can do to provide support to indigenous people, particularly around land rights, which as the noble Baroness knows well is the core issue for indigenous people.
As stewards of 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity, indigenous peoples are leaders in how to develop nature-based, resilient and effective solutions to climate change, through their knowledge and innovations, technologies and their cultural and spiritual values. The UK welcomed the new two-year work plan agreed on the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform at COP 25 and we look forward to further discussions on the next three-year work plan at COP 26. I assure my noble friend that the Secretary of State will seek input from a very wide range of stake- holders when conducting these reviews.
I turn to Amendment 121, also tabled by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. As I have stated previously, the Bill gives us the power to set long-term legally binding targets on any matter relating to the natural environment, including contributing towards objectives on reducing our global footprint. Before committing to obligations such as this, we have the need to form a better understanding of whether a target is the appropriate mechanism to drive this change. A rushed target or indicator could hinder rather than aid progress towards our environmental objectives. While we are developing a global footprint indicator to further our understanding of the impacts of our consumption overseas, we need to be sure that the data landscape is sufficiently developed to measure any target. We can only develop the data so far unilaterally, as this requires a joined-up approach across the globe. We want to make sure that any interventions to reduce our global footprint are able to be monitored and enforced, and do not create any kind of perverse outcomes. For these reasons, we want to consider the best way to take action, which may or may not involve setting a target.
We are committed to leaving a lighter footprint on the global environment and want to take decisive action to this end. As mentioned a moment ago, our COP 26 nature campaign will catalyse global action to protect and restore forests and other key ecosystems. For example, at COP 26 we will explore actions that can be taken with other nations to support and implement transparency and traceability throughout the supply chain, which will inform progress against climate goals.
In regard to the specific questions from my noble friend Lord Randall—and I hope that I got them all down—the Bill’s target framework will allow the Government to set a global footprint target if it is judged to be the best way to deliver long-term environmental outcomes, building on progress towards achieving the vision of the 25-year environment plan. Any target set would need to need to meet the criteria set out in the Bill’s framework, so while we could set a target with this proposed scope, we could not do so based on where we are today with a 2030 date attached.
In regard to my noble friend’s question about consulting on a target in this space, I can confirm that we will be conducting a public consultation on long-term target proposals. We are engaging key stakeholder groups already, and expect to publish a public consultation in early 2022 on proposed targets. I recognise the enormously important work and role of the GRI in providing us with advice and information on the issues that we are discussing and more. We are looking now at options to enable us to avoid losing that expertise, but I am afraid that I cannot say more about that at this point. I absolutely take my noble friend’s point, however.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and given such strong support.
I was amazed to find myself in this place when I was appointed here, and I must admit to sometimes being concerned about what I am actually doing here. But for me, today is one of those occasions when I am the mouthpiece for hundreds of thousands of people, in this country and elsewhere, who care about these matters deeply. It has been a privilege to be able to put these amendments forward.
My noble friend has given me some very good answers, and I know he cares as deeply as I do. I recall that, in another life, he was appointed by David Cameron as the forestry champion but was relieved of his position because of a mistake, when he voted the wrong way. I am delighted to see that the Whips down this end of the building are much more forgiving.
I would love these amendments to go forward, and I have a certain amount of confidence that, if I pushed them, they might pass in this House. However, I heard what my noble friend said. I am a pragmatist and a realist, and this is not the moment to go further. The Government have to be congratulated on getting this far. We have to continually push on this, to get a coalition of nations around the world to make sure that this issue is addressed, and quickly. But in the light of my noble friend’s comments and what I have just said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Meacher
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure a review of the efficacy of the deforestation provisions at the earliest opportunity.
Baroness Meacher
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure a review of the efficacy of the deforestation provisions at the earliest opportunity.
The Earl of Devon
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with another, adds formality to the process of creating a conservation covenant to reflect the serious, long-term nature of the commitments being made, and to ensure conservation covenants include provisions regarding the duration of the obligation and the consideration due to the landowner in return for the commitments given.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, this is a groundbreaking Bill in many ways but, from the perspective of English property law, no provisions are more revolutionary than Part 7 and the introduction of conservation covenants. This is a seismic shift, meaning that, for the first time since the Normans introduced common law, owners of land will be able to bind successors in perpetuity to positive obligations to manage land in a particular way. More radical still, and in a departure from the recommendations of the Law Commission, the counterparties to these obligations will now include for-profit companies—private enterprise. As a farmer and a former property barrister now practising at an agricultural law firm with clients in this space, I support this scheme and want it to succeed, but there are glaring imperfections in Part 7, causing major concern to, among others, the NFU, the Bar Council and the RICS. Because of that I have tabled Amendments 109, 110, 112, 113, 114 and 115.
Amendments 109 and 110 focus on the formalities by which conservation covenants are created, ensuring that they say what they are and what they do on their face and are created by deed rather than, as currently drafted, by a simple exchange of emails. Amendment 112 ensures that for-profit responsible bodies are conservation- focused, not distracted by other, competing duties, such as making profits for their shareholders at the expense of the environment. Amendments 113 through 115 resolve the untenable position when a responsible body defaults, such that the Secretary of State steps in and, in perpetuity, binds a landowner to a positive obligation without any reciprocal duty to pay the fees covenanted. Since Committee, I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and many others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, indicating a very broad consensus across your Lordships’ House for these modest but vital amendments.
I am also grateful to the Ministers in Defra and the Bill team for their engagement, although I remain concerned that there is a failure to grasp the significance of the issues raised. Given the time, I do not propose to restate the hypothetical parade of horribles that I set out in Committee, but I note that no one has argued that those hypotheticals are wrong. The Government erroneously asserted that conservation covenants needed to be executed by deed in order to be registered as local land charges, but they have since accepted that that was inaccurate. That is appreciated; however, this only reinforces the sense that this radical change to property law is being rushed through without due consideration or understanding. It is our duty to build in necessary safeguards to protect farmers, the environment and future generations from the threat of zombie covenants blighting our green and pleasant land in perpetuity.
Key to resolving these concerns is Amendment 110, requiring that conservation covenants be executed by a deed which contains its key terms as to duration and payments on its face. This is the traditional and best way to ensure that advice is taken such that the potentially punitive and perpetual implications of entering a conservation covenant are properly understood at the outset. The Government say that their draft guidance recommends legal advice, and this should be sufficient, but anyone willing to enter a perpetual covenant by a mere exchange of emails is hardly going to sit down and read the guidance first. Defra wants no brake on the uptake of these covenants and, rather unusually, it is farmers seeking greater formality and not the Government. Defra has directed me to other statutory covenants created without necessarily using a deed, but none of these contains positive covenants, perpetual in nature, with a for-profit private counterparty. These are largely restrictive covenants with trusted statutory authorities.
Amendment 111 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, sets out at considerable length the full formalities to be considered in executing a conservation covenant, formalities the RICS would no doubt recommend. Such extensive formalities may not be warranted within the legislation, but they are exactly what will be considered by properly advised parties executing such a covenant by deed.
The Government suggest that Amendment 112 is unnecessary because Defra will ensure that responsible bodies are truly responsible, but I have read the draft guidance and nowhere does it state the objective parameters against which responsibility will be judged. Indeed, it appears that foreign entities can be responsible bodies, so long as they have a PO box in the UK, and entities directly connected with the landowner could be responsible bodies too—there is no prohibition.
I was also surprised in Committee that the Minister cited the example of for-profit water companies as the type of body the Government consider to be responsible. Would that include Southern Water, recently fined £90 million for environmental degradation on an industrial scale in the pursuit of shareholder profits?
Amendments 113 to 115 solve the intolerable impact of the responsible body becoming bankrupt or deregistered and passing its role as counterparty to the Secretary of State, who then has no obligation to pay anything to the landowner, whatever the cost of the landowner’s conservation commitments. These amendments strictly limit the duration for which the Secretary of State is holder of last resort to 12 months, after which, if no responsible body is willing to take the covenant on, it is simply discharged. This has the effect of killing a zombie covenant and protecting the landowner and the land from the risk of a perpetual obligation with no payments in return. Without this change, the scheme is fatally flawed, as anyone advising on such covenants would have to identify this very real risk and advise against it. Of course, if landowners do not take advice, they will not know of this risk, as I note that no mention is made of it in Defra’s draft guidance.
I could go on, but time is short and the arguments are clear. For these reasons and the myriad others I set forth in Committee, I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Earl, Lord Devon, in his amendments. They are hugely important. I am a great supporter of conservation covenants and I want them to work effectively. As he just said, I have a number of amendments in this group.
I am looking at conservation covenants in something akin to a divorce situation. One can enter into marriage with the very best of intentions and it is all going very well, but then it starts going sour. Divorce can be extremely costly and brutal. A conservation covenant could be entered into with the very best of intentions, but here the situation is complicated because the parties entering it could be different parties when it comes to a conclusion. There could be very different interpretations and a great deal of costs.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, did not actually mention costs so much today as he did in Committee, but in Clause 126 the final remedy is the Upper Tribunal and that can cost £50,000 to get started. Can farmers really afford that, particularly tenant farmers? The average size of a farm in England is 87 hectares and the cash flows are bare at the most. They might be a little better with the wheat price at the moment but, sure as anything, we have seen wheat prices go up and come down. You cannot expect farmers to have that amount of ready cash to fight in the courts.
I therefore seek to spell out in some detail the sort of things that need to be taken into account. I do not expect many conservation covenants to be undertaken by tenants but, if one is, all the freeholders of the land should be signatories to that agreement. I hope my noble friend will confirm that. It is a very un-Conservative thing to deprive the beneficiary of a reversionary interest of the full value of that interest, which could easily be done if a tenant enters into an agreement which prejudices the farm at the end of the tenancy. Not only does a conservation agreement affect one property, but it could very easily affect the neighbouring properties and surrounding farms if that conservation covenant involves the re-wetting of the land, which can take many years to undo.
I hope we can get a simpler way to modify and change the tenancies. When negotiation has failed, we need a simple system. I suggest in my amendments that there is an alternative dispute resolution which is simple, cheap, and which farmers, tenants and landowners are used to. I am hugely concerned by the impact that outside bodies might have. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has just reminded us, all you need is a PO box. You could get foreign investment companies coming in, taking over these conservation covenants and making life extremely difficult for the occupier.
I very much hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. His Amendments 109 and 110 cover all the points I have raised, but I have spelt them out in a different way because they are of extreme concern to farmers.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. When I first looked at these amendments, I decided to leave them well alone because I did not know what covenants were. Looking at them a little more closely, my working-class bigotry kicked in and I thought that if three hereditary Peers were dealing with this then I ought to be careful. But, in fact, I am convinced, soothed and reassured, and I will be voting for the amendment.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
Follow that, my Lords. I declare my interest as a landowner. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, has made some very good arguments, both today and in Committee in what is a very good example of the House of Lords at its best. He made a very powerful speech in Committee that made a lot of people think hard about a difficult topic. Like him, I support the scheme for conservation covenants very strongly indeed. I saw how conservation easements work in the United States years ago and have argued for years that we ought to have a similar system here. However, he raised some key questions in Committee, and I do not think they were adequately answered either from the Dispatch Box or in later correspondence. That is why I have added my name to these amendments. I am not looking to cause trouble; I am looking for reassurance from my noble friend the Minister that the Government have listened to his concerns and come up with some important reforms to this legislation.
Conservation covenants are, or should be, formal, solemn, momentous undertakings. That should be reflected in the way they are entered into. They should be done by deed and not by an email. They should be with a focused and specialised partner, not a potential scallywag, as we have heard. I am not a lawyer, but the law that worries me here is the one we cannot repeal: namely, the law of unintended consequences. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, put it, the prospect of zombie covenants blighting our green and pleasant land is not a pleasant one.
The other key concern is the possibility that the advice on how to conserve a habitat, species or piece of biodiversity may prove wrong over time, and a sort of flexibility needs to be built into this to correct a covenant. I spoke at Second Reading about a real example of this with peewits on the Isle of Sheppey. Essentially, it was discovered that, by providing super-habitats for the peewits to nest but no predator control, you were actually draining the population of birds. They were attracted to the place but could not rear any chicks and died of old age without any grandchildren. There has been another example recently in the media of the fact that the willow tit is declining largely because there are too many bird feeders, benefiting the blue tit, which takes over the willow tit’s holes and evicts it.
These are small examples and may seem trivial ones, but the point is that we learn that conservation advice changes over time. We need to be able to reflect that in these very solemn and long-term undertakings. Again and again I have seen practice in one decade that turns out to be wrong in the next. I will listen carefully to my noble friend the Minister and to any response that comes.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to give my support to the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and he will have the support of these Benches. I must say he has caused me some slight difficulty as, like him, I also have an American spouse, who recently watched the programme about Powderham Castle with Mary Berry and turned to me and said: “How come we don’t have a castle? Aren’t you a lord too?” I have put that aside in the interest of these amendments and I will not detain the House too long, as the noble Earl has set out the case very compellingly.
Whatever anybody’s views about Part 7, we are all agreed that it is significant and the covenant agreements that will be entered into are significant. Therefore, those entering them should do so not simply by email but with advice. That amendment is a basic thing we should be able to agree on.
The other amendments set out by the noble Earl also have compelling resonance. We do not want private companies with no interest in conservation buying up land, and there should be no perpetual obligation on landowners, with no payments. So we support these amendments. They are very reasonable, even modest, and can only improve the Bill and the likelihood that conservation covenant agreements will have a good chance of success. I hope the Government will be willing to move on them but, if they are not, and the noble Earl wishes to divide the House, he will have the support of these Benches.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I do not have an American spouse to declare and I am certainly not a landowner, so maybe I bring more of a working-class approach to this. But I do declare an interest as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority, where conservation covenants are already becoming a live and slightly perturbing issue. I speak in support of Amendments 109, 110, 112, 113, 114 and 115 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, to which I have added my name. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for his amendments, which echo our concerns about the current wording of Part 7 of the Bill.
As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said in Committee and again today, conservation covenants are a new and radical concept. They could bring great benefits to our landscape and to improving our biodiversity, but they are long-term agreements with huge implications for the landowners, so it is essential that we make the wording watertight from the start. The noble Earl’s Amendments 109 and 110 would require any conservation covenant to be underpinned by a deed. We believe this provision is essential. It would ensure that the landowner received appropriate legal advice before locking in the land to agreements that could last 100 years or more, committing their family for generations.
In the noble Lord the Minister’s letter following the debate in Committee, he made it clear that the covenants would not require a dominant and servient tenement. The implication was that this would be an equal agreement between the landowner and the responsible body, but we know this is not necessarily how it will work in practice. We are talking about public bodies or large institutions with huge resources compared to a single landowner, who may be a small farmer. So it is crucial that they get the best legal advice, which a deed would deliver. There would then be clarity for all on what the conservation requirements are.
As I mentioned in Committee, the concept of environmental stacking is also taking hold, where a landowner might have multiple conservation obligations to different bodies, with all the legal complexities that that would ensue. Could the noble Baroness clarify how it would work if a covenant existed for a piece of land? For example, would the landowner also be able to claim additional financial support through the sustainable farming incentive scheme?
We are also concerned about the implications of individual farmers being approached to sign covenants that are at odds with the wider plans for the landscape. How would we ensure that the covenant was in keeping with, for example, the strategic plans for the protected landscapes in the national parks? As I mentioned in Committee, farmers in the South Downs are already being approached to provide carbon offsets for developments elsewhere, and the new biodiversity offsets will complicate matters further. All of this underlines the need for a land-use framework for England, which my noble friend Lady Young will be debating in the next group.
I also agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that the advice on conservation may turn out to be wrong, over a period of time, so we need a simple mechanism to adapt and sign off new amended conservation agreements.
Finally, we agree with the noble Earl that the responsible bodies that determine the basis of the covenant, if they are not public bodies or charities, should be organisations focused solely on conservation —we all had a great deal of sympathy with his example of Southern Water, which did not quite tick the box of being a trustworthy conservator—otherwise, there is a danger of the covenants being traded by for-profit institutions with no interest in the biodiversity outcome and no direct engagement with the landowner. In the worst case, it is possible to imagine all these covenants bundled up into packages and traded internationally, with the UK losing control of its land use. I hope noble Lords see the sense of these amendments and agree to support them, if the Minister is not able to adequately address these concerns.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and especially the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Caithness, for their amendments. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for taking the time to discuss this important topic with the Secretary of State last night, and with Defra officials and the Law Commission. I start by emphasising that the Law Commission concluded that a regime for statutory conservation covenants is needed because there is currently no simple legal tool that landowners can use to secure conservation or heritage benefits when the land is sold or passed on.
Amendment 111, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, risks limiting crucial flexibility in the design of covenants. The Government strongly support the Law Commission’s approach of keeping the content and procedural requirements for conservation covenants simple and proportionate. We want to avoid unnecessary complexity and cost—and cost might dissuade landowners from entering into conservation covenants, leading to important conservation opportunities being lost. It is also vital that parties have the flexibility to design conservation covenants to suit their needs, given the wide range of conservation purposes they could be used to secure. We expect to see a range of different covenants created, from preserving small-scale heritage work done on a Tudor house through to securing long- term landscape-scale conservation management.
Amendment 109, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, seeks to prevent landowners inadvertently signing up to agreements, but I think this scenario is unlikely. The agreement must show that the parties intend to create a conservation covenant. A conservation covenant cannot be validly created unless the agreement clearly shows that the parties intended to create it. The Government have been working closely with stakeholders, including the NFU, CLA and the National Trust, to develop guidance, to be published, that will set out in more detail the process for creating conservation covenants and encourage both parties to take legal advice before entering into such an agreement.
On Amendment 110, I will first clarify something I said to noble Lords during the debate on the eighth day of Committee. To confirm, it is not necessary for a conservation covenant to be executed by deed for it to be registered as a local land charge. I also reassure the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that his concerns were carefully considered by the Law Commission: Clause 113 adheres to its final recommendations. His proposal that the agreement must be created in writing and signed was well received. In practice, those who prefer to execute their agreement as a deed may do so, and of course executing an agreement by deed does not guarantee that the parties will seek legal advice on the terms set out in the agreement—although, as I said, our guidance will encourage parties to take legal advice.
A perpetual agreement might be desirable to some; equally, a fixed-term conservation covenant could be appropriate to others. The proposal for flexibility on duration had the clear support of consultees and the Law Commission saw no sensible alternative. Where consideration forms part of an agreement, the clauses already allow for that to be captured. Requiring agreements to include provisions on duration and consideration risks rendering otherwise helpful agreements invalid if they fail to mention them, as consideration in particular may not be relevant to all agreements.
On Amendment 112, regarding responsible bodies, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that for-profit bodies have a role to play in ensuring the success of conservation covenants. The Government’s 2019 consultation found broad support for allowing for-profit organisations to apply to be responsible bodies: 58% of respondents agreed, with only 26% against. The Government will closely check approved responsible bodies. Regulations on annual returns may require responsible bodies to provide an update on their eligibility. As part of the application process, we will also require organisations to notify us if conservation is no longer their main purpose or activity.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this short debate.
I reiterate that we are clearly all supportive of conservation covenants. However, in Committee and on Report there has not been a single dissenting voice against the amendments that I have tabled. I had hoped that the Government would listen to this clear message, but it appears that they may not be able to hear it. I do not understand why the taking of advice would be prohibitive of cost in terms of setting up a perpetual covenant over land; that seems entirely reasonable. The Government say that intention must be shown in order for a covenant to be established. If an intention is to be shown then the covenant should say that it is a covenant. That shows the intention. Otherwise, the only beneficiaries will be lawyers such as myself arguing over whether intention was shown.
Finally, the Minister does not recognise that in the absence of any specificity as to the duration of these covenants, they are perpetual by default. If the parties do not get around to saying how long it will last, it will last for ever. They must be advised of that and they must understand it.
Given that today is “Back British Farming Day” and that these amendments are promoted and supported by the NFU, I really think that your Lordships’ House should get behind them. I hope so. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 109.
The Earl of Devon
(d) the agreement makes provision for the payment of consideration to the landowner, or states that no consideration is to be provided, and(e) the agreement includes provision regarding the duration or end date of the agreement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds formality to the process of creating a conservation covenant to reflect the serious, long-term nature of the commitments being made, and to ensure conservation covenants include provisions regarding the duration of the obligation and the consideration due to the landowner in return for the commitments given.
“Land use framework for England
(1) The Secretary of State must, no later than 31 March 2023, lay a land use framework for England before Parliament.(2) The framework must set out—(a) the Secretary of State’s objectives in relation to integrated land use within a sustainable land use framework;(b) principles to guide decisions by government and public authorities on the most effective use of land;(c) proposals and policies for meeting the objectives; and(d) the timescales over which those proposals and policies are expected to take effect.(3) The objectives, principles, proposals and policies referred to in subsection (2) must contribute to—(a) achievement of multifunctional land use, balancing the range of needs for land, including agriculture and food production;(b) achievement of objectives in relation to mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, including achieving carbon budgets under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;(c) sustainable development including the use of land for development and infrastructure;(d) the achievement of objectives of the 25 Year Environment Plan for halting the decline of biodiversity.(4) Before laying the framework before Parliament, the Secretary of State must publish a draft framework and consult with—(a) such bodies as he or she considers appropriate, and(b) the general public.(5) The Secretary of State must, no later than—(a) 5 years after laying a framework before Parliament under subsection (1), and(b) the end of every subsequent period of 5 years,lay a revised framework before Parliament under the terms set out in subsections (2) to (4).(6) The Secretary of State must, no later than 3 years after the laying of a framework before Parliament under this section and at three year intervals thereafter, lay before Parliament a report on the implementation of the framework and progress in achieving the objectives, principles, proposals and policies under subsection (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would provide a land use context to enable the Secretary of State and public authorities to make optimal decisions about the multifunctional uses of land to achieve the targets, plans and policies for improving the natural environment and other purposes.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 117 requires the Secretary of State to create a land-use framework for England. I am conscious of the hour and the fact that this was also raised during debates on the Agriculture Bill and in earlier stages of this Bill. I am also conscious that it is extremely cold in the Chamber and dinner looms, so I will be brief.
I have had considerable support from noble Lords from all parts of your Lordships’ House on this issue. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Boycott, who have also put their names to the amendment. It has become even more important since we last discussed it. Pressures on land from all sides continue to grow, and that is reflected in land prices, which are rocketing up. In particular, the pressures that are really growing and coming into focus include the need for more land for carbon sequestration, for food production and increasing our food security, for tree planting and for forestry, to reduce our reliance on imported timber. There is also pressure for land to halt and reverse the decline in biodiversity, provide green open spaces post Covid and help communities and people protect their health and their mental health.
There are other pressures as well: by 2050, we will need land to house 7 million more people in this country, if the population estimates are correct. That will also mean land for development and infrastructure to support the jobs for this population increase. If we add together all of those things, plus other land uses, the calculation shows that, to meet all of society’s needs for land over the next two decades, we will need a third more land than we have. We desperately need a framework to allow land to be used in the most effective way, for multiple functions—both public and private—to be met by the same piece of land and for decisions on competing land-use pressures to be made on a rational basis, at national, regional and local levels. The three other nations of the UK have all seen sense and have land-use frameworks—England does not.
In addition to all that, the list of land-use schemes that the Government are introducing is growing. Noble Lords have heard about many of them during the course of the Bill: local nature recovery strategies, Nature4Climate and other carbon schemes, biodiversity net gain, the new range of agricultural support schemes in ELMS, major tree-planting initiatives and whatever designations of development land that will come out of the Government’s planning changes, when we see them. There are lots of government schemes. A land-use framework would set all of these in an integrated and logical framework that would act like the glue between them to allow them to operate successfully together, rather than in their current silos. In Committee, the Minister said that local nature recovery strategies would do that job, but they do not include planning and development land uses.
More and more organisations are advocating the need for a land-use framework. I have previously mentioned the Climate Change Committee, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Rural Economy and the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission, on which I should declare an interest as a commissioner. Since we last discussed this topic, another bunch of folk have decided that a land-use framework would be a good idea: the food strategy report that Henry Dimbleby produced for the Government called for such a framework, and the forthcoming Royal Society report will do the same. So I believe that the case for developing and implementing such a framework is undeniable and pressing. For example, it is crucial that the Government’s forthcoming planning reforms are informed by such a framework.
What we are faced with is like trying to do one of these awful jigsaws that well-meaning people give you for Christmas. It is a complex land-use jigsaw where there is no picture on the box and you have a third more pieces than will actually fit into the jigsaw. I do not know about noble Lords’, but I hate those offerings —they are impossible to do—and that is what we are trying to do with land use at the moment. I hope that the Minister will hear the rising tide of support for a land-use framework and accept my amendment.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment. I have supported the noble Baroness in her cause of a land-use framework for England for many years. Indeed, if I remember rightly, one of the recommendations of the House of Lords Committee on the Rural Economy was that we needed a land-use framework. That was some years ago and, as the noble Baroness has said, the case is even more pertinent now. The Bill increases the need for one with the conservation covenants. There is no limit to what land these covenants could be on. If they are going to be in perpetuity and they take all the best agricultural land, then we might well be doing ourselves a disservice in the long term when we need that land to grow food for a starving population.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has set out all the points. It is desperately important for the Government to integrate all their policies; at the moment, the pieces of the jigsaw are all over the place. Their strategies, including the new soil strategy, would work so much better if there were a structured plan for them to work under. I just cannot understand why the Minister and Defra are so reluctant to do this when the devolved Administrations have seen the logic of it.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
I also want to speak about this interesting clause, which I have been scratching my head about for some time. The need for some top-down planning was clearly identified by Henry Dimbleby in the recent national food strategy report. However, top-down planning on its own and on the scale envisaged is not practical, as there is always a need for local factors to be considered at the same time. While there is some merit in the concept of focusing public funding on the right thing in the right place, it is neither realistic nor desirable to micromanage what happens right down to parish level. As food producers and environmental guardians, farmers and land managers should be at the core of any approach to developing a framework. A framework for land use should be about joining up policy on the ground, not dictating what is done on the land in a very prescriptive way. Any land-use framework should be positive and enabling—allowing land managers to deliver more from their land, whether for the environment, food or other economic activity—rather than negative and restrictive.
The most interesting objective of the clause recognises the need to consider agriculture and food production. Farmers and landowners have often asked for a more strategic approach to land use, particularly now that land may be taken out of production for carbon-offsetting purposes, housing or whatever, so a clause along these lines helps to deal with the issue. However, this clause has much wider ambitions that could greatly restrict the progression of farming and the diversification of farm businesses, let alone other rural businesses. Zoning would almost certainly make it harder or more expensive to get planning permission for a new or different enterprise.
A land-use framework can never succeed in circumstances where there are going to be changes in technology, climate conditions, consumer demand and business viability, to name just a few considerations, all of which could happen in very short order. Furthermore, there are also likely to be major, currently unforeseen implications for land values and tax considerations that need much more research. I therefore cannot support the amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I have just tossed out more or less everything that I was going to say. I feel the need to respond to what he has just said, which I think is founded on the idea that each patch of land, each farm, is a discrete entity that has no real relationship to the entities around it. As is most obvious when we think about the climate emergency, the fact is that the carbon emitted from or stored on that land has global implications. That is very obvious in relation to flooding. I will not open up that debate, but certain land uses in this country are associated with large amounts of water runoff, and that has literally life-or-death implications for the communities downstream.
The noble Lord also referred to food production. We have to think about the food security of the UK in a world in which food security will become an increasing issue in the coming decades.
We have to think about systems holistically, and indeed we have signed up to do just that. Like all the nations in the world, we are a signatory to the sustainable development goals—a mix of economic, social and environmental goals—although we are not currently on track to deliver any single one of them. The question is: the Government have signed up to these goals, but how will they deliver them? Making sure that land is used well—not in a way that harms other people—surely has to be a foundational measure.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I merely wish to say that I am very worried about this proposal. It seems not to deal with the real issue and to ask Defra to do what it cannot do. What we really need—we know we need it—is a department of land use that takes over the planning, housing and other responsibilities of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. There is no way forward until we begin to realise that this is what we need. To ask Defra, which has only a bit of all this, to do this seems to be a mistake. I fear it will end up with a document, if that is what it is, that will have little influence and will not be able to do the job. It will mean that Defra will not be doing the detailed work it is capable of doing.
I know why the noble Baroness has put this forward and have sympathy with what she is trying to do. It just seems to me that this is not a suitable answer. We have to go for a much bigger issue, which is that in this country we do not have an integrated way of looking at land. The noble Baroness referred to the Climate Change Committee. In our view, that was the way we had to look: in a much more general way than this amendment provides. I am unhappy about it and will not find it possible to support it.
Lord Horam (Con)
I agree with my noble friend Lord Deben and will just extend what he says. Essentially, his point is that we cannot ask Defra, which has a narrow remit, to take the integrated and across-the-board view that is necessary.
We also need to take into account the pressures on land—population, for example. As the noble Baroness said in her opening remarks, the population projections over the next few years from the Office for National Statistics are very considerable; we are talking about an extra 7 million people over the next 10 or 15 years. These are the sort of pressures we have to take into account when we look at land use. Although I am sympathetic with her point, we have to consider this properly, systematically and rationally.
No one wants the land to be ill-used or underused. None the less, the practicalities of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my noble friend Lord Deben’s view about the wider nature of this issue mean that this amendment is deficient.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to say that we support the intent of this amendment. Given the competing demands on land in our country, we believe it is time for a national framework. If it works in other parts of the continent and in other parts of the United Kingdom, the time has come and we would support it.
I fear the Minister will say that, for a number of reasons, he is not able to accept it. I therefore applaud the noble Baroness for her campaigning on this over many years and the fact that she has put together a proposal for an ad hoc House of Lords Select Committee on this. I certainly support that. I think it is an incredibly important initiative, and I hope other Peers will support that proposal so that this issue can be taken forward in a broader way.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and my noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned the enthusiasm of the devolved Administrations for this type of approach. It would be hard to find anything more enthusiastic than the way the Scottish Government have approached it. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, must have experienced this with the various organisations she has dealt with across the border. I have no doubt that my noble friend the Minister has looked at some of these other countries. In fact, in spite of all the things the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has incorporated in her amendment, the Scottish Government have gone way further than that. We need to think about how far we want to go in this type of organisation.
My noble friend Lord Carrington mentioned the drawbacks that could occur. The Scottish land use strategy has been in place since 2016. There are a whole raft of policies—a natural resource management policy to tabulate stocks of ecosystem services and use an ecosystem approach. Land-based businesses, including the Crown Estate, have trialled the natural capital protocol. They had a statement on the land use strategy, then found they needed to incorporate a national marine plan as well as a national planning framework. It overlaps into forestry as well.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking in favour of Amendment 117 in the name of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone. I feel she made a very good case for an overarching land use framework to address the acute shortage of land we know we have in the UK and the competing pressures on it. This has been a developing theme that she has very much championed throughout the passage of this Bill and the Agriculture Act before it.
Whether it is setting aside land for habitat renewal and biodiversity, identifying land for planting trees to help with carbon sequestration, providing better public access to green spaces or becoming more self-sufficient in food, all these issues have to compete with the need for more housing, hospitals and schools, and it all needs to happen on the same scarce and expensive pieces of land. As my noble friend says, it has become an impossible jigsaw.
As we pile on the pressure for more and more uses for the land, there is still no accepted understanding of what the priorities are and how all those needs can be addressed. We are virtually operating on a first come, first served basis: those who already own the land decide its future, regardless of the pressures stacking up for other, maybe more pressing, needs.
Which land should be used for growing food and which for nature recovery? We never really resolved that during consideration of the Agriculture Act. Where are the millions of trees in the tree action plan going to be planted? How can we maximise our land use to mitigate the impact of climate change and contribute to net zero? What will be the impact of the new planning laws on our desire for biodiversity net gain? Are we in danger of locking up land through conservation covenants before we have decided on its ideal use? These are all urgent questions that need to be addressed, and we believe the creation of a land use framework is an excellent way to address them.
However, I am very pleased that, since the earlier debate, my noble friend has received considerable support for her proposal for a Lords special ad hoc inquiry into this issue; I was very pleased to add my name in support. I believe this would be an excellent step forward. Undeniably, as noble Lords have said, this issue is hugely complex and not easily captured in an amendment to a Bill. Whatever the outcome of her bid, I hope she will keep raising this issue, in the planning Bill and beyond, until we can reach a settled view about how to prioritise our land use for the future. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to whom I apologise for referring to as the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, in my fourth slip-up with names in two sittings.
I thank her for focusing on the significant land use changes required to deliver our environment, food, housing and infrastructure needs. As she set out clearly during Monday’s debate, land-use change can be achieved quickly—in the case of wetlands or new housing development, for example—but it can also happen very slowly, for example in the case of new woodlands, peatland restoration and so on. That long view on our natural capital, natural wealth and ecosystems is critical to our strategic approach. The Government are delivering the keystone reforms required to manage that change. For example, our action plans on trees and peat target the most critical changes required to meet our net-zero ambition while also driving environmental recovery. The Bill makes provision for environmental improvement plans and local nature recovery strategies, and both will help to steer the actions of government and public authorities, delivering targeted nature recovery that maximises the economic, social and environmental benefits of land use change. That is the strategic approach recommended by noble Lords.
Henry Dimbleby’s recent review of our food system has also made a significant contribution to our work on land-use change and land management. It has brought into sharp focus the importance of a strategic approach to land use that draws out the links between our food systems and our ecosystems. The Government are committed to responding to the review’s recommendations in the form of a food strategy White Paper.
I also briefly acknowledge and very much agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Deben. I cannot deliver the departmental changes he suggested— I certainly cannot create new departments—but the point he makes is important: when dealing with something as profound as land use for the long term, it requires, dare I say, more cross-government collaboration than has historically been the case.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the Government are already taking a strategic approach to land use and will keep it under review. I therefore do not think that the amendment is needed and beg her to withdraw it.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their contributions. Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that this is not intended to be a top-down micromanagement to parish level but is about setting broad frameworks that would give local communities, people and landowners more security in making decisions about their land for the future. It is not intended to be prescriptive in any way. The experience in Scotland and Wales, where they have these frameworks, is that it does not cramp farmers’ style. You can imagine that farmers in Wales and Scotland are not exactly pushovers, so if they are not complaining, it probably means that there is not too much resistance to it.
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that this needs to be cross-government. Alas, the convention in Bills is that when you say “the Secretary of State”, in reality you mean the Government. This is not intended to be a Defra proposal; it is supposed to be a cross-government initiative, because it will need not only land in rural uses but the involvement of the Transport department, housing, the planning system and the Treasury—a whole variety of different government departments. The amendment is very much what the noble Lord is calling for. Indeed, the text I have used is the text that the Scots used in their climate change Act, which is where this provision is enshrined in Scottish law. He will be glad to hear that, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, suggested, I took out some of the overenthusiasm that Scotland has evinced on certain issues, which I thought probably would not go down a bundle in England.
I absolutely accept that Defra is trying to keep a strategic approach to all the things happening in rural land use, but I am proposing that we need a strategic approach that covers rural and urban development. Both are looking for the same land these days and, unless we get a cross-government approach at strategic level, taking account of all land use pressures, we will continue to see not only potential conflict at a national level but the conflict we have seen on individual planning and other proposals, where there is lack of clarity regarding the comparative priority of housing, infrastructure, agriculture, forestry, nature, et cetera. We all know about them; we are all part of them; we have all fought them on our local patch.
At this stage in the game, I will say simply that I thought a little bird had told me that we were reaching the tipping point whereby the Government would embrace this as something really required. Of course, we now have a new Secretary of State at MHCLG, so my little bird may have been shot and buried somewhere.
We have the opportunity of the planning Bill. I hope that I get my special Select Committee agreed to but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Environment Bill
Wednesday 13th October 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 43-IV Fourth marshalled list for Report - (13 Sep 2021)
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Environment Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Motion
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
It is my pleasure and privilege to be responsible for Third Reading of the Environment Bill in this House today. Although the process has often been challenging, it has also been productive, thanks to the collaboration and expertise of your Lordships’ House. The benefits of the Bill will be felt by future generations, both in the UK and internationally, as we strive to leave the environment in a better place than how we inherited it.
Here is a Bill that will transform our environmental governance in a way that is better suited to our needs and seizes the opportunities of our exit from the European Union. It will set targets for fine particulate matter, the most harmful air pollutant, and—a world-first—to halt the decline in species by 2030. It establishes an office for environment protection, an independent body that will hold us to account in meeting these ambitious targets.
The Bill takes action across the product life cycle, with resource and waste measures that will advance us towards a circular economy, extending the responsibility on to the polluting producers, while empowering consumers to make more sustainable choices. It will improve our air and water quality to ensure that generations both present and future are not at risk of ill health from pollution to these most basic and crucial elements in life.
Here is a Bill that delivers not only protections for our natural world but strategies and duties to enhance our biodiversity, allowing it to thrive once again. The Bill mandates biodiversity net gain, a game changer, to ensure that new development truly enhances the environment, allowing our ecological networks to flourish. The Bill looks beyond the UK, with world-leading due diligence measures on our supply chains to tackle illegal deforestation around the planet, saving precious habitats in the Amazon as well as a multitude of other ecosystems.
As COP 26 approaches in less than three weeks, the United Kingdom can prove with tangible action its commitment on the international stage and encourage other countries to match this ambition with similar efforts. I am enormously grateful to my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist, who has supported me both on and, even more so, off the Floor of the House to take through this gigantic Bill. I pay special tribute to the Front Benches and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Hayman of Ullock, the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for all their invaluable contributions, which have been detailed and imperative. I extend that thanks to the countless other noble Lords and friends who, from these Benches, have provided ample helpings of constructive support and knowledge. I thank all noble Lords for taking part.
I thank the Lord Speaker and the parliamentary staff for their hard work behind the scenes, and I thank all the environmental stakeholders and committees that have campaigned diligently and effectively on so many of the issues in the Bill. I particularly thank the Bill team at Defra, who have been so extraordinarily patient and helpful throughout.
Across the myriad facets of this landmark Bill, I firmly believe that this legislation is more than just a credible step in the right direction. It is an ambitious answer to the scale of the task before us and provides the apparatus that we know we need if we are to recover nature. I hope it also acts as a rallying cry for others to move along with us.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate everyone who has taken part in this Bill. My own contribution was very small.
I want to ask the Minister why the consent of the Crown and the Prince of Wales is required. The roles and responsibilities are set out very clearly in Clause 147 and Schedule 19, which is pretty long, so what assets are actually involved? The Duchy of Cornwall has been saying for a long time that it is in the private sector. In that respect, there are thousands or maybe millions of other stakeholders who are also in the private sector, so why have the Government not sought the approval or consent of all these other people? What is so special about the Duchy? I look forward to his response.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question—and for his advance notice of it. That has allowed me to provide an answer, which I probably would not have been able to provide otherwise.
I confirm that the Government have sought and secured the consent of the Queen and the Prince of Wales to a number of measures in the Bill that bind the Crown or apply in respect of Crown land, the Crown Estate or the Duchies of Lancaster or Cornwall. These include—in direct response to his question—provisions to give directions to waste carriers; an expansion of the powers of search and seizure to tackle waste crime; the operation of smoke control areas; changes to abstraction licences; changes to land valuation provisions for the purpose of internal drainage boards; biodiversity net gain, including for infrastructure and in the marine environment; improving the Forestry Act 1967 and provision for an ancient woodland protection standard; and conservation covenants. This is a standard process that the Government undertake for all Bills. Clause 32 of the Bill clarifies that the enforcement jurisdiction for the Office for Environmental Protection extends to all public authorities, including the Crown, and subsection (3) defines the term “public authority”.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on the breadth of this Bill, in spite of many misgivings on the extent of the Henry VIII powers that it contains.
When the House was in Committee on the Bill in June, my noble friend the Minister moved two amendments to Clause 20 to do with the requirement for UK Ministers to adhere to environmental principles. The first of them disapplied a clause of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021. In speaking to the amendments, he rounded off his speech by saying that
“this is in keeping with the devolution settlement. We will continue to work with the Scottish Government to ensure that our environmental approaches work together.”—[Official Report, 28/07/21; col. 581.]
This action has provoked a flurry of objection north of the border and an added disagreement on the appropriateness of legislative consent Motions. This House has an important role to play in constitutional matters, and I think the Government should tell us whether discussions were held with the Scottish Government in relation to this action and whether there are any lessons to be learned about working together.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that, throughout the passage of the Bill, Ministers and officials from the UK Government have worked very closely with Ministers and officials from the devolved Administrations. We have consistently engaged with the Scottish Government on many of its contents and will continue to do so in future. I hope that answers his question.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for intervening on a Bill that I have not been involved in, but my understanding of the procedure at this point is that those who wish to speak will do so and then the Minister will respond at the end, rather than this being a series of questions and answers. I wonder if that might assist the House.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that this Bill, as it stands now, is ambitious. But the Bill we had originally was a terrible Bill and that is why we so heavily amended it—it is quite unusual to amend a Bill to this extent. I hope that the Minister is going to push very hard, with the Treasury and his colleagues in the Commons, to make sure that they take out very few, if any, of our amendments.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I thank the Minister and the Defra officials, who have engaged with me and many other noble Lords very constructively during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships’ House.
I echo the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb: the amendments that have been passed in this House have significantly improved the quality of the Bill. An important point to note is that the amendments had almost universal support from all groups in your Lordships’ House. They were not party-political points; they were points made by those of us who believe passionately in the protection of the environment, now and in the future, to leave a better environment for our children and grandchildren than we have at the moment.
I hope, therefore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has said, that the Minister will do his very best with his colleagues to ensure that the majority, if not all, of the amendments survive their consideration in the Commons and that we do not have to start the arguments all over again at ping-pong in a couple of weeks’ time.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on what was, I think, his first Bill in this House, and my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, as well as the Bill team, who went the extra mile. I particularly pay tribute to my noble friend for the amendments that he brought forward, which is always quite an achievement for a Minister in this place.
I would like to press him a little bit further on reaching a balance, particularly in catchment management and the prevention of combined sewer overflow, an issue to which I am sure we will be returning. We have already seen substantial floods in this country and elsewhere, no doubt due to climate change, and I welcome the provisions of this Bill that will undoubtedly help to reduce that in the future.
I support my noble friend the Duke of Montrose in his comments. I will raise these issues further in the context of the debate on the common frameworks agreement later today.
I want to take the opportunity to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing us to this stage, and to wish the amendments that we have carried a safe passage back to us when the Bill returns to this House from next door.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, if I may, in view of the fact that my noble friend rightly linked this important Bill with the coming COP 26 conference, I warn Her Majesty’s Government not to be tempted to make announcements of targets to help COP 26 on its way which are unachievable for reasons of politics in a democracy or the realities of economic life.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has said. This Bill has not been damaged or impaired during its passage through your Lordships’ House.
I endorse everything that has been said in the way of compliments to my noble friend Lord Goldsmith and what he himself has said about participation across the Floor of the House. This is not in any sense a party-political Bill. It is a Bill that concerns each and every one of us, and our families, for generations to come. Therefore, we do not want to engage in ping-pong.
If my noble friend is to achieve his ambition of getting this on the statute book before Glasgow, which I entirely support, it is important that the House of Commons does not attempt unnecessarily to delete amendments that do not damage but rather enhance the basic principles and objectives of the Bill. It would be a great pity if in a fortnight, on the virtual eve of the conference, we began to indulge in a battle between the two Houses.
This House has an enormous amount—a great wealth—of experience and expertise, and that was perhaps more evident on this Bill than on most others. I know my noble friend the Minister would agree that everybody who spoke did so in a constructive and supportive spirit, so I implore him to use all his powers of persuasion with his ministerial colleagues and others to ensure that the Bill, as it now stands, survives as near intact as possible. Then our Ministers and the president of the conference can go to Glasgow knowing that there is a perhaps unprecedented degree of cross-party support and agreement for a Bill that does indeed, as I said at the beginning, affect us all and our families.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, it is appropriate that we have the Third Reading today as we see the close of the high-level segment of COP 15 and the publication of the Kunming Declaration, which makes it clear that setting nature
“on a path to recovery is a defining challenge of this decade”.
This House has done its usual proper job of scrutiny of the Bill and has proposed measures to strengthen it that are definitely needed. I thank the ministerial team and the Minister’s colleagues for accepting some of those amendments, including the legally binding target for species abundance for 2030, and for including major infrastructure projects in the biodiversity net gain regime. Those are welcome measures that the Government have accepted. While we are thanking people, those on these Benches, like others, thank the ministerial Front-Bench team and the Bill team for their unfailing good humour, clear commitment and engagement with us throughout this process.
But, as others have said, many outstanding amendments remain. As we send this Bill down to our colleagues at the other end, be assured that we will work with them and with others around this House, as we have done so constructively through this process, to ensure that it is strengthened, in the way we all know it needs to be, for the future of our country, our people and our environment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I too add my thanks to the Bill team for its patience and courtesy in responding to our concerns and for facilitating so many meetings over the summer. We have all been on a steep learning curve, and it has certainly helped to put us more in tune with the facts behind the thinking on the Bill.
I very much thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for staying the course. I am sure there were times when he wished to be somewhere else, perhaps even somewhere sunnier. Despite occasionally giving the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, kittens when he went walkabout, he was assiduous in being here, doing the heavy lifting on the Bill and giving us all his attention and his very detailed and thoughtful contributions. On that basis, I thank the Minister for listening, because we received a number of concessions along the way and we are really very appreciative of that.
As other noble Lords have said, of course, we do not think that is quite enough. I hope the Minister recognises that the 15 amendments which we have passed make serious and important improvements to the Bill—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others have said, they have widespread support across the Chamber. I hope this is not the end of the road for the Bill. I hope that the Government have used the recess to reflect on our amendments and will feel able to support their key principles when the Bill goes back to the Commons next week.
We are of course aware that COP 26 is looming but, as we have always said, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for us to put the environment on the right course for the future. We still hope that we can reach consensus with the Government to achieve the ambition that I know we all share on this, so that we can reach agreement in the very near future on the final outcome for the Bill.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am grateful for all the remarks by noble Lords and will address them briefly, because we will of course have more opportunities for debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and indeed the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for their polite encouragement as we come to the final furlong of this huge Bill. I absolutely assure the noble Baroness opposite that I will continue listening and engaging. Like everyone in this House, I am very keen for the Bill to be as strong as it possibly can be.
I sincerely thank many noble Lords for the pressure they have applied and the manner in which they have applied it over the last few weeks because that has led to improvements in the Bill, as a number of noble Lords have commented. It is not my place to discuss or make statements in relation to upcoming debates that we are likely to have. I cannot give my noble friend Lord Cormack a guarantee that we will avoid ping-pong; I encourage everyone to get their best bats, just in case. However, the pressure has been extremely effective and useful. I know that that pressure will continue in the same vein and be equally valuable.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford mentioned unachievable targets. We do not want to impose any unachievable targets. There are some things, no matter how difficult, that simply have to be done; I would say that the 2030 biodiversity target is one of them. There is no possible justification for not making that commitment in law and, although we do not know all the steps we will have to take to achieve it, we know that it will be extraordinarily difficult and that it has to be done. We must find a way but I take his broader point.
Finally, my noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned storm overflows. This is one of the issues that we will return to in coming weeks but, again, it is a testament to the tireless campaigning of noble Lords, including the noble Duke, the Duke of West—I apologise but I have done it again; it is the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington—and the pressure that he applied so effectively. As he would acknowledge, we have moved considerably on this issue but there are debates remaining to be had. That is probably enough said for the moment on that.
I hope I have answered the main issues that were raised. I repeat my thanks to noble Lords for their dedication to the Bill. It has been an honour to assist its passage and to serve your Lordships, and I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Environment Bill
Wednesday 20th October 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 20 October 2021 - (20 Oct 2021)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 28, 40 and 59. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
Before Clause 1
Purpose and declaration of biodiversity and climate emergency
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 12, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 28, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 31, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 33, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 75, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendments 4 to 11, 13 to 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 64, 69 and 70.
Rebecca Pow
I am delighted to be cracking on with the Environment Bill. It has dominated my whole life as an Environment Minister, but I hope we all agree that it has only got the stronger for it. Make no mistake that this is a landmark piece of legislation that will increase our resource efficiency and biodiversity, drive improvements in air and water quality, and put us on the sustainable trajectory for the future that I believe we all want and need.
Even though the Bill has not been before the House for some time, it has grown, developed and strengthened in that time. My officials have been working tirelessly with all others involved to bring forward a whole range of measures in the Bill. We have already launched five local nature recovery strategy pilots, we have appointed Dame Glenys Stacey as chair-designate of the office for environmental protection, and we have consulted on the extended producer responsibility, the deposit return scheme and consistent recycling collections in England.
The Bill is packed with positive measures, but I am delighted that the Government have improved it even further. [Interruption.] There is lots of agreement from the Opposition Benches—excellent. Lords amendment 4 and its consequential amendments will require the Secretary of State to set a new, historic, legally binding target to halt the decline of species by 2030. That is a bold, vital and world-leading commitment. It forms the core of the Government’s pledge to leave the environment in a better state than we found it.
In the same vein, the Government acknowledge that the climate and biodiversity situation is an emergency. I am very pleased to say that that was referenced by the Prime Minister himself, who pledged to
“meet the global climate emergency”
in his foreword to the net zero strategy, which was published just yesterday. However, addressing those twin challenges requires action rather than declarations, which is why the Government are acting now. We have committed to set a new historic legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I genuinely thank the Minister for all the incredible work she has done. She talks about the importance of biodiversity. Does she understand that I found it a little frustrating that the Government did not look in a better way and more closely at my amendment, which would have closed the loophole on sites of special scientific interest? Currently, the loophole allows an SSSI to effectively be concreted over, damaging the biodiversity she wishes to protect. Even at this late stage, will the Government look again at that SSSI amendment, please?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Obviously, we take SSSIs extremely seriously under their designations. There is a set pathway for SSSIs and for looking after them, but I think he will agree, if he listens to what I have to say, that the Bill contains some very strong measures on biodiversity, which are much needed and will help us to that trajectory of restoring nature.
I was saying that we have a legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance. The UK was also the first economy to set a target of net zero emissions by 2050. Our target for the sixth carbon budget is world-leading. The “Net Zero Strategy” published yesterday builds on the 10-point plan, the energy White Paper, the transport decarbonisation plan, the hydrogen strategy, and the heat and building strategy, setting out our ambitious plans across all key sectors of the economy to reach net zero. This is an all-in approach.
Of course, it is not just our domestic approach that counts. Tackling climate change and biodiversity loss is our No. 1 international priority, which is why we are driving forward our COP26 presidency and playing a leading role in developing an ambitious post-2020 global biodiversity framework due to be adopted at the convention on biological diversity COP15. Therefore, putting the declaration in Lords amendment 1 in law, although well-intentioned, is not necessary.
Lords amendment 2 would require the Government to set a legally binding target on soil health. I would like to be clear with the House and the other place that we are currently considering how to develop the appropriate means of measuring soil health, which could be used to inform a future soils target. However, we do not yet have the reliable metrics needed to set a robust target by October next year and to measure its progress. If we accepted the amendment, we could be committing to doing something that we cannot deliver or might not even know if we have delivered. I am sure hon. Members and hon. Friends would agree that that is not a sensible approach.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am a little concerned to hear the Minister say that they are still not ready to go ahead. From my recollection of the past few years, we talked about this issue in the Agriculture Public Bill Committee and when this Bill was in Committee. Has work actually started on this and how long does she think the programme of work will take? Why is it taking so long?
Rebecca Pow
I am pleased that the hon. Member, like me, is deeply passionate about soil. I think I held the first ever debate on soil in Parliament when I was a Back Bencher. It is something that I am personally very keen on. We believe we cannot commit to set the actual target until we have that baseline of robust metrics. We consulted and are working very widely with experts and specialists. Indeed, a range of pilots, tests and trials are running related to soil. Instead, I can provide reassurance that the Government, as announced in the other place on Report, will be bringing forward a soil health action plan for England. It will provide a clear strategic direction to develop a healthy soil indicator, soil structure methodology and a soil health monitoring scheme. All those things are absolutely necessary before we can set the actual target, but there is a huge amount of work going on, on the soil agenda. I am personally pushing that forward, as is the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), with whom I am working very closely on this matter.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I know the Minister is personally committed to the soil agenda—I remember sitting with her on the Environmental Audit Committee—and I am sure she shares my concern about this being hugely delayed. She talks about the action plan, but the draft outline will not even be consulted on until spring next year. What can we do to try to speed that up? It is a massively serious issue, as she knows, yet the signals from the Government are that they are treating it with complacency.
Rebecca Pow
I completely disagree with the hon. Lady, although I am listening to what she is saying. There is no complacency whatever on this. In fact, soil will be one of the top priorities in our new environmental land management and sustainable farming initiative schemes. So it will be prioritised. It is the stuff of life. All farmers and landowners understand that we have to get it right. The soil health action plan will absolutely drive that forward, as have action plans in many other areas, such as peat. We are now bringing that all into being, so I can categorically say that this will happen. I really hope that that gives her some reassurance.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I thank the Minister for presenting the Bill. We really do need to get to this target quickly. We also have the situation whereby the World Health Organisation is reducing the amount of PM2.5 that can be in the atmosphere. Are the Government taking this very seriously—not only the target that we have had all along but the new target that the WHO is setting?
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend takes a huge amount of interest in this issue and I know my officials met him very recently to discuss the detail.
Rebecca Pow
I am just going to answer this question.
Yes, the WHO has already lowered what it thinks is the safe limit, which I think demonstrates how complicated the issue is. It would be wrong to set a number on the face of the Bill without being absolutely certain that it was the right one—as my hon. Friend understands. I have spent a great deal of time on this issue with academics and scientists, and I am happy to share with others if that is helpful. We must make sure we get this right before we set the target. To be clear, to achieve even the 10 micrograms per metre squared in our cities would require significant change in all our lives. It would likely introduce policies aimed at restricting traffic kilometres by as much as 50% or more, a total ban on solid fuel burning including wood, and significant changes to farming practices to reduce ammonia, which reacts in the air to form particulate matter.
Mr Sheerman
In the spirit of what we all felt and discussed after the tragedy of last week, I feel passionate about all these issues but I am determined to be good-tempered and pleasant to everyone in the whole of the debate. Along those lines, I have a passionate interest in clean air and have worked in this area for 27 years—I started an organisation called the Westminster Commission for Road Air Quality 27 years ago. The fact of the matter is, however, that this is glacially slow movement. We are poisoning pregnant women, older people and children in every town and city. Why are we not committed to sustainable development goals? Why do we not have a sustainable development community in every town and city? It all seems so glacially slow. I can almost see the spectral vision of Lord Lawson at the back there—that is what really worries me.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for all his work in this area. In the spirit of being friendly, I have a smile on my face, but I would say that we are not moving slowly. He did not even reference the clean air strategy, which the WHO commended as being a world-leading piece of legislation. That is already bringing in measures across the country. There is also the £3.6 billion in the nitrogen oxide programme. The new air quality Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill)—who is sitting here, has a very big health interest. We are taking this extremely seriously. We need to look at the wider context and the Bill will then set the two targets—not just the average target, but the population exposure target, which is really important.
Geraint Davies
Given that the World Health Organisation had a target of 10 micrograms per cubic metre, which we are asking for in this amendment, and it is now 5 micrograms, does that not show that the only direction is down? Ten micrograms is a minimum standard that we surely need to achieve both to save tens of thousands of lives and to tell the world, through COP26—8.7 million people are dying every year of air pollution—that global Britain means showcasing the fact that we are willing to provide legally binding targets to deliver on public health, care costs, productivity and a cleaner, greener, better world.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We have met many, many times and we share a common interest in this issue. We are not arguing about its importance—[Interruption.] He is encouraging me—I thank him, but I do not need any encouragement actually; we realise how serious this is. The point is that we will be setting the target and we will be showing the world. We will announce that target next October, but we will consult on it before that. It would be wrong to set, for example, a specific number, if, indeed, we found that that number should be lower. I will leave it there.
We have to have a public consultation on this issue and we will do so early next year. Members of the public will want to understand not only the health impacts, but what impacts the measures that will be taken will have on their life. But we will not be sitting around. The consultation will allow us to bring forward the final target in October, and we cannot miss that target.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I understand that the Minister wants a consultation. I see good sense in that if we are to take the public with us, and I understand that she may be concerned about setting targets now. However, in areas such as mine—not inner cities, but suburban constituencies—there is a real issue with particulate pollution. We have a real problem with hotspots. Even if we are having a consultation until October, for heaven’s sake, can we not have a hotspots policy specifically to target areas where particulates are clearly high already? At least if we were doing that, it would be a reassurance to many of my constituents.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but we already have our clean air strategy, as I said, and our local authority fund, which we have recently increased by millions. I urge him to have a look at that fund and I urge his authority to apply. Many authorities are already taking their own measures because they know, for example, where the hotspots are. He makes a very sound point and the exposure target will really help those hotspots, which is why it is so important.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). Further to the point about air pollution and working with the public, is the Minister also aware of the potentially significant business opportunities for vehicle and, indeed, cycle manufacturers in shifting to a low-pollution approach? As the hon. Gentleman said, local authorities are natural partners, but there are also partners in the private sector that could benefit hugely if the Government were able to make a clearer statement and agree at an earlier point with the WHO’s target.
Rebecca Pow
I know that the hon. Gentleman is a keen runner and gets out and about, probably on his bicycle as well, and he makes a very good point. This is why our net zero strategy, our road to decarbonisation for transport and the £2 billion that we have invested in cycling and walkways are so important. All those funds are being incorporated when local authorities apply for their budgets to deal with their hotspots. The clean air zone areas, which we are bringing in across the country, take advantage of exactly the opportunities that he raises.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister is being generous and kind in giving way again. Has she seen the experiment in the cities of Oxford and London, where air quality detectors are on every waste truck? Every week, waste trucks go to every house in every street in the country. If we put those on every waste truck—and it is cheap—we would know the hotspots and the British public would know very quickly what sort of atmosphere their children were growing up in and what air we are breathing. Will she have a serious look at that and, in the process, discuss it with Sir Stephen Holgate, who is such a magnificent expert on all that?
Rebecca Pow
I would suggest a meeting with the new air quality Minister—actually, I meet Sir Stephen Holgate regularly, as he is one of our advisers. We are increasing monitoring across the country for exactly the purposes that the hon. Gentleman mentions: the better the data, the more we know what action we can take.
The targets that we are working on are being carefully approached with experts such as Sir Stephen Holgate, as well as others from Imperial College London and the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. We have two expert panels: the air quality expert group, chaired by Professor Alastair Lewis, and the committee on the medical effects of air pollutants, chaired by Anna Hansell of the University of Leicester. That will ensure that we get the targets right and that they are informed by the latest atmospheric science and health evidence. We will, of course, share those findings with the World Health Organisation.
Rebecca Pow
I am going to plough on for a bit, because I think I have been pretty generous so far. The two targets that we will set—a concentration target and a population exposure reduction target—will work together to both reduce PM2.5 in areas with the highest levels and drive the continuous improvement that we need. A focus on reducing population exposure, not just a concentration-based target, recognises that there is no safe level of PM2.5, and a scientific approach is absolutely the right way to go. We recognise that this will not be easy and that we need to engage with society to bring it along with us.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Minister is a doughty champion on this issue so I rise with some degree of trepidation. May I ask her one question? The data is all going in one direction. Do the Government have the power, if they see something so pressing, not to have to engage with consultation, so they can just say, “On the face of this, it is absolutely clear that the time for action is now. We don’t have to consult—just get on and do it”? Is that within her arsenal?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, but I think we would have as many critics for not consulting as we did for consulting, so that is the right way to go because there are always other views. I think we have agreed how important it is by saying that we have to set a target. Not only are we setting one target, but we have agreed to set two, and there can be all sorts of other targets within that.
Simon Hoare
I was not criticising the decision that the Minister has taken to consult on this issue. I merely inquire, in a spirit of curiosity, whether she as the Minister or the Secretary of State have the power—to use at some point—to set aside any requirement for consultation and just to act? Theoretically, is that power there?
Rebecca Pow
I imagine my hon. Friend knows the answer to that.
Rebecca Pow
The method we choose is to consult and to take expert advice in everything we do, particularly in a Department such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is rooted in science. I will move on now, and I hope that I have made it very clear throughout all this discussion about air quality that, for the reasons I have laid out, we cannot support this amendment.
To turn to amendment 12, I would like to reiterate much of what Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park said in the other place. Our world-leading targets framework will drive action by successive Governments to protect and enhance our natural world. Introducing legally binding interim targets, as the amendment proposes, would be both unnecessary and detrimental to our targets framework and our environmental ambitions. The amendment would undermine the long-term nature of the targets framework: it would force us to meet legally binding targets every five years on complex environmental systems.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
We are so delighted to see my hon. Friend in this role, taking the Bill through, but why does she think that there is a temptation for Parliament to legislate for targets, which the Government seem to find very unhelpful? Will she reflect on the fact that the public at large are getting very little hard data or measured metrics about how we are doing onr4321a achieving all these goals? Perhaps the answer is not to legislate for more targets, but for the Government to acknowledge that they need to do much better at accumulating data and presenting it to the public, so that the public are engaged and have more confidence in what the Government are doing.
Rebecca Pow
Data is key, and science is key. As I mentioned—and I was slightly disparaged—that is why we want to do the soil health monitoring: to gather the data. When I talk later about storm sewage overflows, the House will hear that our approach is very much about getting the data. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the more we can explain things to the public, the better. Personally, I do not think that we do that enough. Perhaps the press could help us.
We were talking about interim targets. Certain habitats take a very long time to change or recover, such as peat bogs, native woodlands and the marine environment. Five years would potentially be too short to get a result. This should not be just a tick-box exercise towards a five-yearly target. The Bill’s very robust statutory cycle of monitoring, annual reporting and five-yearly reviews, combined with regular scrutiny from the office for environmental protection, will ensure that we meet the interim targets set in the environmental improvement plans.
Hon. Members who were on the Bill Committee will be well aware of the whole process of reporting, monitoring and feeding back, which is constant. It comes under scrutiny as well, so even though an interim target is not legally binding, we will still be held to account for meeting it and heading towards it. If it is not right or if we are not making enough progress, the OEP will certainly have something to say about it, and indeed so will Parliament when we come to report on it. I recognise the concerns raised by peers, but it is our view that the changes made in the other place would lead to a detrimental impact on the enhancement of the environment and should be reversed.
I turn to Lords amendment 28, which I have been informed by the parliamentary authorities invokes financial privilege, but on which I still wish to reiterate the Government’s position. The Bill embeds environmental principles that will guide future policy making to protect the environment. The Government firmly maintain that exempting some limited areas from the duty to have regard provides flexibility in relation to finances, defence and national security.
First, the exemption for the armed forces, defence and national security remains essential to provide vital flexibility to preserve the nation’s protection and security. Defence land and defence policy are fundamentally linked. If the duty were applied to defence policy or Ministry of Defence land, it could result in legal challenges that could slow our ability to respond to urgent threats.
Secondly, applying the duty to taxation would constrain Treasury Ministers’ ability to alter our financial position to respond to the changing needs of our public finances. The Treasury’s world-leading Green Book already mandates the consideration of environmental impacts, climate change and natural capital in spending. That applies to spending bids from Departments, including for a fiscal event.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am very conscious that a lot of Members want to speak and that the debate has to finish at 4.36 pm, so I think we need to bear that in mind.
Caroline Lucas
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is only my second intervention, and it will be my last for the moment.
On environmental principles, may I ask the Minister about the consultation on the policy statement? As I understand it, the Government’s response to it is still delayed. Can she tell us when we can expect to see it and why it has been delayed for so long?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for that question. In true Government-speak, I will say “shortly” and move on.
I make it clear that the exemption for
“spending or the allocation of resources”
refers to central spending decisions only. Individual policies that involve spending by Departments will still need to have due regard to the policy statement. Spending review and fiscal event decisions must be taken with consideration to a wide range of policy priorities, including macroeconomic issues that are too remote from the environmental principles for those principles to be directly applicable. For example, principles such as “polluter pays” cannot be applied to the allocation of overall departmental budgets.
I turn to the office for environmental protection. Lords amendments 31 and 75 would remove, respectively, the power for the Secretary of State to offer guidance to the OEP and the equivalent power for Ministers in Northern Ireland. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to establishing the OEP as an independent body. However, as the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to Parliament for the OEP, the guidance power is required to ensure that there is appropriate accountability and that the OEP continues to operate effectively.
I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about the power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance for the OEP. Our Government amendment (b) will therefore reintroduce the additional provision, first added in the other place, to ensure that Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly can scrutinise draft guidance before it is issued. The Secretary of State must respond before final guidance can be laid and have effect. The guidance power is not a power of direction; it will simply ensure that there is appropriate accountability and that the OEP continues to operate effectively. That is why the Government believe that it should remain part of the Bill.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What would happen if the Northern Ireland Assembly said that it did not agree with the legislation proposed here? Would Westminster overrule it?
Rebecca Pow
Northern Ireland is included in this, but it has to decide whether it wants to commence the powers. It is up to it to do so.
Lords amendment 33 relates to the OEP’s enforcement powers—a complex issue, but an important one. I want to be clear with the House about what the amendment would do: it would remove protections for third parties brought into the OEP’s process of environmental review that have been specifically designed in recognition of the unique nature of this type of legal challenge. That is unacceptable. The OEP will be able to bring cases to court, potentially long after the decisions in question have been taken and outside the standard judicial review limits. Impacts on third parties must therefore be considered.
To give an example, quashing planning permission or consent for a block of flats many months or years after the decision was taken, when significant building works might already have commenced, would result in substantial hardship. We need to ensure that the key principles of fairness and certainty are upheld for third parties who have acted in good faith on the basis of certain decisions. The amendment would offer no such protections for third parties, so we cannot accept it.
I will conclude by briefly mentioning other Government amendments made in the Lords in relation to devolution, which I hope this House will support. Those amendments will, among other things, promote co-operation between the OEP and devolved environmental governance bodies and create clarity and consistency on the use of the environmental principles across the Union.
I am pleased to be backing the Environment Bill
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:
Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021
Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Act 2021
Safeguarding (Code of Practice) Measure 2021.
Environment Bill
Tuesday 26th October 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 57-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments - (25 Oct 2021)
16:56 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 114 / Noes: 207 - Motion B1 disagreed.
17:15 - Division on Motion C1 - Ayes: 202 / Noes: 210 - Motion C1 disagreed.
18:19 - Division on Motion F1 - Ayes: 223 / Noes: 172 - Motion F1 agreed.
18:34 - Division on Motion G1 - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 172 - Motion G1 agreed.
19:55 - Division on Motion J1 - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 60 - Motion J1 agreed.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
With the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, C1, D and D1. This historic legislation is now not only within sight; it is within reach. I thank Members for their conversations with me and my officials and for the debates that have taken place in this House.
I begin with Amendment 1, on biodiversity and the climate emergency, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and I thank him very much for the meetings he has had with me. I hope he noticed that last week, the Prime Minister pledged that:
“We will meet the global climate emergency but not with panicked, short-term or self-destructive measures as some have urged”,
but with the actions he set out in the net-zero strategy, and indeed through actions in this Bill.
We introduced in your Lordships’ House a duty to set an additional legally binding target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030—a clear and significant response to the biodiversity emergency we face. However, as I have said previously, addressing these twin challenges requires action, which this Government are taking.
The net-zero strategy builds on the action from the 10-point plan, the energy White Paper, the transport decarbonisation plan, the hydrogen strategy and the heat and buildings strategy. It sets out ambitious plans to reach net zero across all the key sectors of the economy. The net-zero strategy outlines measures to transition to a green and sustainable future, helping businesses and consumers to move to clean power, supporting up to 190,000 jobs in the mid-2020s and up to 440,000 jobs in 2030, and leveraging up to £90 billion of private investment by 2030. It includes £3.9 billion of new funding over the next three years for decarbonising heat and buildings so that homes and buildings are warmer and healthier. We will boost the existing £640 million Nature for Climate Fund with a further £124 million of new money, ensuring total spend of more than £750 million by 2025 on woodland creation and management, peat restoration and so on. This will enable more opportunities for farmers and landowners to support net zero through land use change. Furthermore, the Bill’s powerful package of measures, including biodiversity net gain, local nature recovery strategies and a strengthened biodiversity duty on public authorities, will drive action towards our biodiversity targets and objectives.
We are playing a leading role in pressing for an ambitious post-2020 global biodiversity framework, to be adopted at CBD COP 15. This is my number one international priority, but it is also the Government’s. Putting the declaration in Amendment 1 into law is therefore not necessary. However, I hope noble Lords are reassured that the Government are taking action at pace to deal with these crises, and that calls from a number of noble Lords to hear the phrase “climate emergency” from the Prime Minister’s mouth have now been answered.
Turning to Amendments 2 and 2B, on soil health, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, first, let me first make it clear that the Government take soil health seriously. As Minister Pow said in the other place:
“It is the stuff of life.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 793.]
It is a priority, and I do not think anyone doubts that. This is why we are currently working with technical experts to develop the appropriate means of measuring soil health, which could be used to inform a future soils target.
However, an amendment to make soil health or soil quality a listed priority area would require us to bring forward an objectively measurable target by October 2022, and I am afraid we do not yet have the data to do that. Until baseline data and a metric to measure success are developed, we cannot commit to setting a robust soil target at this time. However, as I have also said, that is not to say that it is not a priority for us. Defra is working with partners right now to develop the baseline data and metric needed to set that target.
As I announced on Report, we will deliver a new soil health action plan for England. Noble Lords will find more detail on this action plan in the Written Ministerial Statement published last week, but I highlight that it will provide clear strategic direction to develop a heathy soil indicator, soil structure methodology and a soil health monitoring scheme to support the delivery of a future potential soil target.
We refer to the use of “soil health” over “soil quality” because soil quality sometimes refers to a measurement of the current status of a soil while soil health more accurately captures how well the soil is functioning. The soil health action plan aims to help soil to function better to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services and wider benefits and outcomes, such as increased biodiversity, carbon storage, food production and flood mitigation.
I recognise the compelling arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and commend their very successful efforts to raise this issue up the agenda. I hope that the action I have set out, and the new soil health action plan for England, demonstrate our commitment to this critical aspect of our natural environment. This includes our commitment to improve the health of our precious peat soils, in line with the England Peat Action Plan published earlier this year and supported by the extra funding I mentioned earlier.
On Amendments 3 and 3B, on air quality, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, I thank her for her time spent meeting with me on multiple occasions. I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue both in this House and in the other place; it is a feeling I share. The two targets we are currently developing—a concentration target and a population exposure reduction target—will work together to both reduce PM2.5 in areas with the highest levels and drive continuous improvement across the country. This unique, dual-target approach is strongly supported by our expert committees, the Air Quality Expert Group and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. They will be an important part of our commitment to drive forward tangible and long-lasting improvements to the air that we breathe.
Colleagues in the other place last Wednesday rightly called for urgency in tackling air pollution. I emphasise that we are not waiting for these targets to be set before taking the necessary action. We already have legally binding national emission reduction targets for five key air pollutants for 2030. Our Clean Air Strategy was praised by the World Health Organization as
“an example for the rest of the world to follow”,
and sets out the actions we are taking to deliver on these targets. For example, legislation to phase out the sale of house coal and deal with wet wood, and to introduce emission standards for manufactured solid fuels for domestic burning across England, came into force from 1 May 2021. We are also delivering a £3.8 billion plan to clean up transport and tackle nitrogen dioxide pollution.
This House will have heard these points before, but I want to emphasise that delivering our ambitious reductions in PM2.5 will require co-ordinated action. The more ambitious these targets are, the greater the level of intervention that will be needed—from national and local government, as well as businesses and individual citizens. To achieve a level such as 10 micrograms in our cities would require fundamental changes in how we live our lives; for example, significant changes to farming practices to reduce ammonia, which reacts in the air to form particulate matter. This would be likely to be in addition to a total ban on solid fuel burning, including wood, and restricting traffic kilometres by as much as 50%. That would include electric vehicles, which release non-exhaust emissions from tyre and brake wear, for example.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her further amendment, which challenges us to go further and set a target of 5 micrograms by 2040, in line with the latest recommendations from the World Health Organization. While we recognise that there is no safe level for PM2.5, it is also important to acknowledge that PM2.5 is not a pollutant that can be fully eradicated. The reasons for that are manifold. First, contributions to PM2.5 from natural sources and from outside the UK, particularly in the south-east of England, are currently modelled at around 5 to 6 micrograms. That is before we take into consideration the everyday activities of the millions of people who live in those towns and cities in the south-east. Essentially, our current evidence strongly suggests that it is not possible to achieve reductions in PM2.5 concentrations to levels as low as 5 micrograms in numerous locations in England, particularly in the south and south-east. Setting an unrealistic target would be disingenuous, and the target would be meaningless as a result, as well as ineffective and potentially counterproductive.
Before setting targets, we need to understand what reductions are possible, the scale of measures required to achieve them and the impact and burdens that would be placed on society. Members of the public will want, and deserve, to understand the specific health benefits and then we can decide upon the fundamental changes that would be required. So we will hold a public consultation on these targets early next year. Once we have carefully considered the responses to the consultation, we will bring forward the final, statutory targets by October 2022. That is a legally required date that we cannot and will not miss.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I always think that ping-pong can be rather a brutal affair. I have spent months working on an amendment; the combined House of Commons comes back and says
“the provision made by the Amendment is unnecessary”—
and there we are, it has been written off. However, the House of Commons, in its wisdom, is absolutely right: the amendment was unnecessary because all it actually needed was for the Prime Minister and this Government to declare, as many local authorities have, a climate and biodiversity emergency. Therefore, I accept what the Minister has said. The Prime Minister in his foreword to the Net Zero Strategy—a document that we all welcome, although it is rather late, before COP 26—says:
“We will meet the global climate emergency”.
I truly welcome that; it is a shame in a way that he then says
“but not with panicked, short-term or self-destructive measures as some have urged.”
That somewhat takes the shine off it—but I accept that that declaration is there; it is by the Prime Minister and it is published in one of the most important documents that the Government have released in recent times, in the run-up to COP 26. However, I also point out that it does not include the biodiversity crisis, which is particularly pertinent to this Bill. The motive for this amendment was to give equality to both those emergencies, and to stress their interconnectedness—the vital relationship between the two.
However, that declaration is there. The other Motions that we are going to debate during this afternoon are, perhaps, of greater practical importance to the future of the environment, our country and our planet, so I shall not contest this. I thank the Minister and his officials for the conversations that we have had since passing the Bill in this House and today in finding ways in which to solve this area. I shall not contest this judgment, brutal as it was, by the House of Commons.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and to agree with every word that he just said. I thank the Minister for his introduction to this debate and thank him and his officials for the very detailed and useful discussion this morning, particularly with such a lively avian accompaniment.
I shall take a second to reflect on the place of your Lordships’ House. I had a discussion a couple of days ago with a Cross-Bench Peer for whom I have the greatest respect, who expressed great frustration at the huge amount of work done in your Lordships’ House, which so often—as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has just said—gets casually dismissed in the other place. Yet we are so often told, “Oh, we can’t send too many things back to them; we can’t resist too hard; we’re the unelected House.” That, of course, raises a whole other question about the constitution. None the less I fear—and we have seen some cases of this already—that many of our strong, fine Peers are getting fed up and really considering whether they are going to continue to devote their time to your Lordships’ House. It is crucial that we recognise that we are in a different political time and that we are crucial to the future of this country, its environment and people, and we need to stand firm.
I have come under strong pressure, as I am sure many are aware, not to push forward with the soils amendment. Those looking closely will notice that I have not pushed forward with the same amendment as was sent to the other place. My amendment in lieu simply refers to soil quality rather than soil quality and soil health, as in the amendment sent to the other place. Health very often talks about the biology of the soil; quality is frequently used to refer to the structure. I am guided here particularly by the Sustainable Soils Alliance but also by academics, independent experts and farmers, who say that it is possible to use the metrics from the soil structure monitoring scheme to establish a target specifically for soil structure which would fit the definition of quality. As the Minister said on Report, targets can be iterative—they can be developed, evolved and finessed over time.
I acknowledge that the Minister here and those in the other place have spoken often and very clearly, and clearly are engaged with the issues of soil that are so crucial, but we all know that Ministers change. The only thing that will guarantee a way forward is with soil being on the face of the Bill. I put it to noble Lords that this Bill will be fundamentally deficient if we do not have soils there with equal weighting and place alongside air and water. I am afraid that the Minister in debate also said at one point that, if we were looking after air and water, we will sort of be looking after soils as well. I am afraid that very powerfully makes the argument for me—that soil risks falling into a second order unless it is given the same status.
I note that, in your Lordships’ House on Report, the margin by which this vote was won was equal top with that for the amendment on sewage tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. This was a very clear voice from your Lordships’ House on Report.
I also particularly wish to acknowledge the very strong efforts in this area by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who has done a tremendous job and has seen some steps forward from the Government. But those steps are still not enough.
I finish, given the pressure of time, by noting that I do not believe that the amendments we are looking at today are either/or. All the amendments that have been retabled today are crucial. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb will address interim targets in more detail, but I stress that that is crucial as well. I also want to acknowledge the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, in supporting my amendment last time. I urge your Lordships to show that we are really here to make a difference. I give notice of my intention to push this Motion to a vote.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment on soil from the noble Baroness who has just spoken. This is a crucial issue. But first I want to ask my noble friend the Minister a question about what he said when he introduced the discussion on this. He quoted the Prime Minister, who said that there is a climate crisis that will be solved but not by panicked measures. That seemed to indicate that he thought some of the amendments put forward by this House were “panicked measures.” If that is the case, I would be grateful if my noble friend could tell us which of these amendments, which we so carefully debated in Committee and on Report, could be classed as a “panicked measure”.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was absolutely right to tell us that the Prime Minister did not acknowledge that there is a biodiversity crisis. One-quarter of the world’s biodiversity crisis is in the soil, and that is a major problem for us. There ought to be an alignment between the Environment Bill and the Agriculture Act. We got soil into the Agriculture Act and we were then told that that was not the right place for it and that it ought to go in the Environment Bill; now we have got to the Environment Bill and my noble friend tells us it is not necessary in this Bill. It is necessary in this Bill. It should be put into this Bill.
Only 0.4% of 1% of England’s environmental monitoring budget is spent on soil. That is derisory. Could my noble friend tell me what he anticipates that spend to be within one year and within five years? Soil is the basis of everything. The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, which has done a huge amount of research over many years on soil, says that we cannot reach net zero without dealing with soil. That has been taken up by the Climate Change Committee, which has said exactly the same thing, and even my noble friend the Minister has said that we cannot solve the problem without addressing soil; yet soil is not going to be in this Bill.
I remember my noble friend Lord Deben said something on Report to the effect of: unless it is in the Bill, it is not going to be done. At that stage, I backed my noble friend the Minister against my noble friend Lord Deben’s advice. This time, I back my noble friend Lord Deben and say that this ought to be in the Bill.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I merely say this: I really wanted to support the Minister and I thank him for the conversations we had. I understand the argument that says soil cannot be exactly parallel with water and air because we have an agreed measure for both which enables us to put a date, but there is no reason we could not have a date, but a different date, to make sure that this Bill actually covers soil. I say this to my noble friend: I have been very disappointed that the promises made by the Government on trade have so clearly not been fulfilled. Therefore, it is very difficult to ask this House to accept the Minister’s personal support for this—which I entirely believe; I do not think there is any doubt about that. But we now have to accept that, unless we have soil in the Bill, it will not have the incredibly important emphasis that it needs.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I understand democracy. I have been elected. Indeed, I have been elected under two voting systems: proportional representation and first past the post. So I understand that the other House takes a priority over your Lordships’ House—I understand that. But, at the same time, the way the other House rejected our amendments so casually and so arrogantly hurt me. We worked for days on these amendments; we refined them and discussed them and, I hope, we actually convinced the Minister and the Whip that we were right. And yet the other House decided that they were of no value. I will be voting “content” today with anyone who wants to press their Motion to a vote.
I particularly want to speak in favour of the air pollution amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, but, as I say, I am voting for all the amendments today. Air pollution is an issue I care very deeply about. We are talking about changing the law to make sure our toxic air becomes safe to breathe. This is a health issue. It is also a social issue, and we should understand that many people in our towns and cities suffer very badly. It also becomes an economic issue, because it hits the NHS, through people having to go into hospital with lungs that are badly damaged or through early death. Throughout the health crisis of the pandemic, the Government constantly said that they were being led by science. This is another health epidemic. It is toxic air, and it is time to listen to the scientists again, and to the World Health Organization, which says we need to bring our air pollution down to the levels in this amendment.
This is not an abstract issue. The young girl Ella Kissi-Debrah has been mentioned many times in your Lordships’ House—she was the first person in the world whose death certificate recorded death from air pollution. She suffered and died because of the toxic air where she lived and around her school. One child’s death is a tragedy, but there are probably thousands more who suffer with their lungs and die young who we do not even know about.
The House of Commons’ reason says that
“the powers conferred by clause 2 should not be limited in the manner proposed.”
Why on earth not? I do not understand. Without this amendment, it is left completely to the Minister’s discretion as to what level to set the target. That discretion is absurdly broad, and personally I do not trust the Government to do the right thing on air pollution without the intervention of your Lordships’ House. Quite honestly, the other place should have brought forward its own amendment on this; it should not just have swept our amendments away. It should have acknowledged the work, effort and expertise that we put in, and should have brought forward its own amendment. Instead, it just returned to the Government’s original wording.
I know that your Lordships do not like to defeat the Government too often, particularly in ping-pong, but this Bill is exceptional in terms of scale and scope. There are an exceptional number of issues that your Lordships ought to ask the House of Commons to consider again. I very much hope that we can pass this amendment along with all the others and that the other place will at least consider a compromise amendment that takes the issue of air pollution seriously.
I also want to speak briefly in favour of Motion D1, on the interim targets. I could not understand what the Minister said. I have huge respect for him, but, quite honestly, when he reads out, “If we have interim targets, they will not allow us to get to the final target”, I say that that is the whole point of them—we can actually measure progress towards the long-term target. It felt like an Alice in Wonderland speech. I feel very strongly that the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, has been generous to the Government and added an element of compromise to her amendment. I would not have compromised, but I can live with it, and I support it. I feel very strongly that we should ask the other place to look again at this issue of interim targets as well.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I intervene at this stage with a degree of real diffidence. During the Third Reading debate, I urged the other place—there are those present who know that I did—to recognise the wisdom and experience of your Lordships’ House and not to bother sending back a lot of amendments so that we could move forward and get the Bill on the statute book by the Minister’s target date of before the end of the COP conference, which is just about to begin. I meant that.
However, I have been provoked into speaking this afternoon by two Members for whom I have very genuine and real respect: the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who was one of the best chairmen whom I have sat under in 51 years in Parliament, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, whom we all hold in great affection. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, got it right and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, got it wrong. The noble Lord would not have been wise in persisting with his amendment, and he made it plain that he would not.
There are amendments on the Marshalled List today that I shall be inclined to support—one of them is in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington—but we have to have a real awareness of our constitutional position in this House. I believe in this House passionately—I think that noble Lords know that—but it is not the elected House, and, although I sometimes think that the elected House behaves without due regard for what we have suggested that it does when it thinks again, it is nevertheless the elected House.
There were amendments, particularly that of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on which there was a sizeable rebellion in the other place. Where there is that indication, it is an encouragement to say, “A sizeable number wants us to think again”. I am not for a moment suggesting that we should roll over on every amendment this afternoon, but I am saying that we must not be prodigal in our treatment of the other House. We must listen with care and act with discretion.
If we really and truly feel, as I do with the amendment from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that there is a sizeable number of uneasy Members sitting on the Government Benches in the other House, we can be encouraged. Where that is not the case, we have to say that this is the end of the road. We regret that they did not reconsider sufficiently sensitively and carefully, but we recognise that they have the ultimate political power.
I say this because I believe so passionately in your Lordships’ House. There would be no point or purpose in this House if we did not defeat the Government from time to time and ask the other place to think again. If we are indiscriminate in the way in which we use our grapeshot, we might put our own position in jeopardy. I would never wish to do this.
At this early stage in the Bill, let us approach this afternoon’s business with care and discretion. By all means, let us say on one or two occasions, “Please, you really must think again on this one”. On others, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, with a degree of reluctance but with real statesmanship, let us say, “Well, I have something, and I am going to accept it”. That was a wise counsel which we should all be extremely wise to follow.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 12B would make interim targets statutory. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support. I add my support to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, to the Minister to respond with a date for including soils.
I thank the Minister—as others have already done—for talking to me about this amendment on interim targets and for explaining the Government’s position. The Government feel that there is a need for flexibility in interim targets and are concerned that the short-term focus that a five-year statutory target would impose could inhibit the long-term action which is so needed for nature.
This amendment precisely covers these points of concern about flexibility and lack of action now for the long term. Nature and the environment need urgent action now for benefits which will come in 10, 20, 30 or more years’ time. There is a real challenge with funding actions now for future, long-term benefit, when funding is tight and where there are competing, more immediate priorities with short-term outcomes. It is always hard to argue for those future benefits. It is always easy to think that we could delay action for just one more year, especially when interim targets can be revised or replaced at every annual review of the environmental improvement plan. It is just too easy to discount the future.
I congratulate the Government, as others have done, on the world’s first comprehensive net zero strategy. It is a great example of climate change action at work and of the value of statutory, independently set five-year targets.
If the Minister will be patient with me, I should like to ask him a series of questions. First, is he able to provide assurance that funding will be committed to the delivery of the interim targets in this Bill?
Clause 11 sets out the conduct of the reviews of environmental improvement plans. Clause 11(1)(c) requires the Government to assess whether they should take further or different steps to improve the natural environment. Can the Minister confirm that this assessment of steps will include whether the legislative framework itself should be improved; for example, whether statutory interim targets would be helpful? Can he tell us when and how Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise the interim targets the Government will bring forward, and when and how Parliament will be involved in scrutinising the proposed long-term targets before the laying of the statutory instruments in October 2022, given how important these are to the Government’s overall environmental strategy? I recognise that this is quite a shopping list of requests, so if the Minister is unable to respond to them now, I would be grateful if he would write to me with the answers.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in her Motion Cl and her Amendment 3B in lieu. I will be brief, because I know she will give a great deal more detail in her winding-up speech a little later, but before I go into that, may I just disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack? When I came into this House 21 years ago, I was told that our job was to ask the Government at the other end to think again. Given the way party loyalties have changed in those 21 years, and given the very short amount of time the Commons have had to debate the amendments we sent to them, I think we have every right to send some of our amendments back at least once—in fact, I know we have the right to do it more than once as long as we do not trespass on the governing party’s manifesto.
We have listened to the Minister’s objections to our earlier amendments on having greater ambitions to reduce small particulates, known as PM2.5, and have proposed instead an amendment which allows the Government a little more leeway on exactly which targets to set and when to set them. But it does hold the Government’s feet to the fire on the mean targets they can impose, aligned with the current and planned international WHO targets. I will not go into all the details of why it is so important to our health to do this, because noble Lords have heard this several times, but the Government’s net-zero strategy, published on 19 October, includes plans to phase out petrol and diesel land transport, and that is very helpful in relation to CO2 emissions. However, it does not tackle the whole problem of the small particulates which are so harmful to health. Much of this comes from brakes and tyres, as the Minister rightly said in his introduction, and some of it comes from industry, from static generators and other diesel engines. Therefore, we need an ambitious target for reducing small particulates from all sources, which would of course drive change in these areas too.
It is all very well to decarbonise our power system and make sure that we drive electric cars, but more is needed on the demand side. The Climate Change Committee has just done its independent assessment of the net-zero strategy and I note that one of its criticisms is on the lack of emphasis on consumer behaviour change. It said:
“The Government does not address the role of diets or limiting the growth of aviation demand in reducing emissions, while policies to reduce or reverse traffic growth are underdeveloped. These options must be explored further”—
in order to, among other things—
“unlock wider co-benefits for improved health, reduced congestion and increased well-being.”
This reference to “improved health” undoubtedly refers to the microparticles in the air we breathe; that is why we need Amendment 3B and the ambitious targets for clean air that it contains. Before I sit down, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the answer lies in the soil.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Brown of Cambridge, who has already laid out why interim targets are so badly needed. When the chairs of the Climate Change Committee stand here and tell us that this is something we need, I think we—and, more importantly, the Government—must take heed of what they say.
None of us has a clue what is going to happen in the next 28 years and 2 months before we get to 2050. Because of the very poor state of our ecosystems, these are likely to be the most unpredictable years this world—and we—have ever seen. When the Climate Change Act was drafted in the mid-noughties, the Government had foresight and created five-yearly carbon budgets that had to be legislated for. One of those was legislated for in the weeks after the Brexit referendum when there had been a change of Government and a huge amount of upheaval and political distraction. Would this have happened if it had not been a requirement? Maybe it would, but maybe not. The point I am making is that when something has to happen because it is a requirement based in statute, it happens. That is what the machinery of this Government is programmed to do.
This Government often refer to themselves as world leading. The Natural History Museum would agree with that but, unfortunately, we are going in the wrong direction. We are leading the world is in nature depletion. We are bottom of the G7 and in the lowest 10% globally, coming a long way after China. In fact, we have little over half—just 53%—of our biodiversity left. I think that frames why we have to pull every lever to stop and reverse this, something the Government are on board with, and using binding interim targets is one of those levers. Are the Government afraid of putting in more targets and, if so, why? This seems an extremely important amendment and I absolutely will vote for it.
I would like to follow up on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. In this instance, I too disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I think it is the job of this House to keep going at something, and to not give in because what it faces, at the other end, is a government majority that just demands that the Whips make a few telephone calls. This is actually the important part of the debate. We cannot, for the sake of decorum or whatever, just wave our hands and let these things through. Quite frankly, the future of our planet may depend on it, even if only a little.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, when the Minister, Rebecca Pow, introduced the government amendments in the other place last week she said:
“The Bill is packed with positive measures … I am delighted that the Government have improved it even further.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 791.]
But many of these improvements were ones that the Government had resisted as being not necessary or counterproductive until your Lordships intervened. However, the Government have not listened to noble Lords’ concerns on air quality, and I am disappointed that the Bill has not been changed to reflect these very serious concerns. I thank noble Lords who have expressed support for my Motion C1.
In the debate in the other place, senior Conservatives expressed concern at the Government’s lack of action on this matter. Neil Parish, chair of the EFRA Committee, said that he completely agreed with the intention behind our amendment and that we had to ensure that this is one of our great priorities, questioning whether the Government were taking the issue seriously enough. Bob Neill MP commented:
“When a coroner issues a prevention of further deaths letter, it is not done lightly”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 811.]
and called for “prompt and urgent action”. Rebecca Pow, the Minister, said that
“there is no safe level of PM2.5”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 797.]
Doctors are so concerned that a team of 30 paediatric healthcare providers are, right now, cycling from London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital to the Royal Hospital for Children in Glasgow to raise awareness of the impact of air pollution on health, ahead of COP 26. I am genuinely at a loss as to why the Government are dragging their feet, when delay costs lives.
The revised amendment before your Lordships’ House today takes into account the reduction in the World Health Organization’s air quality guidelines, which were published after our Report stage, on 22 September 2021. I find it worrying that the Minister said in his opening remarks that it is not possible to meet these new guidelines in many areas. They add to the evidence that air pollution causes early death and has been linked, as we have heard before, to lung disease, heart failure, cancer—I could go on. Across significant parts of the UK, air quality still fails to meet the guidelines that were set by the WHO in 2005, let alone the new levels. According to analysis by Asthma UK and the British Lung Foundation, just over a third of people in the UK are breathing levels of PM2.5 over the 2005 WHO guidelines. This is truly shocking.
These new guidelines should act as a road map to clean air, with the ambition and impetus to reach them set by central government now in order to catalyse the changes required to reduce the levels of PM2.5 in particular. The Environment Bill is still the golden opportunity to set this commitment to work towards the more robust WHO guidelines and help reach our net-zero targets, while bringing forward the health benefits. My amendment would require the Government to do just that. Government delay means that people, particularly children and the vulnerable, are paying the price with their health.
Earlier this week, I spoke to Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who told me that today is the 11th anniversary of her daughter Ella’s first becoming ill. Have the Government not waited long enough to act? I thank the Minister and his officials for taking the time to listen to our concerns. I now urge him to accept this amendment; otherwise, I am minded to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time.
On Motion A, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that there is an imbalance regarding biodiversity that needs to be addressed.
I turn briefly to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on soil quality. I congratulate her and other noble Lords, such as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on pressing the Government on this matter sufficiently that they have made a commitment—which was welcomed by us and Members in the other place, including Caroline Lucas—to publish the new soil health action plan for England. It was also good to hear Rebecca Pow state that
“soil will be one of the top priorities in our new environmental land management and sustainable farming initiative schemes.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 793.]
I listened to the noble Baroness’s introduction to her amendment, and she raises some important questions that the Minister needs to answer.
I will now turn briefly to the revised amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and I thank her for making her case so clearly. Of course, we all accept that environmental change cannot happen overnight and needs long-term planning, which is what the 25-year environment plan seeks to do. But you can and must be able to measure progress along the way, and that is why statutory interim targets are so important. We have heard again the argument that interim targets would undermine the long-term nature of the target and make it more complicated to meet the current 25-year environment plan. However, I draw attention to the Natural Capital Committee’s Final Response to the 25 Year Environment Plan Progress Report, published a year ago, which states that
“this report … highlights the lack of progress, and some worrying declines: nine of the 25 years have already passed, and it is now looking very likely the next generation will inherit a poorer set of natural assets.”
Rather than being in contradiction, the combination of binding interim targets and legislated long-term goals is complementary. The report clearly shows that unless you have something binding, it is not necessarily going to happen. This amendment is essential for delivering sustainable progress towards our environmental goals. I hope the Minister will reflect on the noble Baroness’s amendment further and reconsider his current position.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I begin by particularly thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his comments and his probably slightly reluctant acceptance of the position we find ourselves in. I also very much appreciate the comments of my noble friend Lord Cormack.
There was really only one question, raised by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on “panic measures”. I am certain that the Prime Minister was not talking about any of the amendments tabled in this House, none of which could be described as “panic measures”, even by people who disagree with them. It is more likely—indeed, it is clear—that he was talking about the calls made by some of the more radical protest groups, perhaps associated with Extinction Rebellion and others, some of which exceed what I think any expert would believe to be a possible and realistic solution. I do not think it is in any way a reflection on this House.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
Will the Minister reply by letter to my other question?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I apologise; I thought I had answered. I will certainly reply on any questions that I have not answered—I commit to that. I am afraid I cannot do so now as I am not sure which questions are unanswered.
I understand the strength of feeling and thank noble Lords for the amendments they have put forward. I would be grateful if, in return, they could carefully consider the arguments made today.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, he has not answered the points raised by my noble friend Lord Deben. Notwithstanding the evidence that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I have received that you can in fact set a target by the appropriate time limit within Clause 1, my noble friend Lord Deben raised the point that you could have a different date for bringing in soil quality targets. As I understand it, the only way that that is possible is for the soil amendment to be passed by your Lordships and for the Government to bring in an amendment in another place to meet the specific concern. If the Minister is convinced that his advice is right and the advice I had is wrong, he could at least bring soil into the Bill with a deferred date by which the target ought to be brought in.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend is right that I did not answer that question. I apologise—it was not deliberate. The reality is that I cannot tell him when the metrics will be ready, because I do not know; I am not sure Defra knows either. I cannot give him the deadline he requires.
I have said this before, but I think it is critical. There is zero chance of meeting any of the other targets we are setting in law unless we pay particular attention to soil. This is a matter of process rather than outcome. We will achieve the outcome, because we are legally obliged to do so and part of achieving it means dealing with soil. This does feel like a bit of a distraction.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am sorry to trouble my noble friend again. I want to be on his side on this because I know he is really on my side. He knows that if you have to write an article, a deadline is rather important. If you do not have a deadline, you will not write the article. It is like that here. We need to have a date, even if it is further ahead than we would like, otherwise we will not have the concentration that we need. Can my noble friend think again about the possibility of having a date, even though he might disappoint me in how far forward it might be?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I hear my noble friend’s arguments, but without the baseline, we do not know when we can deliver. However, we have a date, which is the 2030 biodiversity target, and if we do not meet that target, we will fall foul of the law. As he himself said, not just today but in previous debates, it is not possible to meet that legally binding target without major effort to protect and restore our soil. Therefore, we have that, and at the very least it is a pretty blooming powerful fallback position.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 2B in lieu—
“(e) soil quality.””
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 3B in lieu—
“(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may appoint different PM2.5 targets for different dates but must include targets for the annual mean level of PM2.5 in ambient air to be—
(a) less than or equal to 10µg/m3 before 1 January 2030, and
(b) less than or equal to 5µg/m3 before 1 January 2040.””
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry things are taking a bit longer. The voting in the Table Office is adding extra time.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 12A.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I have already spoken to Motion D. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 28, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 28A.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak also to Motions F, F1, G, G1, N and N1. We are now discussing the second half of our new, transformative system of environmental governance. This new system has been tailored specifically to a UK context, embeds the environment in future policy-making and takes the essential steps needed to strengthen environmental oversight.
I turn to Amendments 28 and 28B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I sincerely thank her for our discussions on this issue and for her proposal to narrow the amendment specifically to cover “safeguarding national security”. However, I am afraid that even with this revised amendment it is the view of the Government that the original exemption for the Armed Forces, defence and national security is still required to provide flexibility to protect and secure the nation. The Government therefore cannot accept the amendment.
The primary function of the defence estate is to support our operations and maintain military capability. It provides homes for those who defend our country, offices for work, space for training, and conditions to prepare to meet the ever-changing threats that the UK faces. This means that defence land, defence policy and national security are inextricably linked. MoD land cannot be separated out; it touches on decisions across the Armed Forces, national security and defence. “National security” does not cover all defence activities. If the coverage of the exemption is reduced, as proposed in the amendment, that directly risks the readiness of our defence capabilities and could impact our responsiveness.
I know that this is a matter in which noble Lords have a keen interest and I emphasise again that these exemptions do not apply to SSSI management, where the MoD is on track to meet the 25-year environment plan target for SSSIs in favourable condition for the sites under its management. Natural England has assessed 48% of the department’s English sites as in favourable condition, which compares well with the English average of 39%.
I reassure the noble Baroness, on the back of the discussions that we have had, that the department will be providing further reassurance in writing of its intentions in relation to the protection, good conservation and improvement of the land under its management. I hope to be able to provide that to her soon.
I turn to the office for environmental protection. I will speak to Amendments 31, 31A, 31B, 31C, 75, 75A, 75B and 75C together, tabled by my colleague Rebecca Pow in the other place and by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to establishing the OEP as an independent body. This guidance power is required to ensure appropriate accountability and that the OEP continues to operate effectively because the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to Parliament for the OEP. There are other examples of independent arm’s-length bodies where provision has been made for the Secretary of State to give guidance; for example, under Section 41 of the Climate Change Act 2008 the Secretary of State can give guidance to the Climate Change Committee regarding the exercise of its functions. We are seeking only to do the same in ensuring appropriate accountability and that the OEP continues to operate effectively by focusing on the most serious, strategic cases with national implications.
None the less, I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about this power. In recognition of noble Lords’ comments, we introduced a new provision to ensure that Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly can scrutinise draft guidance before it is issued. The Secretary of State must respond to that scrutiny before final guidance can be laid and have effect. This has been reinstated in the other place, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for adding it to his amendment in lieu. I hope noble Lords will recognise that their concerns are being listened to with this measure.
I turn to the other parts of the amendment. I should be clear with noble Lords that we are confident that the right appointment processes are in place for the OEP. These are equivalent to those for other independent scrutiny bodies, such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission. This retains the right balance between ministerial accountability and operational independence. Furthermore, as set out in the Written Ministerial Statement on 7 September:
“The Government took the necessary steps to ensure that the role of Chair was listed as a significant appointment with the Commissioner for Public Appointments … The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Environmental Audit Committees conducted a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing before the appointment of Dame Glenys Stacey as OEP Chair Designate.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/21; col. 19WS.]
I am happy to reiterate our intention that future chair appointments should follow a similar process, ensuring fairness, accountability and independence in future, as was set out in the Written Ministerial Statement.
I hope that that provides some reassurance for noble Lords and indicates why the amendment therefore is not necessary. Ultimately, Ministers are accountable and responsible to Parliament for public appointments. While we are committed to ensuring parliamentary scrutiny, it is appropriate that Ministers should retain the ability to make the final choice.
Amendments 33 and 33B, on enforcement, were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and I am grateful to him and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for the engagement that they have given us over the preceding weeks and months. The OEP’s enforcement powers will operate more effectively than those of the European Commission as the OEP will be able to liaise directly with the public body in question to investigate and resolve alleged serious breaches of environmental law in a more targeted and timely manner.
Through environmental review, the OEP can apply for judicial review remedies—subject to appropriate safeguards—that will work to ensure compliance with environmental law. The Court of Justice of the EU cannot issue these kinds of remedies to member states and therefore the OEP could have a far more direct impact on third parties than the previous system. The protections for third parties brought into the OEP’s process of environmental review have therefore been specifically designed in recognition of the unique nature of this type of legal challenge.
We also have to consider the direct impacts that the OEP’s enforcement function may have on third parties. Through environmental review, the OEP will be able to bring cases to court outside of standard judicial review time limits, potentially long after the decisions in question have been taken. For instance, if a quashing order was placed on planning permission or consent for a new shopping centre many months or even years after the decision was taken and where significant building work had already taken place, this could result in substantial hardship for the various parties involved, which would not be fair. We need to ensure that the key principles of fairness and certainty are upheld for third parties who have acted in good faith on the basis of certain decisions and balance this with the need to protect the environment.
Furthermore, the principle behind the provision to protect third-party rights on environmental review is not new. As I have noted in previous debates, it is an extension of the existing position for legal challenges, including under the Senior Courts Act 1981 and the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. These Acts grant the courts discretion to refuse relief where there has been undue delay, and this would be likely to substantially impact third parties or be detrimental to good administration. We are building on these precedents here in a way that reflects the nature of environmental review.
While I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for proposing Amendment 33B, I am afraid that it does not offer such protections for third parties against the quashing of decisions outside of normal time limits. The factors that it sets out, which the court would have to have regard to, would not provide sufficient protection or certainty, and therefore we cannot support it. The Government have reflected on this new amendment, but I am afraid that it still offers no further protections for third parties. I hope that noble Lords can understand our position on this matter and on the other amendments that we have been discussing.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
“(a) safeguarding national security,””
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion E1, as an amendment to Motion E—I believe that is the correct phraseology. I read carefully in Hansard the debate on our amendment on the exemptions that we were calling for on the policy statement on environmental principles. I am disappointed that the Government did not support it, but I am grateful for the support for this case from the Labour Benches, the Greens and the SNP.
The Government cited financial privilege as a reason why we should not proceed with this amendment, and of course I accept that on the basis of the reference to the tax-and-spend points in the amendment that we proposed, when it went to the Commons. I am grateful that, in the Commons, the Minister made the point that all departments will be obliged to subject their policy decisions to the rigours of the policy statement on environmental principles. I am mindful that, clearly, the macroeconomic points that the Treasury has are outwith that—but I am grateful.
However, the Government gave no reasons for refusing the point, made by this House, that the MoD should not be completely exempt from having to take account of the policy statement on environmental principles. The Minister’s comments seemed to suggest that there was a fear of legal challenge. I find that quite surprising. I am not a lawyer, but I am well aware that the courts are very well equipped to filter out unmeritorious cases, as they stand. Equally, while we were in the European Union, the MoD was subject to all these provisions, with a very tiny exemption with regard only to security matters pertaining to munitions and arms. So it has been subject to all these requests to take account of environmental principles for, effectively, the last 30 years. There have not been any challenges, and it does not seem to have caused any problems. However, that is the reason that has been cited, so it is the one that I had to address.
For that reason, I narrowed the scope of the disapplication purely to “national security”, in the hope that that would reassure them. Again, I am not a lawyer, but my understanding from lawyers far more eminent that me is that the courts will always defer to the Executive on matters of national security. Therefore, it seemed to me that the proposal that I put forward was reasonable and met the needs, as they saw it, of the MoD to protect its fear of being challenged on urgent operational matters. It seemed to me that it also met this House’s clear desire that all government departments should be subject to having consideration of the environmental principles, with certain particular tightened safeguards. That was also the position of the Environmental Audit Committee, the EFRA committee in the other House and the office for environmental protection, when it gave its first and only advice to the Government, earlier this year.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Motion F1, which would amend the government Motion F. I also support Motion G1, which we will come to shortly. The issue at stake with my amendment is simply this: does the Bill give the office for environmental protection sufficient independence to allow it to fulfil its function of holding public authorities, including Ministers, to account in relation to breaches of environmental law?
Clause 24 gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in Clause 23(6). These include whether a failure to comply with the law is “serious”, how the OEP determines
“whether damage to the … environment or to human health is serious”,
how the OEP exercises its enforcement functions
“in a way that respects the integrity of other statutory regimes”,
how the OEP intends to “avoid … overlap” with relevant ombudsmen and
“how the OEP intends to prioritise cases.”
The Bill also gives the Secretary of State powers to determine the budget of the OEP and to hire and fire the board, including the chair. Many of us feel that this does not add up to creating a truly independent watchdog.
Therefore, on Report, I moved an amendment, with support from across the House, to rewrite Clause 24 in order to ensure that it gave independence to the OEP in its enforcement role and budget. It also gave parliamentary oversight of both the budget and the hiring and firing of board members. This amendment was passed by a majority of 29. The Government proposed an alternative amendment that would have involved more consultation with Parliament but did not remove the guidance powers or change the substance of Clause 24. This amendment is essentially the same as Amendments 31A and 31B that we have in front of us today.
In the other place, on 20 October, my amendment was rejected, in spite of the fact that, according to my reading of Hansard, the speeches that referred to it strongly supported it. In her response, Minister Pow made three points. First, she said that paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 requires the Secretary of State to “have regard to” to the OEP’s independence. But we all know that “have regard to” is a weak requirement.
Secondly, she said that the Secretary of State cannot intervene on “specific … cases”. But by intervening on a category of cases—say, new nuclear power stations—the Secretary of State could, in theory, preclude the OEP from investigating a whole raft of individual cases within that category; for example, if it was advised that it is not a priority.
Thirdly, Minister Pow said:
“The OEP does not have to follow the guidance where it has clear reasons not to do so.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 823.]
It is a bit paradoxical to justify the existence of the guidance power by saying that the OEP does not have to take any notice of it. Furthermore, you could argue it would be a brave OEP that ignored the guidance from the individual who has the power to determine its budget and hire and fire the board, including the chair.
I am still not satisfied that the Bill will protect the independence of the OEP without further amendment. This new amendment—my Amendment 31C—is a genuine attempt at compromise, and I hope the Government will recognise this and therefore accept it. Let me briefly summarise. Subsection (1) sets out that the OEP has complete discretion in relation to its enforcement policy and functions and in preparing its budget. This would make it comparable to the Office for Budget Responsibility and the National Audit Office. Subsection (2), importantly, retains the guidance power for the Secretary of State but narrows its focus to certain strategic issues concerned with enforcement, as described in Clause 22(6)(c). Subsection (3) requires the OEP to have due regard to the guidance but allows for circumstances in which it may choose to disregard it. Subsections (4) and (5) refer to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of the guidance, and subsection (6) involves the relevant parliamentary committees in the hiring and firing of board members.
The long-term success or failure of this Bill will in large part be measured by the effectiveness of the office for environmental protection. All the good intentions of the other parts of the Bill could come to naught without a fully independent watchman. We all had high confidence in and high regard for Dame Glenys Stacey, and for her board. We also have high regard for and confidence in the good intentions of current Defra Ministers. But I believe we have to prepare for the long term and that this amendment is fundamental to protecting the OEP’s independence in the long term.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief, as this issue has been debated thoroughly at previous stages of the Environment Bill. I rise to move my Amendment 75C, under Motion N1, which would replace government Amendments 75A and 75B. This mirrors Amendment 31C, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and would achieve the same outcomes for the OEP’s independence in Northern Ireland as his would for the OEP in England.
My amendment would safeguard the OEP’s independence in the long term by amending the power of DAERA to guide how the OEP will hold Ministers to account on any environmental wrongdoings, to make it more targeted. It would also provide the OEP with complete discretion to undertake its activities in Northern Ireland and establish a role for the Assembly’s AERA Committee in overseeing the appointment of the Northern Ireland member on the OEP’s board. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said on Report:
“If the Government accept that the OEP should have complete discretion, surely a matter of this importance should be in the Bill.”—[Official Report, 18/9/21; col. 886.]
The recent DAERA consultation in Northern Ireland on environmental plans, principles and governance indicated strong support for the establishment of the OEP in Northern Ireland. I am in no doubt that that will be a huge boon for our environmental governance, but unless its independence is enshrined for the long term in this Bill, we will have missed a serious opportunity to ensure that this important new body is protected from future political whims. I say that with great reluctance, but we have to consider the political dynamics that exist in the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly. As the EFRA Committee chair Neil Parish MP said in the other place last week,
“we need to ensure that those offices are independent for all time.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 804.]
In summary, I disagree with the Government’s amendments in respect of the OEP in Northern Ireland and the need for it to be independent, and I hope the Minister will change his mind on this issue.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, in logical sequence, I will speak to Motion G1 and Amendment 33B, which concerns the conditions that must be satisfied before the High Court can grant a remedy to the OEP on an application for environmental review. Your Lordships will recall that as the Bill stands, in notable contrast to the normal position under judicial review, no remedy whatever may be granted on environmental review unless the court is satisfied that there is not likely to be any substantial prejudice or detriment to a developer, landowner or any other third party, and that there will be no detriment to good administration. So, the mechanism that appears to allow public authorities to be held to account for the non-performance of their environmental duties will in practice be ineffective in all cases where there are serious conflicting interests.
We accept that the interests of developers and landowners can and should be placed in the balance when courts are making decisions about remedies, but it is perverse and without precedent to suggest that those interests should automatically outweigh all other factors, including the public interest in a clean environment and having the law enforced. In any judicial system worth the name, the court must at least be able to have regard to those factors, which is our modest and limited objective.
We bent over backwards in Amendment 33 to accommodate the Government’s concerns, to the point where my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who signed the original amendment, said:
“I cannot see what greater protection any Government could legitimately seek.”—[Official Report, 8/9/21; col. 897.]
We have risen to my noble and learned friend’s challenge and, in response to the other place, imprecise though its comments were, we have been more accommodating still.
There are two additional reasons Amendment 33B should commend itself to the House. First, when listing the factors to which the court must have regard when deciding whether to grant a remedy, we have largely borrowed the list of factors used by the Government themselves for comparable purposes in Clause 1(8) of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, which has its Second Reading in the other place today. Those factors specifically include the interests and expectations of developers, landowners and others who have relied—no doubt in good faith—on failures by a public authority to comply with environmental law.
Secondly, my noble friend Lord Krebs has conceded, in his linked Amendment 31C, that the Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in Clause 22(6)(c): that is, the exercise of
“its enforcement functions in a way that respects the integrity of other statutory regimes (including statutory provision for appeals).”
Even if my noble friend’s amendment is accepted—and I hope it is—the Government will have every opportunity to ensure that environmental review, which we accept is designed to deal with systemic problems, is not used to circumvent the short statutory deadlines that apply in planning cases. That fundamentally changes the landscape in which my amendment features.
I am acutely aware that we have to tread delicately at this stage of a Bill, but make no apology for stressing the particular importance of this amendment. Arguments about the precise ambit of the environmental duties to be imposed on public authorities will be to little effect if those duties cannot be enforced in court in the normal way at the request of the body established for the purpose. If this in many ways admirable Bill cannot be made to achieve this, it will have a fundamental weakness at its core. For that reason, and unless the Minister can offer the necessary assurance, which I understand from our continuing dialogue may be unlikely at this stage, I propose to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 33B.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will pose a couple of brief questions to my noble friend the Minister. He will recall that I supported the original amendment on the independence of the OEP at earlier stages. I cannot think of any other body to which a department has issued guidance that is meant to be overseeing that department. To be honest, I preferred the original Amendment 31 and am struggling entirely to understand the contents of the new Amendment 31C.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, as someone who spoke passionately about the independence of the OEP at earlier stages of the Bill, I support my noble friend Lord Krebs in his amendment.
The OEP will be at the centre of our country’s new environmental future: post Brexit, post COP 26 and post COP 15. The world is changing fast, and I am pleased to say that, as the Minister mentioned earlier, we are slowly waking up to the environmental dangers we face and gradually—very gradually—moving in the right direction.
We all have great hopes for and expectations of the OEP, and within the nation’s ambitions to drive a cleaner, more sustainable and more biodiverse future, I cannot stress how important it is that we get the OEP right. The success or otherwise of everything in the Bill depends on it. At the moment, it still looks as though it will be a tool of the very department it should be overseeing, as has been mentioned.
Let us not forget that Defra is in charge of and funds our most important environmental bodies: Natural England and the Environment Agency. Even local authorities do much of their environmental work in partnership with Natural England and the Environment Agency, so the auditing and bringing to book of these, our most important environmental bodies, will be crucial. Sadly, in my experience of working with NDPBs within the Defra family, I believe this is unlikely to happen if Defra is allowed to exert undue influence over the OEP. As I said in debates at earlier stages, the OEP has not only to be independent but to be seen to be independent, and at the moment there is a severe danger that it will be neither.
This House’s views on the vital importance of the independence of the OEP have been expressed again and again by noble Lords from all sides of the House with much more eloquence than I can muster, so I will not go on, but I urge Defra, which originally fired the arrow of an independent OEP when Michael Gove was Secretary of State, to now let it fly. This is the department’s chance to do that.
This excellently crafted compromise amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Krebs is, like all compromises, probably not to the satisfaction of all, but I strongly believe that the Government and all noble Lords should now grasp this opportunity to resolve the impasse and give us an OEP we can be proud of by voting for my noble friend’s Motion F1.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lord, extremely briefly, I offer the Green group’s support for all the opposition amendments in this group. On Motion E1, I have a question for the Minister. Will he acknowledge to the House that we cannot keep the same mantra of “It is either deal with climate change or deal with national security” and acknowledge that, as the integrated review says, the climate emergency is the number one threat that the Government should be focused on internationally?
On introducing this debate on Motions F1 and G1, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said that he was not commenting on any individual involved in the OEP. I shall comment on individuals, to note the two noble Lords moving those Motions and urge noble Lords to support those extremely distinguished Members of our House in their area of absolute expertise and get behind them.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, when these amendments were dealt with in the House of Commons, the Minister said that she was very satisfied to have the office of environmental protection independent. That is what I want, and I believe that that is what the Government want, but she went on to say that the Secretary of State will be accountable for the OEP. I am in difficulty about the precise nature of that accountability. This is not the easiest question to answer, so I gave notice this morning that I proposed to ask it, so that my noble friend might have an opportunity, if he wished, to think it over. Obviously, the Minister dealing with this in the House of Commons must have had an idea in mind.
This arises in connection with the giving of instructions. The strange thing about the instructions and guidance is that the guidance does not need to be followed. It has to be seen by the Houses of Parliament before it passes, but once it is passed, it need not be performed. To my mind, that is a rather exceptional situation. Why should Parliament be asked to study carefully what the department—the Secretary of State—is proposing but then the organisation that is to receive the instructions need do nothing about it? That is a remarkable situation, but it ties into the idea of the accountability of the Secretary of State for this independent body.
I should be glad to know precisely how this operation is supposed to work. How is the Secretary of State responsible, apart from saying that the OEP is independent and he must secure that at all costs? If that is all, very good, but I suspect that the Minister in the Commons was thinking of something a little more complicated than that, and I hope the Minister can explain it to us in due course.
I think that the Motions in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Anderson, are pretty essential to the working of this arrangement, but the principal fact that I wish established is that the OEP should be independent, as the Minister said in the House of Commons.
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con)
My Lords, I took the opportunity to support the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Anderson, in the previous rounds of this proposal, and I will continue to do so.
The office for environmental protection is the beating heart of the Environment Bill. We are about to embark on an extraordinary gathering of people about climate change here in the UK, in Glasgow. The eyes of the world are upon us. There are suspicions that this particular element of the Environment Bill is not as strong as it needs to be. The amendments that have been put forward are a useful adjustment to previous amendments and I believe that they are workable. Without them, the pressures that we put upon Dame Glenys Stacey will be immense. The suspicion will linger always that she is somehow or other beholden to the Government in one fashion or another, and there will be continued requests for clarification, and for clarity about her behaviour as well as that of her board and her team—this will go on.
We need the absolute certainty of independence, which we can achieve here today, through these amendments. If we can do that, we can set sail upon a fine voyage—we set sail just before COP, with a very clear successor body to the European Commission, which can do what the European Commission once did—that is, hold power to account.
The amendments are before us. It is up to this House to decide what to do with them.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, first, I am grateful to the Minister for the discussions that he has had with us since Report. Secondly, we are disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to make a concession to the revised amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, to include defence in the scope of the Bill. However, we understand her generous decision to pull up stumps at this point, bearing in mind some of the other pressures on us this evening. Thirdly, we are very grateful, as ever, to the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Anderson, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie for continuing to pursue the independence of the OEP and the need for effective remedies.
These noble Lords have all made hugely impressive and convincing contributions this evening; they do not need me to repeat their arguments. I also thank all other noble Lords who have added their voices in support. I hope that the Minister is getting a sense of the mood of the House on these issues. We very much hope that he can therefore agree to revisit them. If this is not possible, we urge the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Anderson, to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Beginning with Amendment 28B, the Government maintain the position that exempting the Armed Forces, defence and national security from the environmental principles duty is required to ensure the flexibility for our defence capability. I appreciate the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, but I am afraid that, as I said in my opening remarks, this is a red line for the MoD. I will secure the reassurance that we were promised together on a call that we made, which has been followed up since, and I very much hope that it directly addresses the plea that she has made to this House. We will continue those discussions afterwards.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I am very happy to reiterate something that I, she and many others have said many times: nature and climate change are inextricably linked. Indeed, climate change is in many respects the fever that the planet is experiencing as a consequence of the degradation of its natural environment. All the science tells us that there is no pathway to net zero, or to staying within 1.5 degrees, without massive efforts to protect and restore nature on a scale that we have never seen before. That is absolutely understood. I simply add that it is not just a reflection of my view but the position of this Government as they take us towards COP 26. We have sought to put nature at the very heart of our response to climate change, both here and internationally. I think, and hope, that we will see some real movement over the coming weeks from the global community.
I turn to amendments 31, 31A, 31B, 31C, 75, 75A, 75B and 75C. We believe that the guidance power is necessary to ensure that the OEP continues to operate effectively and provide appropriate accountability. To elaborate on a point I made earlier in response to comments by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the OEP will have an extremely broad scope and remit, encompassing all environmental law and with powers to investigate alleged serious breaches by any public authority, ranging from a local authority to a Minister of the Crown. Given this huge breadth, the guidance power is important to ensure that Ministers who are ultimately responsible for the OEP’s use of public money can ensure that it is functioning as intended, focusing on the most serious strategic cases. My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked for comparable examples of such guidance being issued. My understanding is that the Secretary of State has the power to provide guidance to the Climate Change Committee, and that power is enshrined in the Climate Change Act.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 31 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 31A and 31B in lieu.
“(6) Before issuing the guidance, the Secretary of State must—
(a) prepare a draft, and
(b) lay the draft before Parliament.
(7) If before the end of the 21 day period—
(a) either House of Parliament passes a resolution in respect of the draft guidance, or
(b) a committee of either House of Parliament, or a joint committee of both Houses, makes recommendations in respect of the draft guidance,
the Secretary of State must produce a response and lay it before Parliament.
(8) The Secretary of State may prepare and lay before Parliament the final guidance, but not before—
(a) if subsection (7) applies, the day on which the Secretary of State lays the response required by that subsection, or
(b) otherwise, the end of the 21 day period.
(9) The final guidance has effect when it is laid before Parliament.
(10) The Secretary of State must publish the guidance when it comes into effect.
(11) The “21 day period” is the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the draft guidance is laid under subsection (6).
(12) “Sitting day” means a day on which both Houses of Parliament sit.
(13) The Secretary of State may revise the guidance at any time (and subsections
(6) to (12) apply in relation to any revised guidance).”
Lord Krebs
Leave out from “31” to end and insert “, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 31A and 31B, and do propose Amendment 31C in lieu—
“OEP independence
(1) The OEP has complete discretion in the carrying out of its functions, including in—
(a) preparing its enforcement policy,
(b) exercising its enforcement functions, and
(c) preparing and publishing its budget.
(2) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in section 22(6)(c).
(3) The OEP must have regard to the guidance in preparing its enforcement policy, unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise.
(4) Before issuing the guidance, the Secretary of State must—
(a) prepare and consult on a draft,
(b) lay the draft before Parliament, and
(c) publish a response to the consultation.
(5) The Secretary of State must publish the guidance when it comes into effect.
(6) In making or terminating appointments under paragraph 1 and paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Environmental Audit Committees of the House of Commons.””
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33A.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 33B in lieu—
“(8) Where the court makes a statement of non-compliance it may grant any remedy that may be granted by it on a judicial review other than damages.
(8A) In deciding whether to grant such a remedy, the court must have regard to—
(a) the nature and circumstances of the non-compliance;
(b) any detriment to good administration that would result from granting or failing to grant a remedy;
(c) the interests or expectations of persons who would benefit from the grant of a remedy;
(d) the interests or expectations of persons who have relied on the failure by the public authority to comply with environmental law;
(e) any other matter that appears to the court to be relevant.””
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 43, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 43A.
43A: Because the law already makes provision to protect pollinators from the effect of pesticides.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, as well as Motion H, with the leave of the House I will also speak to Motions J, J1, K, L, M, Q and R. It is a pleasure to open this debate focusing on the protection of nature, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed throughout the passage of this Bill on these issues.
I begin by speaking to Motions H in my name and H1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I have listened intently to the concerns of this House on this matter and of course I share them. Countless plants in our gardens, towns and countryside simply could not exist without pollen being spread by bees and hundreds of species of other insects. Bees and other insect pollinators contribute more than £500 million a year to UK agriculture through improving crop quality and quantity, but in truth this figure barely touches the sides in terms of the true value of our pollinators to our country. They add immeasurable beauty and wonder to our environment and, indeed, our lives.
The Government wish to see pollinators thrive so they can carry out their essential services for the environment and for food production and provide such joys for people. We are committed to taking action to improve their status, and action through the national action plan, the National Pollinator Strategy and our Healthy Bees Plan 2030 will help better protect pollinators and allow them to flourish. I will set out a bit more detail on these plans for the House today.
First, I can confirm to all noble Lords that we will publish a national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides by the end of this year. The purpose of the plan is to minimise the risks and impacts of pesticides to human health and the environment while ensuring pests and pesticide resistance are managed effectively. Integrated pest management is central to the plan, and we are supporting a shift towards greater use of those techniques. The technique will benefit the pollinators that we all value, as it will involve designing pesticides out of farming systems as far as we possibly can and will include increased use of nature-based, low-toxicity solutions and precision technologies to manage pests.
In addition, the Government are taking action under the national pollinator strategy. This includes restoring and creating habitats for pollinators to thrive; raising awareness across society so that people can take action themselves; and supporting monitoring and research, including a national pollinator monitoring scheme, to improve our understanding of pollinators’ population status. Our Healthy Bees Plan 2030 provides a blueprint for how we will improve honeybee health, including working in partnership with beekeepers and bee farmers.
Finally, I will address the specific concern raised by Amendment 43B, which seeks to introduce a requirement to conduct a pollinator risk assessment report before a decision can be taken. I assure the House that, when we update the national action plan, we shall assess the use of pesticides in the round and their impact on the natural environment. Given the action that the Government are taking to protect pollinators and the existing regulations in place, as well as the upcoming national action plan for pesticides, I ask that the House agrees with Motion H.
I turn to storm overflows. Before I go into detail, I would like to talk briefly about the debate itself. Of course, we all feel very strongly about this issue, and it is right for the Government to be held to account. However, it has to be said that some of the language that has been used in recent days, including by one or two Members of this House, has been simply unacceptable. It has led very directly to a torrent of abuse, some of it extremely violent, directed at colleagues in the other place. It is obvious to anyone who follows this process that absolutely no one wants raw sewage anywhere near our waters and seas, and it is objectively the case that, even without any further improvements to this Bill, we will have regulations and standards to deal with this issue that significantly exceed what we had before; in other words, the Bill already represents a major improvement on the status quo. I have made it clear previously that we have been working for some time on ways in which to improve and significantly strengthen it, further details of which I shall come to in just a few moments.
With respect, I am going to address the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who is in his place, engaged yesterday in an orgy of tweets, telling his followers:
“Zac Goldsmith … proposes pumping raw sewage into rivers & the sea.”
When he talked about
“Zac Goldsmith’s plans to allow water companies to pump raw sewage into rivers and the sea”,
he was spreading a malicious falsehood.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
It is a disgrace, and I am glad for that reassuring remark from behind.
Over the course of dozens of tweets, the noble Lord was trying to make his—let us face it—not always balanced Twitter followers believe something about me and the Government that is simply not true, and which he knows to be untrue. Indeed, by suggesting that we are making it easier for companies to pollute our waters, he was spreading a grotesque inversion of the truth. I understand why he has done so; it is nothing to do with the environment, an issue on which he has almost no record whatever. It is about wanting people to believe that Brexit means more sewage in our waters. He knows that this is not true—this is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion—but he also knows that, because of his position, many will believe him. Some will be driven into a frenzy of rage, as we have seen—rage based on a blatant untruth. The noble Lord may have been driven to distraction by Brexit, but he is not a stupid person; he wants his words to have consequences. In this debate on sewage, the noble Lord has absolutely covered himself in the stuff—and I say shame on him.
There is, rightly, concern in this House, and indeed the other place, wider society and the Government, about the unacceptable frequency with which sewage is discharged from storm overflows into our rivers, lakes and seas. It is because we share that concern that we have moved so far already on this issue. In this spirit, I hope that noble Lords will allow me to outline in one simple list the measures in the Bill and outside it which will indeed deliver progressive reductions in the harm caused by storm overflows.
The Bill places, first, a new duty on government to produce a statutory plan to reduce discharges from storm overflows and their adverse impact, and report to Parliament on progress. Secondly, it creates a requirement for government to produce a report setting out the actions that would be needed to eliminate storm overflows in England and the costs and benefits of those actions. Both publications are required before 1 September 2022. Thirdly, it creates a new duty directly on water companies and the Environment Agency to publish data on storm overflow operation on an annual basis and, fourthly, a new duty directly on water companies to publish near real-time information on the operation of storm overflows. Fifthly, it creates a new duty directly on water companies to monitor the water quality upstream and downstream of storm overflows and sewage disposal works and, sixthly, a new duty directly on water companies to produce comprehensive statutory drainage and sewerage management plans, setting out how they will manage and develop their drainage and sewerage system over a minimum 25-year planning horizon, including how storm overflows will be addressed through these plans. The seventh thing the Bill does is to create a power of direction for the Government to direct water companies in relation to these plans if they are not good enough—the “big stick”. Eighthly and finally, it creates a duty on government to set and achieve at least one new target to drive progress in the priority area of water.
This significant package will work hand in hand with the action that we are taking outside the Bill. Significantly, for the first time, the Government made it crystal clear in our draft strategic policy statement to Ofwat that we expect water companies to take steps to “significantly reduce ... storm overflows”, and that we expect funding to be approved for them to do so. These are not just warm words: the price review is the mechanism by which funding for the water companies and their priorities are determined. This is our biggest lever to clamp down on sewage discharges from storm overflows.
Significant investment has been unlocked on storm overflows in the current price review period 2020-25. Water companies will invest £7.1 billion on environmental improvements in England; of this, £3.1 billion will be invested in storm overflow improvements. This is supplemented by an additional £606 million as part of the green recovery announcement. We have also committed to reviewing the case for implementing Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in England, which would set mandatory build standards for sustainable drainage schemes on new developments, something that numerous noble Lords called for in Committee. In August 2020, we established the Storm Overflows Taskforce—indeed, it was my colleague, Rebecca Pow, who was here a second ago, who established it—to bring together key stakeholders from the water industry, environmental NGOs, regulators and government to drive progress in reducing sewage discharges. That task force has agreed a long-term goal to eliminate harm from storm overflows.
I and my colleagues across government have been clear that we are determined to tackle the harm from storm overflows and stop untreated sewage flowing into our rivers, lakes and seas. Last Wednesday, the Government and their Back-Benchers actively voted into the Bill six pages of new law directly on storm overflows. To imply that the Government and their Back-Benchers are voting to dump sewage into our rivers is factually incorrect. However, all that said, we have listened carefully to the feeling in the other place and this House and among the wider public. I am absolutely delighted to confirm that the Government will bring forward an amendment in lieu in the Commons at the next stage; it will place a direct legal duty on water companies to progressively reduce the adverse impact of storm overflows.
I want to heap thanks on my right honourable friend Philip Dunne and other Members in the other place who have spoken so strongly about this issue, in Parliament and on broadcast media. Indeed, they have driven action in their own constituencies. I am delighted to say that Philip Dunne has indicated that he is in agreement with the Government on the wording of our proposed amendment, which will follow the clear direction already set by the Government’s draft strategic policy statement to Ofwat, published in July, that we expect water companies to take steps to
“significantly reduce the frequency and volume of sewage discharges from storm overflows”.
We cannot accept the amendment proposed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, as it is, but I assure noble Lords that the Government’s amendment in lieu will deliver the same action in reducing sewage discharges into our rivers. We cannot accept the amendment exactly as drafted, since we need to ensure integration with other legislation, including new measures in the Bill and existing duties in the Water Industry Act 1991. For example, although we absolutely support the noble Duke’s premise, his amendment does not dock in with the enforcement regime in the Water Industry Act or the range of enforcement remedies available to Ofwat within that Act. Consistency with the draft strategic policy statement to Ofwat and Ofwat’s price review mechanism is also important. Aligning the new duty with the existing framework in this way will ensure that the price review does its job, balancing the need for investment with the need to protect customers from disproportionate prices.
I thank again noble Lords across this House and Members of the other place, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, but many others as well. I hope that noble Lords will be able to support our position today. I look forward to setting out more detail before the Bill returns to the other place.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 43B in lieu—
“Bee and Pollinator Safety
Protection of pollinators from pesticides
(1) Prior to any authorisation for use of a pesticide product, an active ingredient, a safener or a synergist, a pollinator risk assessment report, containing scientific data and risk assessment conclusions relating to the effects of the relevant substance, must be published by an expert body consisting of individuals free from vested interests in pesticide use, who must have been independently appointed.
(2) The pollinator risk assessment report must include—
(a) data examining acute and chronic effects of the relevant substance on honeybees, bumblebees, solitary bees, butterflies and hoverflies,
(b) all available scientific evidence relating to effects on any pollinators,
(c) an assessment of synergistic effects, and
(d) the identification of any risks to pollinators where the available evidence is insufficient to reach a conclusion.
(3) The expert body must consult the public on the draft content of the pollinator risk assessment.
(4) A competent authority must not authorise for use any pesticide product, active ingredient, safener or synergist until and unless the public—
(a) has been informed early, in an adequate, timely and effective manner, that a decision will be made,
(b) has been consulted on the decision that the competent authority intends to make, including on any mitigation or restriction measures that are proposed, and
(c) has had access, for the full consultation period, to all statutory risk assessments required for the authorisation decision.
(5) In addition to considerations set out elsewhere, when making any authorisation decision the competent authority must—
(a) aim to achieve a high level of protection for the environment,
(b) be satisfied that there will be no significant short-term negative effect, and no long-term negative effect, on the health of honeybees or wild pollinator populations,
(c) publish, with the consultation referred to in subsection (4)(b), a statement explaining why the competent authority is satisfied that requirements (a) and (b) of this subsection have been met.
(6) This section comes into force on 1 March 2023.
(7) In this section—
“authorise for use” includes authorisation by derogation; “competent authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;
(c) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;
(d) the Secretary of State when acting with the consent of either or both the Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales and the Scottish Ministers in relation to Scotland.””
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his time and for that of his officials during the passage of this Bill on the subject of pesticides and pollinators, and for his comments this afternoon. I was disappointed, as were others, that the other place chose to ignore the vote of this Chamber and rejected our amendment on the basis that the law makes provision to protect pollinators from the effects of pesticides. I fear that this is not the case. It is clear from its response that the other place has not fully grasped the extent to which the existing provisions fail to protect any non-honey bee pollinators, and to which the proposed provisions fall outside the pre-existing provisions.
Insect pollinators are vital for the maintenance of ecosystem health and for global food security. Seventy-five per cent of crops species, 35% of global crop production and up to 88% of flowering plant species are dependent to some extent on insect pollinators. There is substantial concern as to their current and future conservation status. Key threats to pollinators include agriculture intensification, particularly habitat loss and pesticide use, climate change and the spread of alien species.
We have had detailed debates on this subject previously, and now is not the time to revisit that detail. I thank the Minister for his commitment and for his comments. I welcome the commitment to assess the use of pesticides in the round, and I look forward to hearing the detail. The Minister speaks very fast, so I will study Hansard to assess his detailed comments. I beg to move.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer as set out in the register. I also share with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, a considerable love of bees. I am not sure whether she intends to press the House on this, but I must set the record straight regarding the use of plant protection products as this is absolutely fundamental to agriculture in this country.
First, PPPs are targeted, not used in isolation. They form a critical component of an integrated pest management approach which carefully considers all available protection methods to discourage development of populations of harmful organisms; their use, and the use of other forms of intervention, are kept to levels that are economically and ecologically justified; and they reduce and minimise the risk to human health and the environment.
Secondly, there is a big misconception that farmers use PPPs even though they do not need to. Farmers only use PPPs when they absolutely must to protect our food supply against pests, weeds and diseases that would otherwise cause us to lose between 30% and 40% of our food production. When farmers use PPPs, they ensure they are only using as much as is necessary and take measures to ensure that they impact only on intended crops.
Thirdly, as stated on numerous occasions, the current regulatory system for PPPs is among the most stringent in the world. All products on the market have been subject to a thorough assessment to ensure a high level of protection of human and animal health and the environment. This includes bees and other pollinators. Insecticides are by their nature toxic to bees and other pollinators; however, the way they are used ensures that the risk of exposure is minimised to levels that do not harm bees or other pollinators. As part of the regulation, an appropriate risk assessment is carried out on all active substances and products before they reach the market. They can be approved for use only if it will result in negligible exposure to honey bees or it has no perceptible, acute or chronic effect on colony survival or development. That is the actual situation. I welcome the Minister’s response to this amendment and I look forward to the result of that.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 45B to government Motion J, in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Quin, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for agreeing to sign the amendment, but that is apparently not permitted in this House during the so-called ping-pong process, when only one signature is allowed. I must emphasise that this is a cross-party amendment and surely that is right; party politics should not be inserted into a matter like this. I was very disturbed to hear this morning that many Conservative Members of Parliament have received very disagreeable messages on social media. This is completely unacceptable and very regrettable.
This House passed a similar amendment to Amendment 45B to clean up our rivers some weeks ago, with support from all sides of the House. When the amendment was debated last Wednesday in the other place, there was again support for it from all sides of the House. One Conservative MP described it as
“the most important amendment we are faced with this evening.”
Another Conservative MP said:
“Yes, there are all these duties to report, to produce plans and so on, which is great, but should there not also be a duty on the water companies to actually do something”? —[ Official Report, Commons, 20/10/21; col. 841-61.]
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly on Motion H1 on pollinators. If the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, was disappointed with the other place, I was rather disappointed with our own House when we did not pass the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on the effect of pesticides on human health, because the issue of pesticides is about not just pollinators but human health as well. It is also about insects generally; I think we have missed out a few, such as moths, on the list of pollinators. I was delighted to hear what the Minister said. I am very pleased; we will keep a close eye on how the Government look at the issue of pesticides.
I will speak briefly on what the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has just said. I, too, have been down the other end today and seen the vile abuse that many Conservative Members have received. It is absolutely appalling and has been encouraged, I am afraid—whether it is social media or whatever. People I know have worked really hard on this, including my noble friend the Minister. When we started this Bill, there was none of this in there at all, so we have moved very far on this issue. I want to put on record my extreme thanks to both the Minister here and the Minister in the other place for listening to that. Of course, it is not just sewage that we have to think about, although that is what we are talking about now. There are all sorts of other pollution going on, such as phosphates. The River Wye has been destroyed by poultry farms where excrement has leached into the water.
I was of the opinion that the Government could go further; from what I hear, they will. As far as I understand from my days down the other end, in order for the Government to table an amendment in lieu, today’s amendment must go through. I am rather hoping that it will go through without a vote, but if there is a Division, for the sake of the Government’s position, I will oppose the Government on it.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I am a sailor, and have sailed and swam in UK waters for six decades. I have constantly been appalled by the amount of raw sewage I have found in those waters, which has got worse.
I am not on social media but I was sent a digital view of what happened in Langstone Harbour, which runs out into the Solent—into Spithead, actually, which has a position in my heart, as your Lordships can imagine. For 48 hours last Thursday and Friday, raw sewage was pumped through a seven-foot pipe into Langstone Harbour. That is totally unacceptable. I am not blaming the Government for this. I do not do social media, and I certainly would not in a million years blame the Minister; after all, he has been in his position for only half a dog watch, and I know that he feels strongly about this as well. We really have to do something about this. I blame the water companies. How they behave has been appalling. We cannot let this go on. They must be held responsible and have their feet put to the fire.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord West, on these issues. I happen to have lived in the same area for more than 70 years and I know the Solent very well, so I share his sentiments on this exactly.
Can I remind your Lordships of where we are on this issue? We have debated this for many weeks now. The rivers, streams and inland waterways of our country all fail to pass the statutory chemical tests, and only 16% of them meet “good” ecological status. The United Kingdom is ranked near the bottom of 30 European countries for coastal water quality. Why? Water companies, particularly Southern Water, are flouting their legal obligations to restrict the discharge of foul raw sewage into our rivers and estuaries. They are instead increasing discharges, apparently happy to risk fines running into hundreds of millions of pounds, which hardly dent their profits and could be better invested in modernising their sewerage infrastructure. I ask again: why? The powers and resources of our regulating agencies have been progressively stripped of funding, leaving them toothless and ineffective. Again, we should ask why. Meanwhile, the biodiversity and ecosystems of our rivers and cherished chalk streams are dying. The reasons, of course, are clear.
I ask your Lordships to support the noble Duke’s amendment tonight so that we can begin to address these issues while allaying the concerns of the Government about unreasonable obligations being placed on water companies—because they are not.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Duke of Wellington and our honourable friend Philip Dunne in the other place on bringing us to this place today. I pay a warm tribute to the Minister, who has managed to administer this Bill and be open to a number of amendments already.
As he is aware, I am concerned when he refers to the regulations giving a mandatory scheme for new developments for the simple reason we debated at earlier stages of the Bill. I seek his reassurance yet again: will he please give us a timetable for the regulations that he says he will bring forward under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to ensure that statutory responsibilities are placed on planning authorities to treat water companies as statutory consultees? It is very important that water companies are given the tools to do the job. Unless we end the automatic right to connect, you will have major developments of 30, 50 or sometimes 300 houses seeking to emit sewage into antiquated Victorian pipes that simply cannot take it. The sewage then goes into the combined sewers and often comes back into existing developments, meaning that those people have to be evacuated for between six and 12 months before they can be rehoused because it is a public health risk.
I urge my noble friend to bring forward these regulations before the end of the year, if possible, to end the automatic right to connect—not to make it conditional but to end it completely, as Sir Michael Pitt called for after the floods in 2007. That way, I believe that we will not offload all the sewage into the rivers and seas—that is the focus of the amendment before us this evening—but will actually front-end it and make sure that this problem never occurs again in any future development.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I very much congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on all the work he has done on this issue. As a co-signatory of a similar amendment he moved on Report, I welcome the fact that he has retabled it to ask the other place—the House of Commons—to think again. Like him, I welcome the fact that there was a sizeable rebellion of the Government’s own supporters in the House of Commons; I hope that they will be joined by others if we return this amendment today, or that the Government will move even more in the direction that they have already signalled to us they are considering.
Of course, I deplore abusive tweets and messages and know the misery that they can cause, but I am glad, and welcome the fact, that people across the country are waking up to the extent of the problem of sewage discharges—which they certainly are. I hope that this proper public pressure will be brought to bear effectively in order to remedy this situation.
I will not repeat further what has been said but will simply make two points. The water industry itself seems to be behind other UK business sectors in its use of technology, yet if British expertise could be harnessed more effectively to tackle the problems of sewage discharges here at home, there is the consequent potential of being able to export environmental technology and equipment elsewhere, and thereby gain some economic benefits for the country as a whole.
My final point is to flag up an issue that has been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and about which I will write further to the Minister, rather than detaining the House. I think that planning authorities need to take much greater account of the state of sewers, drains and discharges into rivers when looking at applications for more housing. My neighbours are already having problems with the present inadequate draining and sewage systems and the problems of overflows and numerous sewage discharges into a very sensitive river, the River Coquet. This is happening at the same time as new housing developments are being planned. This is not about objecting to housing as such, but objecting to schemes that will overload and overwhelm already fragile and inadequate drainage and sewage systems.
As I say, I will write to the Minister further about this, but I hope that, in the meantime, a very clear message in support of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, will be given by your Lordships’ House today.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for Motion M and what he has done on conservation covenants. I was a great supporter of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, because, having been a surveyor, I know just how difficult those conservation covenants would be for some farmers, so the new wording is very much appreciated.
My second point is to support very much what my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering said about automatic connection for new developments. This is absolutely crucial. I spoke about it in Committee and on Report. Given the amount of new development there will be, the new regulations need to be brought in as quickly as possible.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will give way to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who has tried about 20 times to stand up.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, at this stage, I know that the only thing noble Lords want is to get on with the vote or non-vote, so I will be very brief. I just want to say a huge thank you to the Minister and his wonderful team for the finagling they did with DLUHC—I call it the department of luck—in getting the concessions on ancient woodland protection. I am also delighted with what the Minister said tonight in association with that about the rigour of the reviews, the need for action following reviews and support for the ancient woodland inventory. How can we expect local authorities and developers to avoid ancient woodlands if they do not know where they are? The ancient woodland inventory is far from complete at the moment.
I will make two points before I sit down—my Front Bench is giving me hate mail. First, I hope the Secretary of State for DLUHC will take his new call-in duty seriously, because that is one of the most important parts of these concessions. Secondly, we really need to find a way of enfolding national infrastructure into the provision so that the majority of damage, which is now caused primarily by national infrastructure, does not continue. I was bemused, as were many other noble Lords, by the reason for the Commons rejecting my amendment:
“Because the National Planning Policy Framework and the Forestry Commission and Natural England’s standing advice already make provision to protect ancient woodland”.
Clearly, they have not seen the 290 cases that have arisen in the last 12 months alone.
I very much thank the Minister, his team and all noble Lords around this House, including the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who reminded me very firmly of the little kid who ran between Alan Bates and Julie Christie in “The Go-Between”, as he did shuttle diplomacy with his party at the other end.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak on my own behalf now. First, I am absolutely horrified at the abuse that the Minister has received. I do not know about the practices in this House, but the other Member should be disgusted at his behaviour. I have not seen it all. I would check up, but he has blocked me. I think I offered a tiny amount of criticism once and he blocked me. The first person to block me was President Trump—so, you know.
The amendment from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, is absolutely necessary. We have seen a vast public outcry over this. The whole point was that the Government swept aside our amendment without really understanding just how much the public cared. That was a huge mistake on their part and I hope that they now go all the way to meeting the noble Duke. He has in fact amended the amendment slightly, making it much more reasonable.
Quite honestly, if any Conservative Members at the other end vote against this again, they will have to explain themselves. I thank Feargal Sharkey, the punk star, and Professor Jamie Woodward, who have given me huge amounts of information. I do not believe in abuse on social media, but if I see Tories being virtuous on this subject, I will highlight what is happening in their constituencies.
If we are going to fix the sewage discharges, we can also fix the discharges of plastic and microplastics. Apparently, we could do this all together. That is something we clearly have to do.
I was absolutely horrified by Conservative Central Office, which put out all that nonsense about how much this was going to cost. If the Minister wants to correct the record on that, I would be absolutely delighted, but I understand if he does not have the figures to hand. The issue of cost was not raised at the other end, because I am sure the Ministers did not want to mislead Parliament. Perhaps the Conservative Party’s office might just draw in its fangs occasionally and start to tell the truth.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on his determination and persistence on this issue. Equally, I thank my noble friend the Minister, my honourable friend Rebecca Pow and the officials who have engaged so sincerely and robustly with us in exploring ways forward.
I am grateful for the progress we have made so far. However, before the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, laid amendments to this Bill, the Government seemed reluctant to place an actual duty on companies. I am hopeful that we can be extremely proud of the changes that we in this House have made in bringing this issue to the forefront of public opinion and prompting action from the Government.
I too express my abhorrence for any vitriol levelled against honourable Members in the other place. Have we not learned in recent weeks the dangers of that type of discourse and personal abuse? I implore noble Lords and those who may still have significant concerns about this Bill to accept that the progress we have made has been made in good faith by Ministers and officials who sincerely wish to make this a landmark piece of legislation—I believe it will be—and are committed to the environmental causes that are so important to so many of us.
Without the duty that the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, proposes, it is entirely possible that little or nothing would happen. That is not safe for public health. I declare my interests as in the register. I recognise the importance of private water utilities to many pension funds and institutional portfolios, which rely on their generous dividends. I have no interest in seeing these companies pushed into bankruptcy or public ownership, but I believe they have neglected their sewage overflow problems for years. They have failed to invest sufficiently to limit the problem and have even played fast and loose with the requirements to report overflows and allowed many illegal discharges. It is time to legislate to force them to spend significant sums to make up for past underspending and egregious behaviour, rather than relying on further promises which leave us with horribly polluted waters.
As the Rivers Trust said—I commend it on its work—more than half of Britain’s rivers are in poor ecological condition due to sewage discharges. This amendment does not call for the immediate elimination of sewage discharges but for ongoing reductions. Clearly, this will take time, but a new duty is so important as we have not really even started.
I noticed this afternoon that the Government have just announced and released on the Defra website plans to further strengthen the Bill with their own amendment to be enshrined in law, which I am led to believe will ensure that water companies have a duty to progressively reduce the adverse impact of sewage discharges from storm overflows. I sincerely hope that that is the case. For that to happen we will need to pass this amendment in this House tonight. I also congratulate my right honourable friend Philip Dunne and my honourable friend Richard Graham and others in the other place who have been working so hard behind the scenes to ensure that we move to a much better place on this amendment.
I therefore hope that noble Lords will support the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, in this important amendment, and I hope and believe that the Minister and the Government will take us to the right place very soon.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, in view of the Minister’s remarks, I should intervene briefly. The noble Baroness just made the crucial point that there appears to have been a major change of government policy. Let us not delude ourselves: that is because of the strength of parliamentary and public opinion. We have been doing our job in making it clear that the disgraceful situation which my noble friend Lord West, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and others have referred to, should not continue.
The Minister was so busy criticising me that he did not say explicitly that he is accepting the amendment in the name of the noble Duke. Are the Government accepting it? I see that the noble Baroness is shaking her head. Is it the case that they are not accepting the amendment? So we will have to vote. That is quite a significant point. The Government are still not in a situation where they are clearly accepting what the noble Duke said. The Government could, procedurally, accept the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, it would go back, and they could then move a further amendment.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I will give the noble Lord an answer. The Government encourage the noble Duke, the Duke of Westminster—I have done it again. I will go to jail voluntarily after this. The Government encourage the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, to press his amendment to a Division. The reason for doing so is because we will then be able to send it back to the House of Commons so that the Commons can then table our amendment in lieu. I would have thought the noble Lord would be aware of that and I suspect—in the same way that he continues to send absurd messages on Twitter in the last few minutes—that he probably already knew the answer.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I am well aware of the procedure of the House; I have been here rather longer than the noble Lord. The question is whether the Government are accepting it. Are they going to vote? No? So they are not voting. If they are not voting, that means that the amendment in the name of the noble Duke will go back to the House of Commons, and the right thing to do then is for it to be accepted or for them to move whatever technical changes they want.
On the substance of this issue, obviously the House congratulates the noble Duke on the stand he has taken. It is because of that stand that we are in this position this evening. On the business of criticisms of the Minister, let us make this very clear. Speaker after speaker in this debate has pointed out that unless there is this duty—an actual duty on water companies to reduce these illegal or unacceptable discharges—the current unsatisfactory position would not only continue but would probably get worse. The noble Earl referred to this.
With the scale of further development, the cutback of two-thirds in the Environment Agency—I am not giving way to the noble Lord; he can make his own remarks in a moment if he wishes to. I was criticised by the Minister so it is perfectly reasonable that I should reply. There has been a cutback of two-thirds in the staff of the Environment Agency over the last 10 years. In addition, the new guidance from the Environment Agency says that because of Brexit—yes, Brexit—where water companies cannot get the chemicals they need because of the HGV crisis, they are allowed exemptions from current rules. For all those reasons there is very good reason to believe that without the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the situation would get worse and not better. My statement was clear, that without the change which the noble Duke is proposing, the situation over which the Government are presiding—the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is the Minister responsible—would get worse.
We are doing the right thing in supporting the noble Duke. The House has shown itself in its best lights in supporting him so strongly, I am glad that the Government have come to this position and now, I hope, they will start moving in the right direction rather than the wrong direction.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, had any part at all in encouraging the deluging of some of our colleagues in verbal sewage, he should apologise.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, who I imagine has not read any of this, is making totally unfounded allegations and he should withdraw them.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I said that if the noble Lord has any part in it, he should apologise.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, if we may return to the topic of the debate, I do not think the House is benefiting from this exchange.
I will briefly speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Before I do so, I thank the Minister for moving on the issue of conservation covenant agreements and agreeing to require that they must be executed by deed. I was pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and I congratulate him on bringing it to a successful conclusion.
I was likewise pleased to put my name to the original amendment tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, to address the scandal that we have heard so much about this evening and in our previous discussions of the hundreds of thousands of sewage discharges into our waterways every year. We should recall that the House of Commons in fact agreed to the majority of the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, but they removed the critical lines 7 to 14, which he is restoring by his amendment. As we have heard, a significant number of Conservative MPs rebelled on this issue either by voting against or by abstaining, and those who did not were given pause for thought by the outpouring of public anger on this issue. I, of course, deplore any vilification that there was on this.
This is a critical issue for the public and for the health of our inland and coastal waters and our environment as a whole, so we on these Benches will be pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
In the interests of time, and due to the fact that noble Lords have made important contributions to this debate, I hope that your Lordships will not be too disappointed that I have decided to completely tear up my speech. Instead, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for giving us the opportunity to return to the important issue of protecting pollinators from pesticides. I also thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for his tenaciousness in continuing to press the Government on this very important matter and for making serious progress. If he wishes to test the opinion of the House, he will have our full support, but I hope that the Government will not vote against.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords again for their contributions to this debate. I will briefly address Amendment 43B. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for, as I understand it, agreeing not to press her amendment—I hope I have not pre-empted a decision—but more importantly, for her work on this vital issue. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that she has been very effective at raising this issue on the agenda. I am grateful to her for that, and I hope we will be able to continue to work together on this issue as we develop a robust pesticide action plan. I thank her very much indeed.
Much has already been said regarding storm overflows, so I will keep it brief. I thank Members across the House and in the other place for their informed, valuable and passionate contributions. I am pleased that we were able to announce progress today. In response to the noble Baroness on the Front Bench I say that, while the Government must vote against this amendment today, for procedural reasons and to ensure that the House of Commons has an opportunity to deliver the proposed amendment in lieu, that is not a reflection of an ideological difference; it is simply a procedural issue.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked a number of questions, in particular about a timeline for the implementation of Schedule 3. It has already commenced and will be completed in 2022; I cannot give a month, I am afraid.
I very much appreciate the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. On the costs that she talked about, there is a difference between the cost of eliminating harm from overflows and the cost of eliminating overflows. It is the cost of eliminating overflows to which those figures apply. I will not pretend that I have been through the figures myself but, based on everything that I know, the range is anywhere between £150 billion and £500 billion. In real terms, it is not a relevant figure, in that no one is proposing that this amount of money should be spent on infrastructure. The key is the elimination of harm, which would allow the overflow to happen in some cases and for investment in sustainable systems such as reed beds and the like. That would not be the elimination of overflows but it would be effective management of them. It is, however, the correct figure for eliminating overflows.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked a question on the chemical issue. Again, it is not the case that there is a shortage of chemicals preventing the water companies doing their job. There is currently no disruption to the supply of water, water treatment or the treatment of wastewater. The shortage of HGV drivers had meant that there was a risk that deliveries of ferric sulphate, a water treatment chemical, would be delayed, but the Environment Agency successfully and very quickly mitigated that risk.
On Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I assure noble Lords that the Government will publish a nature recovery Green Paper in the coming months, setting out our approach to supporting nature recovery in England. It will show our commitment to and focus on this matter, which I know is enormously important to almost everyone in this House.
On Amendments 94 and 95, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I reiterate that we will not have in one year meaningful data with which to assess the effectiveness of this legislation. However, the disagreement that we have is entirely practical; it is not based on our hopes for the effectiveness of this legislation. As I said before, if it is clear before two years that something bad has happened and the Government have chosen to exploit or create a loophole, we will act long before the review deadline of two years. It will be very obvious to us should that be necessary.
Moving on to Motion K, although I ask the House to disagree to Amendment 66, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I very much appreciate her remarks and her commitment to the issue; she has pushed it right up the political agenda in a very effective way. I hope that your Lordships’ House will welcome the Government’s progress and the commitment to enhancing the protection of ancient woodlands, on which the noble Baroness and I have agreed, I am delighted to say.
On Motion M, I hope that noble Lords can support the Commons in its Amendments 67A to 67E, which will provide further reassurance to landowners on the issue of conservation governance.
I hope noble Lords agree that, in addition to the progress made in Committee and on Report, we have moved further today to protect our waters, our trees and our landscapes for future generations.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments, and I beg leave to withdraw Motion H1.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 45A (to Lords Amendment 45).
The Duke of Wellington
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 45B thereto—
“141A Duty on sewerage undertakers to take all reasonable steps to ensure untreated sewage is not discharged from storm overflows into inland and coastal waters
(1) A sewerage undertaker must, as soon as reasonable, take such steps as are necessary to—
(a) demonstrate improvement in the performance of sewerage systems, and
(b) secure progressive reductions in the harm caused by untreated sewage discharges into inland and coastal waters.
(2) The Secretary of State, the Director and the Environment Agency must exercise their respective functions under this and any other Act to secure compliance with this duty.””
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 65, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 65A.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 66, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 66A.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 67 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 67A, 67B, 67C, 67D and 67E in lieu.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 75 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 75A and 75B in lieu.
“(6) Before issuing the guidance, the Department must—
(a) prepare a draft, and
(b) lay the draft before the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(7) If before the end of the 21 day period the Northern Ireland Assembly passes a resolution in respect of the draft guidance, the Department must produce a response and lay it before the Assembly.
(8) The Department may prepare and lay before the Northern Ireland Assembly the final guidance, but not before—
(a) if subsection (7) applies, the day on which the Department lays the response required by that subsection, or
(b) otherwise, the end of the 21 day period.
(9) The final guidance has effect when it is laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(10) The Department must publish the guidance when it comes into effect.
(11) The “21 day period” is the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the draft guidance is laid under subsection (6).
(12) “Sitting day” means a day on which the Northern Ireland Assembly sits.
(13) The Department may revise the guidance at any time (and subsections (6) to (12) apply in relation to any revised guidance).”
Lord Tunnicliffe
Leave out from “75” to end and insert “, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 75A and 75B and do propose Amendment 75C in lieu—
“24A OEP independence
(1) The OEP has complete discretion in the carrying out of its functions in Northern Ireland, including in—
(a) preparing its enforcement policy,
(b) exercising its enforcement functions, and
(c) preparing and publishing its budget.
(2) The Department may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in section 22(6)(c).
(3) The OEP must have regard to the guidance in preparing its enforcement policy, unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise.
(4) Before issuing the guidance, the Department must—
(a) prepare and consult on a draft,
(b) lay the draft before the Northern Ireland Assembly, and
(c) publish a response to the consultation.
(5) The Department must publish the guidance when it comes into effect.
(6) In making or terminating appointments under paragraph 2(2B) and paragraph 5(8)(b) of Schedule 1, the Northern Ireland Department must obtain the consent of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of the Northern Ireland Assembly.””
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 85, do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 85A, 85B and 85C in lieu and do propose Amendment 85D as an amendment to Commons Amendment 85B and Amendment 85E as an amendment to Commons Amendment 85C—
“(1A) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may specify only items which—
(a) are single use items, and
(b) are supplied in connection with goods or services.”
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 94, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 94A.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 95, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 95A.
Environment Bill
Monday 8th November 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 8 November 2021 - (8 Nov 2021)
20:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 279 / Noes: 162 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 283 / Noes: 163 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendments 31A and 31B and disagrees with Lords amendment 31C.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 33B, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 45B, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Government motion that this House insists on its amendments 75A and 75B, Lords amendment 75C, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 85D and 85E.
Rebecca Pow
I am delighted to be here in the House for what I really hope will be the final time discussing the Bill, even though I have quite relished my involvement with it. It has been quite a journey, but here we are with a Bill that does so much to set us on a sustainable trajectory for future challenges: tackling air, water, and waste pollution; improving our environment on a scale never before done; and stemming the tide of biodiversity loss and restoring nature. The sum of all these parts is groundbreaking.
I turn first to Lords amendments 31C and 75C, tabled by the noble Lord Krebs and Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick in the other place, and amendments 31A, 31B, 75A and 75B, which the Government are insisting on today. I wish to put a number of points on the record in the knowledge that ministerial statements in Hansard could be drawn on by the courts as a legitimate aid to statutory interpretation in the future.
The office for environmental protection is and must be an independent body capable of holding public authorities to account for their environmental responsibilities, including through the use of its enforcement functions. That is why the Government have given the OEP a remit and powers of unprecedented breadth in the Bill. For the OEP to work effectively, it must act strategically and take action only when there is an environmental and public interest in doing so. On that point, everyone is agreed.
As the Secretary of State is ultimately accountable for the OEP’s performance and use of public funds, the Government consider that the accountability power in clause 24 is necessary to ensure that the body continues to use public resources effectively to achieve the greatest public good. However, I must be clear that the content of guidance is limited to the areas of the OEP’s enforcement policy listed in clause 22(6). It cannot be used to direct the OEP as to the content of any report it might produce or any advice to the Government. Indeed, it cannot be used as a power of direction at all. It would also be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on specific matters relating to the enforcement of environmental law against the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, given that there would be a conflict of interest. I do not want to be disingenuous: the OEP would be expected to have regard to any guidance issued, but it will retain the ability and discretion to make its own decisions, and will not be bound to act in accordance with the guidance where it has clear reasons not to do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister give way on that point?
Rebecca Pow
I am going to rattle on. We have one hour only, but I will respond in my closing speech as much as I can to any issues that arise.
Many in this place and the other place have previously raised concerns that the Secretary of State might be able to use guidance to preclude the OEP from investigating a broad category of individual cases or subject areas, such as a nuclear power station. I must say, unequivocally, that it is our view that the power could not lawfully be used in that way. Any guidance issued must be consistent with the duty in paragraph 17 of schedule 1 for the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to protect the independence of the OEP. Any guidance that diverted OEP scrutiny away from entire policy areas, outside of existing statutory steers on prioritisation, would not be in keeping with that duty. This is not a power that could be used simply to divert the OEP away from investigating issues that could be in some way inconvenient to the Government. The provision for guidance on how the OEP intends to exercise its functions means that the guidance will, by its nature, be on the OEP’s approach to those issues, rather than defining specific areas to prioritise or deprioritise.
The OEP will operate with a very high degree of independence, especially when it comes to making individual enforcement decisions. In exercising its discretion in individual cases, the OEP would need to have regard to all relevant factors, but must ultimately take all its decisions objectively, impartially and independently of Government. Furthermore, the Environment Bill already provides that the OEP should focus on cases that have national implications. Guidance could not be issued that went against the existing provisions, but it could instead add further detail. However, it will remain up to the OEP, within the framework provided by the Bill and any guidance, to determine whether cases that have a discrete local impact also have national implications, or for some other reason have sufficiently broad or widespread impact to be considered serious, or to be prioritised for the purposes of its enforcement functions.
It is important to note that the Secretary of State is also able to offer guidance on how the OEP should respect the integrity of other bodies and existing statutory regimes. With such a broad remit, the OEP will be able to scrutinise all public authorities, including many expert scientific bodies. This ability will be important for it to be able to take a broad view and identify systemic issues.
I am sure the OEP will be extremely effective, but it will be a relatively small body with a broad remit. The decisions of organisations such as the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which employs hundreds of world-leading marine scientists, will be based on deep expertise and often highly technical scientific data. The OEP will need to be mindful of that in its own decision making when scrutinising such bodies. It is important to get the balance right to maintain confidence and integrity within existing regimes, and guidance could help to address that. We believe the power is important to ensure accountability, so that the OEP can contribute to delivering environmental improvements in the way I think we all agree it should: by acting strategically not just in the short term, but long into the future.
Rebecca Pow
I hope that might answer the point the hon. Member was going to ask.
Draft guidance will need to be laid before both Houses for 21 days. During that time, either House will be able to review the guidance and make recommendations or resolutions to which the Government must respond. Select Committees, such as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee, may also wish to take the opportunity to scrutinise the guidance, and Ministers would be obliged to respond to them in the usual manner.
I turn now to Lords amendment 33B on environmental review, tabled by the noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu that I am tabling today. On environmental review, the key area of debate has been the remedies available in the event a breach of environmental law if that is confirmed by the court. At the heart of the issue has always been the fact that through environmental review the OEP will have the ability to bring cases to court outside standard judicial review time limits, potentially long after the decisions in question have been taken. For that reason, the Government have maintained that bespoke provision is necessary to ensure certainty and fairness for third parties who have acted in line with decisions made by public bodies, and to protect good administration.
The OEP may pursue cases for enforcement action only if it considers that the conduct in question would constitute a “serious” failure to comply with environmental law. Clause 22(7) states that the OEP must have regard, among other things,
“to the particular importance of prioritising cases that it considers have or may have national implications.”
The OEP will have discretion to interpret those criteria, setting out its approach in its enforcement policy, but it follows, in the Government’s view, that cases which have only a local concern, for example most individual planning and environmental permitting decisions, are unlikely to have sufficiently broad or widespread impact to be prioritised. The OEP could pursue such cases if it considers they are indicative of a broader or more systemic issue or failure, or if especially serious harm has or may result from the potential failure. The OEP, for example, could consider it in relation to the destruction of a nationally important population of a rare and protected species, but it should not be the norm.
However, we have listened to and carefully considered the views and concerns raised in this House and in the other place, and agree it is important that the protections are balanced with the need to prevent or mitigate serious environmental harm. As such, I am pleased to be able to propose an amendment in lieu, which strikes that important balance. In introducing it to the House, I must repeat my earlier acknowledgement that ministerial statements in Hansard could be drawn on by the courts as a legitimate aid to statutory interpretation in future. The amendment will ensure that a high bar is still set for the granting of remedies where third parties may be affected. This is set out in condition A of our amendment. But, critically, it will also provide that, even where condition A is not met, if the court is satisfied that it is necessary in order to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or human health, and there is an exceptional public interest reason to do so, the court will be able to grant a remedy. This is set out in condition B. It gives the court discretion to undertake a real and meaningful, albeit weighted, balancing exercise. It means that there would no longer be a blanket prohibition on the granting of remedies where third parties are likely to suffer substantial hardship or prejudice.
In the rare cases where third parties may be affected, however, I would like to illustrate how this provision could operate with an example. Potentially, on an environmental review, the court could rule that an environmental permit had been granted to a factory operator with such inadequate conditions that it was unlawful. If the court concluded that condition A was not met, because substantial hardship to the factory operator would be likely to result from quashing the permit, it would turn to condition B. If, in the absence of a quashing order, it is likely that the factory would continue to release harmful air pollutants with serious impacts for the health of the local population, the court may conclude that it is necessary to grant a remedy in order to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or human health. At this point, the court would need to weigh the public interest in preventing serious harm against the public interest in preventing substantial hardship occurring to the third party. In order to grant a remedy, the court would need to be satisfied that the public interest in preventing this serious harm substantially outweighed the interest in preventing hardship, thereby constituting an “exceptional public interest reason” to grant the remedy.
In such cases, where severe damage to the environment or people’s health could occur or continue if no remedy was granted, the court may choose to grant a remedy. Given the types of serious cases that the OEP is likely to bring, we consider that this test strikes the appropriate balance. I have every faith that it will do so and that the amendment will therefore be a valuable addition to the OEP’s enforcement framework as a whole. I hope that the amendment provides reassurance that the Government are thoroughly committed to protecting against environmental harms through the OEP’s enforcement functions, and that the House will support it today.
I turn to what I believe most people are waiting for: the issue of storm overflows. I hope that colleagues will bear with me while I set out our position, because I believe that this is extremely important. So many people have spoken to and contacted me constantly about this whole process and I will take questions at the end, if that is okay, because we are so tight for time.
I have been clear that the frequency with which sewage is discharged from storm overflows into our waters is absolutely unacceptable. It is a credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and the campaigning of many others that the phrase “storm overflow” is now used 47 times on the face of the Bill. However, I recognise that many hon. Members wanted to see more, and I am pleased to have tabled a further amendment that says that water companies “must” secure a progressive reduction in the adverse impact of discharges from their storm overflows. In this legal drafting, the word “must” means that we are placing a direct legal duty on water companies to do this. That is really crucial. Water companies will have a simple choice: reduce sewage discharges or face the consequences—that is, strong enforcement action.
Turning back to the specific amendment from the Duke of Wellington, we have redrafted it to ensure that it has proper legal effect and there is more effective implementation, and we have gone further in places. I have had much discussion with the Duke of Wellington —I greatly respect and value that—and I would like to clarify a number of points. This amendment places a clear legal duty on water companies to deliver improvements —something that the Duke particularly pressed for. Indeed, ours is a stronger duty than in his wording. Our amendment will ensure that they have to take the necessary steps relative to the size of the problem. We have taken the “progressive” reduction wording from the Lords amendment. “Progressive” means that water companies must continue to take action even after the next price review period and even after they have achieved a significant reduction and tackled high-priority sites, as required in the draft policy statement to the regulator, Ofwat.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give way?
Rebecca Pow
I will not take any interventions, because I just want to get this on the record, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind—I know that he is passionate about this whole environmental issue.
I am aware of some wildly inaccurate claims that have been circulating online for the past so many days that we are somehow legalising the dumping of raw sewage—we are not. Our amendment goes further than the Lords amendment by legally specifying that “adverse impacts” includes impacts both on the environment and on public health—for bathers, canoeists and so forth. Enforcement was a key part of the Duke’s amendment and our version goes further, because it will dock in with the existing enforcement regime in the Water Industry Act 1991. Ofwat can issue enforcement notices that can direct specific actions or fine companies up to 10% of their annual turnover, running to millions of pounds. If we do not see sufficient progress from water companies, Ofwat and the Government will be able to take enforcement action, and we will not hesitate to do so. Not only that—under other provisions in the Bill, the OEP will be able to take enforcement action against the Environment Agency or Ofwat or, indeed, the Government, should it feel that any of us are not adequately discharging our duties.
There has been much debate about the costs required to eliminate sewage discharges from storm overflows. Last week, the Storm Overflows Taskforce, which I set up, published research on this issue. It estimated that the complete elimination of sewage discharges through storm overflows in England, which many are calling for more broadly, is likely to cost between approximately £350 billion and £600 billion. That could mean up to £1,000 on bills every year. There are important discussions to be had about the best way to address this important issue while protecting bill payers, and this very morning, I called the CEOs of all the water companies in to a meeting. They assured me that they recognise the need for urgent action. We must see better performance from them and I will be watching the progress closely, as indeed, will the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
I would much very like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and the Duke of Wellington for their tireless efforts on this issue. Today, I am asking the House to vote in support of the Government: you will be voting directly—
Rebecca Pow
Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker—that is a pity. My fault—I got carried away. Today, I am asking the House to vote in support of the Government, and this means a vote directly to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, with greater protection for our waters than ever before.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Here we are again—it is 648 days since the Environment Bill was first introduced to Parliament and we are still here debating it, trying to get bolder action from Ministers on the environment, climate and nature. Ministers, I am afraid, are still dragging their heels in not introducing the bold action that we need—particularly against the routine discharge of raw sewage into rivers—still favouring a weaker watchdog than they should be.
In the middle of a climate and ecological crisis and at the very time that the UK is hosting COP26, this is generational injustice in action. We need to see bolder action. There was no mention from the Chancellor in the Budget of climate or nature. In fact, there were cuts to domestic flying duty, coupled with the Prime Minister flying from Glasgow to London on a private jet. I am sure that the Minister will have joined me when we came back from COP in travelling by train, rather than flying, and the Prime Minister should have done so as well. It is a wrong, bad, outdated message to say, “Do as I say. Don’t do as I do”, but I am afraid that that is what we are used to. It sets an appalling example for the world that the Prime Minister did not take the train instead of taking the plane, and it is up to us here to sort that out.
Britain is, again, the dirty man of Europe. Not one English river is in a healthy condition; not one meets good chemical standards.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The hon. Member will no doubt be aware that I am seeking water bathing status for the Thames along Port Meadow. One reason why that is so important is the dire state of our rivers: none of them is chemically sound. The illnesses that my constituents have reported, when they just wanted to get into the river for the sake of their mind and body, are atrocious. Does he agree that this is a national issue that is not adequately addressed by the amendments, and we need to go further?
Luke Pollard
As a keen wild swimmer, I want bathing water quality in our rivers to improve massively, not just for swimmers but for the natural world, so I support the hon. Lady in her efforts.
Water quality in our rivers in England is not good enough. In the past year alone, raw sewage was discharged into UK rivers and seas more than 400,000 times. The Government’s response was to whip their MPs to vote against an amendment that would have stopped raw human sewage pouring into our precious rivers and seas. I am afraid that the message that that vote sent was a poor one.
Then came the rightful public outcry, which shamed the Government into a U-turn after days of digging in their heels. They have now adopted much of the amendment that they voted against, which is welcome, but they have not adopted it all. I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for their time speaking to the Opposition about the issue, and I am grateful for the Minister’s words today putting our concerns on record, but I have to say that publishing an amendment at 5 pm last Friday did not really build trust, either among Members on both sides of the House who wanted to see the detail or among the stakeholders who were looking forward to scrutinising carefully what the Minister had to say.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Trust is paramount for the communities up and down the great rivers of this country, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) mentioned. Reading is downstream from Abingdon; London is further downstream. We are all deeply concerned about the state of our rivers. Although the Government have given some concessions and have listened to some extent, the way they have behaved still leaves a lot to be desired. The public remain deeply concerned about the issue.
Luke Pollard
I believe that the public are seriously concerned about what has happened in the House over the past few weeks. They have been alerted and awakened to the volume of raw sewage discharged into their rivers and seas; they want faster and bolder action from Ministers now that they are aware of this absolute outrage in our environment. That is why we need to build trust again.
In her speech and in earlier remarks, the Minister has cited a figure of more than £600 billion, but the maths is disputed, to say the least. It is not sufficient to say, “To deal with this properly will cost £600 billion, but to deal with tinkering around the edges will cost hardly anything on the side,” and pretend that those are fair options to choose between. We need a much bolder approach, with honesty and clarity rather than threats about bills and about how the process works.
We also need to look at how to build trust with the public again, because they are very concerned. I share the Minister’s concern about fake news online and do not wish to see wildly inaccurate claims made, so such a large figure needs to be backed up with clear evidence. I have tabled a parliamentary question asking the Minister for the working behind it; I hope she will be able to confirm the answer in due course.
Labour wants a stronger amendment. The Minister’s amendment in lieu of the Duke of Wellington’s amendment is confined to storm overflows rather than addressing the sewerage system as a whole—a really important point. There is no specific duty on Ofwat or the Environment Agency to ensure compliance, but there should be. We need to focus on reducing harm, rather than just on the adverse impacts. The amendment in lieu looks like the Government looking busy without making a real difference, so I want to set out three things that I hope the Minister will confirm today that could make a difference.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
We all want to clean up the rivers. Could the hon. Gentleman give some idea of the timetable and cost that he thinks would be appropriate?
Luke Pollard
Funnily enough, that is a point that I was going to refer to the Minister, because there is no timetable—a really glaring hole in what has been published today. A progressive reduction in discharges sounds all well and good, but I would like to progressively reduce the amount of cake I eat, and yet there is a big difference between doing that over a day and doing it over a year. I am a big fan of cake, as some in the House may know.
Let us get down to the detail. There are three things that I would like the Minister to confirm; otherwise, I fear that we will not be able to support her amendment. First, will she commit to reviewing the scale of fines so that water companies that continue to routinely discharge raw sewage face higher penalties?
Secondly, Labour wants the guidance in the strategic policy statement for Ofwat to be super-strengthened so that there is a clear direction to water companies to target the most polluting discharges now, with a plan to address the rest urgently against a clear timeframe. Progress by DEFRA, Ofwat, the EA and water companies should have proper parliamentary scrutiny annually via the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, or potentially the Environmental Audit Committee.
Thirdly, will the Minister set out in detail what she means by “progressive reduction”? That means answering two very simple questions: by when, and how much? If that cannot be set out, it is just spin. I fear that water companies could say, “We are meeting our progressive reduction with these two tiny projects over here,” and not set out a clear commitment. By when and how much will discharges be progressively reduced?
Luke Pollard
I will keep going, just because of the pressure on time.
It is not just the Opposition who have concerns. Water UK and water companies tell us that they have concerns about the Government’s amendment and favour the Duke of Wellington’s. Green groups, environmental groups, angling groups, fishing groups and swimming groups also say that they favour the Duke of Wellington’s amendment over the compromise amendment, so there is widespread concern.
There is a lesson for Tory Back Benchers from the sewage vote and from what happened last week with parliamentary standards and corruption. It is now a brave Tory Back Bencher who will listen to their Whips on unpopular votes, because after dragging their MPs into the gutter, the Government are likely to U-turn a week later and make them look foolish. However, let us be clear about the agency that each Member of Parliament has. The last vote on sewage was a disaster for the reputation of many Members of this House. They knew what they were doing: they were putting the party Whip ahead of the environment, and voters will judge them on it. Doing it once was a mistake; doing it twice is a pattern that voters will recognise and will vote on accordingly next time round.
It is vital that we rebuild trust on the issue. The sewage scandal has been a shameful episode for the Government. There is real cross-party desire to make our approach stronger. I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether she will support the three elements that I have outlined so that we can support her amendment; if we do not get that reassurance, I am afraid that we cannot.
Labour wants the OEP, instead of being a lapdog, to be a strong, robustly independent watchdog. The Minister has tried to put reassurances on the record that the Government will not seek to frustrate the OEP if it needs to hold them to account and take enforcement action against Ministers. In the past week, however, we have seen exactly what happens when the rules no longer suit the Government, so we want them in the Bill—not just a statement from the Dispatch Box that may or may not be used in future court cases, but clear rules in the Bill.
What the Minister set out about having regard to the guidance is welcome, but the experience with budget-setting powers and with the Electoral Commission, where Ministers have threatened a public body on receiving bad news from it in another investigation, is a bad precedent that needs to be removed.
We want the Bill to be better. There are good things in it, but on the whole it is just a bit “meh”: it does not reach the scale of the action we need for the scale of the crisis we face. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister set out whether she will support the three things that I mentioned. If not, I am afraid that Labour will not be able to support her compromise amendment on sewage and will vote against it so that we can secure a vote on the Duke of Wellington’s amendment, which is far superior.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I am very conscious of time, so I will be brief. I rise to discuss Lords amendment 45 and the Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 45B. I thank the Minister for the time that she and the Secretary of State have taken to engage with me and with the Duke of Wellington in relation to his amendment, which I supported at the last stage. I particularly thank the Minister for her clarification today that the Government amendment in lieu places in the Bill a clear duty on water companies to reduce the impact of sewage discharges. That issue was at the heart of my private Member’s Bill and is included in her amendment.
What the Minister’s amendment adds, which was not in my private Member’s Bill or, frankly, in the Duke’s amendment, is the commitment to include a reduction in harm to public health, which will be of great benefit to the increasing numbers of people who use our rivers for swimming, canoeing and other activities that involve actually getting into the water, rather than just touching it with a fly or a leaded weight to catch a fish. The public health impact is something that we should not forget.
There have been comments about how effective the Minister’s proposed enforcement regime will be. I think that locking the enforcement regime into the existing Water Industry Act regime is potentially a more effective method than the one proposed in the previous Lords amendment. Of course there will have to be enforcement, and one of the big problems that we have had with the Environment Agency over the last 30 years is that its powers have not been rigorously enforced. I strongly encourage the Minister, as she engages with the consequences of the spending review, to urge the agency to increase its enforcement efforts in respect of the water companies.
There have also been comments—a few moments ago from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), with whom I have also engaged on this matter, and from outside—to the effect that the concept of a progressive reduction could be trivial. The hon. Gentleman gave some examples. I think that that is to fundamentally misunderstand how the amendment will lock into the other measures in the Bill. Before my private Member’s Bill emerged, the Government had already indicated that they would introduce for the first time in statute a requirement for sewerage undertakings to produce a drainage and sewerage management plan to last five years. Every five years, it would be updated. Within that plan, there is a requirement to reduce the impact of the activities on the environment.
The proposed new clause locks the duty into those plans, and the plans are subject to a Government power to rewrite them if the Secretary of State of the day does not believe that they are good enough or go far enough. So there is, in my view, a clear link between the amendment and requiring water companies to make a progressive reduction in sewage discharges of materiality. That seems to have been missed by many of the commentators who have been complaining about whether the Bill has teeth.
In addition—as the Minister said—to this set of requirements on water companies, the office for environmental protection will have the power to investigate poor behaviour on the part of companies that do not meet their statutory duties in the Bill, which include a progressive reduction in sewage discharges and their impact. It will be able to consider whether the Environment Agency is doing its job in regulating the companies’ progressive reduction of those discharges, and, as we have just heard, it can also investigate Ofwat.
For all those reasons, I think that the Bill provides a clear direction to water companies that they must reduce sewage discharges, which, as Members in all parts of the House agree, have got to stop. I will be supporting the amendment.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I will not speak for very long. I am aware—as always—that the Bill is largely concerned with English environmental matters, as environment is for the most part devolved to Scotland, and I have to say, thank goodness for that! The Lords amendments serve to highlight some of the progress that Scotland has made in environmental protection.
In respect of the amendments on the OEP, I should point out that we have already established an independent governance body in Environmental Standards Scotland, which is fully independent of the Scottish Government and answerable to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government were happy to support it, because they know that true independence of regulators is a vital part of their role.
It seems to me that the UK Government’s reluctance to accept independent oversight is one of the main causes of delay to the implementation of the Bill. It strikes me as incredible that one of the cornerstones of environmental protection in England, post Brexit, is an issue still being argued about by this Government. It exposes the fact that our departure from the EU leaves us all very vulnerable to this Government, any future decisions that they might make to slash regulations, and subsequent environmental backsliding. It is also disappointing to note that the Government have resisted calls to take really strong action through the Bill, such as implementing the World Health Organisation’s standards for air quality, which we have done in Scotland. Let me also record again my utter dismay that the Government inserted an amendment via the House of Lords, the intent and outcome of which I still deplore. UK Ministers ignored the express wishes of the Scottish Parliament as detailed in the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 on a devolved issue, and cut those wishes down.
Let me turn to the amendments on sewage. Water is an area very clearly devolved to Scotland. Scottish Water is a statutory organisation, accountable to the Scottish Parliament. It is owned, if you like, by the people for the people, and that is the way the Scottish people like it. Although we have our own problems with outdated Victorian sewer systems struggling to cope with the “once in a hundred years” events that now seem to be occurring every two to three years, the fact remains that any profits made by Scottish Water are invested in the services and infrastructure of Scotland’s waterways rather than the pockets of shareholders, and that Scottish Water does not carry the stratospheric levels of debt carried by English water companies—and that is the way the people of Scotland like it too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hope that the next contributions will be very brief indeed, because we can only keep the debate running until seven minutes past eight.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak about these Lords amendments.
I welcome the Government’s progress on the Office for Environmental Protection. I think that its independence is better protected than it was before, but that is something of which we must be very conscious. I believe that it will be very effective under Dame Glenys Stacey, and I think that the Secretary of State will work with her, as will Ministers, to ensure that it is indeed independent. It must have enough resources to be able to continue its work. I hope that it will prevent a great many cases from going to court. We will ultimately need a judicial system to make it work, but I hope that the new system and the new body will bring about many conclusions on environmental problems, and a good deal of advice so that cases do not end up in the courts for years.
I will be very quick, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to welcome the work that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) has put into the outflows amendment, and also the work done by the Duke of Wellington. Together, they have negotiated extremely well—dare I say it—with the Government, and what the Government have now come up with is absolutely right.
Geraint Davies
As the hon. Gentleman knows, if we do not accept the Wellington amendment, we will all have to wear Wellington boots to avoid the stools while we are paddling. But does he agree that we also need on-roof water capture with water butts, upstream water capture, and downstream and water processing plant capture so that we can take the pressure off the sewerage system when there is flash flooding, and sort out this problem without immediate massive investment in the sewers?
Neil Parish
I thank my hon. Friend—I will call him my hon. Friend—from the Select Committee. As he rightly says, we need to capture more storm water and rainwater, because it is unfortunately getting into the sewers and causing these outflows. That is an important point. The water companies have to ensure that they recompense their shareholders, but having done an enquiry in previous Parliaments, I know that we have to apply a lot of heat to those companies to ensure that they put the investment into curing the problem of outflows. We also have to ensure that the Environment Agency and Ofwat use their teeth on those companies to make that happen.
I believe that we can do this. There is a great deal of cost involved, but those companies need to concentrate a lot of their resources on these issues to ensure the quality of the water we bathe in, the rivers that we fish in and those that we want to swim in. Like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), I also do a bit of wild swimming. I swim in the River Parrett, so I will probably end up in the Bristol channel one day. But seriously, I believe that we will clean up the water but we must put pressure on the water companies. What the Minister has said is welcome, and I know that the Secretary of State will also put pressure on them. I will stop there, because I know that many hon. Members from across the House and from Devon and Cornwall and across the west country want to speak on this issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now put on a time limit of three minutes so that we can get as many people in as possible. If people could speak for less than three minutes, that would be absolutely great.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I want to thank everyone in my constituency who has written to me about the Environment Bill during its long progress. It has been a long time coming, but I will be brief. I would also like to thank those in the other place who have put up a good fight and improved the Bill. I am disappointed that, despite all the wrangling, the debates and the evidence, there is still an enormous gap between the Government’s rhetoric on the environment and this Bill, which simply does not go far enough. While all the eyes and hopes of the world are on Glasgow and COP26, the Government are doing all they can to resist introducing concrete protections, leaving our environment as a bargaining chip for new trade agreements that would undercut Britain’s environmental standards. They cannot have it both ways.
I am disappointed that the Government have refused to include World Health Organisation air quality targets in the Bill. There is much unfinished business here, on trees and on single-use plastics, and I must include wet wipes in that. The Office for Environmental Protection was meant to hold Ministers to account on their green policies, but the simple truth is that the Government’s preferred OEP will lack independence and will not be able to hold Tory Ministers to account in the way that they have promised. That is why we had such tortuous explanations of how it will work in the opening statement: the Bill is simply not clear enough and does not go far enough. I therefore urge colleagues to support Lords amendments 31C and 75C.
I am proud to have the River Thames in my constituency, but we have a dirty water emergency. While the Government’s proposal is a big improvement on what went before, it still does not place a duty on the Secretary of State, as set out in Lords amendment 45B proposed by the Duke of Wellington, to tackle sewage, to tackle that plastic getting out and to tackle the killing of fish, which happens on a regular basis worldwide. This progressive reduction does not cut it with those of us on the Opposition Benches. In short, the Bill is still not fit for purpose. It has certainly improved since its First Reading nearly two years ago. I was proud to be on the Bill Committee, in which nearly 200 amendments that would have improved the Bill were tabled, but not one of them was agreed to.
We have had to drag the Government kicking and screaming just to get the Bill to this stage, and that is embarrassing when the UK is supposed to be showing global leadership on the climate emergency. There have been a lot of bold words from the Government, and I really hope to see them put into practice, but I fear that the Office for Environmental Protection will not be able to enforce everything, just as the Environment Agency has not been able to enforce everything, and that is why we have our dirty rivers. We will be cheering this on, and we will hope for more, but we are disappointed by the progress so far.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I would very much like to thank the Minister for her clarity today. I represent a constituency that has a great river running through it. It is a river that I have sailed on all my life and also swum in all my life, albeit sometimes unintentionally. This whole debate around the sewage amendment is very personal to me because I am the daughter of a boatbuilder who often used to work on boats on his creek right next to raw sewage and water scum. Nobody on the Government Benches could deny that that kind of environment is totally disgusting.
Also, this year we saw an unprecedented period in which our beautiful Kent beaches were shut because of an absolute disaster involving the dispersal of sewage from the overflows. There is no doubt that water companies pumping sewage into our waterways in 2021 is disgusting. Two weeks ago, I supported the Duke of Wellington’s amendment because I wanted the Government to go as far as they could practically go in stopping this practice. I am very thankful for the work of the Minister and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and for the discussions that have gone on in these two weeks to ensure that we have been able to bring forward this amendment today. I will support the Government tonight, because I totally believe that this new duty, combined with other measures in the Bill, will be a major step towards ending the use of storm overflows.
I was disappointed by some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for whom I have great respect. We need to recognise that this Government and these Ministers are the first to tackle the issue of sewage and storm overflows. No Government have done that previously, and I am proud that the Minister, who is so passionate about this issue, has worked incredibly hard to accommodate our worries and fears. The Environment Bill is a major piece of work for the protection and improvement of our environment. Make no mistake, these measures will cost the water companies and the bill payers, but I believe that they will bring the water companies into line so that we can stop this disgusting practice. I will be very happy to support the Minister and her team tonight.
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, but I will not take too long. I want to ask the Minister a quick question. I am pleased to see what is coming forward in relation to single-use items and the conservation covenants, and I am pleased that those measures have all been passed. However, I still have a concern about the Office for Environmental Protection’s enforcement policy. Lords amendment 31 states:
“The OEP has complete discretion in the carrying out of its functions, including in—
(a) preparing its enforcement policy,
(b) exercising its enforcement functions, and
(c) preparing and publishing its budget.”
That has merit in my eyes, and I would be interested to hear the Government’s rationale as to why they believe it is unnecessary, as I believe that similar amendments were made in relation to Northern Ireland.
I am also gratified to learn that there is now a Government amendment in place for a duty to be enshrined in law to ensure that water companies secure a progressive reduction in the adverse impacts of discharges from storm overflows. That has been lacking for many years, and I have seen the devastating effects of discharge from storm overflows on homes that merit at least this form of protection. For too many years, the water companies have been doing the bare minimum. I seek the Minister’s confirmation that more will be done to ensure that the rivers and waterways around this great United Kingdom are protected, that more will be done than just the bare minimum, and that this will be the beginning of progress. We must all take our obligation to future generations more seriously. I often say, as others do, that we leave our environment for the generations that come after us, and for the sake of my grandchildren—and my great-grandchildren, when that time comes—we must ensure that the water companies step up to their agenda.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I will be as brief as possible, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Ministers for listening and for moving on this issue, and above all I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who was sitting next to me, for his leadership on this issue. I do not think that this could have happened without him. To be blunt, if this amendment is good enough for him, it is good enough for me. He would not support it if it were not strong.
On the Isle of Wight we have some wonderfully clean beaches, but any sewage discharge is unacceptable. In a place that is environmentally sensitive—we are a UNESCO biosphere—and that has so many amenity sites because of so many visitors swimming, having human poo on our beaches is not acceptable. The same applies in the Solent, for sailors, whether they are in the Solent accidentally or deliberately. We need to clean this up.
I also note that I know the Government are somewhat victims of their own success. It is great being lectured by the Opposition, but this groundbreaking Bill is being brought in by the Government side, and we should all be supporting it.
I have two questions for the Minister, who was kind enough to say that she would take them. First, the Government have power to push the water firms to go further, faster. Will she be willing, and will the Secretary of State next to her be willing, to use that power to ensure that the water firms understand the urgency of this situation for our waterways and our beaches?
Secondly, and if I understand it rightly, can the Minister confirm that ecologically sensitive sites and amenity sites, as which the Isle of Wight’s beaches both qualify, will be given priority? I am writing to the water firms about that this evening, but anything the Minister could do to clear that up and to ensure that those amenity and ecologically sensitive sites are prioritised would be very welcome.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I rise to oppose the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 45B on sewage discharges. We need higher fines for polluters and annual parliamentary scrutiny and to define progressive reductions—how much, and by when—of sewage discharges, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said.
The Thames runs through my constituency; I have kayaked there, I have paddle-boarded and on Saturday I ran 26.2 miles along it. I quote:
“The real test of Government seriousness is whether they also instruct regulators to authorise investment in sewers, and end policies that make the problem worse.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the water companies on 22 October. Why were the Government dragging their feet when the water companies were encouraging them to support the Duke of Wellington’s amendment?
There has been broad support for stronger action. Yet again, the Minister quotes the £600 billion cost that she says dealing with the problem will cause, but the water companies say the cost is in the region of £13 billion to £20 billion using concrete storage tanks, or £20 billion to £30 billion more if they are accompanied by natural drainage schemes that bring wider community benefits. That compares with the £1.2 billion already being spent by industry on overflows between 2020 and 2025. This does not represent some unfeasibly large jump in effort, say the water companies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport explained that the amendment does not go far enough, so Labour will not be supporting it. DEFRA has been decimated; the Minister herself just now described the OEP as a small organisation. The Government’s approach to this aspect of the Environment Bill—in fact, all aspects of the Environment Bill—is yet another example of how they just pay lip service to the environment.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I will be brief, because I know we want to end. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for articulating what I would have wanted to say, had I had longer to speak. I also thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their accessibility in this ongoing negotiation on sewage storm overflows.
This issue has been a passion of mine since childhood, when I grew up on the Yorkshire coast and swam in said sewage. Now I have the great privilege of representing two coastlines in Cornwall, as well as inland waterways, and to have been a member of Surfers Against Sewage since before I moved to Cornwall. It has been a great regret that the organisation has been at the centre of a very nasty campaign, supported by hon. Members on the Opposition side, accusing me of having voted to pump raw sewage into the oceans, which I have not. All of us in this Chamber can agree that we want to put an end to that. If anybody accuses me of that again, I would be grateful if they wrote to my office so that I can provide them with a detailed answer.
I look forward to seeing Truro and Falmouth benefit from the myriad of measures within the Bill, which I do not have time to go into. I am grateful to Members of both Houses of Parliament, of all political persuasions, for showing how well this House works and how it is possible to get the Government to move on something that is extremely important to everyone. I will leave my comments there, because I know that we are short of time.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I will finish within a minute and 20 seconds, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let us just focus on the sewage, then, given that that is the time available to us.
We have, thanks to the Government amendment, now a duty on water companies to progressively reduce the amount of sewage discharged through storm overflows —but there are no targets for either volume or timescale. That leaves water companies with the power to continue doing what they do now. This amendment is something to get Conservative Back Benchers off the hook, rather than to give water companies the direction they need.
I represent the English Lake District. I am disgusted that there is raw sewage being dumped into Lake Windermere for 71 days, collectively, in any given year. This amendment will do nothing to stop that. Currently, a water company dumps 40% of all the phosphates in Windermere. If that goes down to 39%, there is no measure to say whether that is okay, so I assume the water companies will think that it is okay.
What about timescale? What if the amount goes down over five years or over 10 years? All the Government amendment does is give the Back Benchers of the Conservative party an excuse to write to their constituents and say, “There has been further movement in the right direction.” It allows the Government to let the water companies off the hook, while doing nothing at all to demand what is necessary to clean up our lakes and our rivers.
Rebecca Pow
We have been two and a quarter years bringing this enormous Bill through Parliament. I want to thank all hon. Members and hon. Friends for their contributions, particularly those who have approached me personally over the past few days: my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Jacob Young), for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for Devizes (Danny Kruger), for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), for Havant (Alan Mak), for Keighley (Robbie Moore), for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson), for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) and for Watford (Dean Russell).
I also thank many others from all around our coasts, including my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). If I have left anybody out, I will be writing to them—[Interruption.] And my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). Yes, we will be looking at ecological sites and bathing waters first when we bring in the storm overflows legislation. That should placate the wild swimmer from the Opposition Benches, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard).
I have outlined in enormous detail why we should vote for these amendments—
Environment Bill
Tuesday 9th November 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 63-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments - (9 Nov 2021)
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 31A and 31B on which the Commons have insisted for their Reason 31D, and do not insist on its Amendment 31C in lieu to which the Commons have disagreed for the same Reason.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, this is a momentous month for the environment. We are hosting the world at COP 26, the world’s best chance to reach agreement on the action needed to avert catastrophic climate change and support those already experiencing its effects. Huge global progress has already been made in this forum. Over 130 countries representing more than 90% of the world’s forests have committed to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. We have secured an unprecedented $20 billion to protect the world’s forests. Financial institutions with assets worth nearly $9 trillion have committed to align with nature. We secured the commitment from the big multilateral development banks, including the World Bank, that they too will align their portfolios not only with Paris goals but with nature as well. And, crucially, we secured a commitment from the 12 biggest buyers of agricultural commodities—including China Oil and Foodstuffs Corporation—that their buying policies will be aligned with 1.5 degrees and our overall deforestation goals. Each of these commitments is new and unprecedented; combined, they are mutually reinforcing, and this represents a turning point in our relationship with the world’s forests. Our job is now to inject real accountability into the process and to ensure that these promises are kept in full. This landmark Environment Bill, which we hope is now so close to its conclusion, will be an integral part of that action.
Noble Lords will have seen that this Government have moved significantly on a number of the issues which your Lordships’ House insisted on at Third Reading. I will begin by discussing Amendments 31C and 75C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and Amendments 31A, 31B, 75A and 75B which have been re-tabled by my honourable friend Minister Pow in the other place.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for their work in this important area. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in particular for his conversations with me and with the Secretary of State on the power in the Bill to offer guidance to the OEP. As a direct result of those conversations, there are a number of points that I would like to put on the record today, in the knowledge that ministerial statements in Hansard could be drawn on by the courts as a legitimate aid to statutory interpretation in the future.
The OEP is and must be an independent body capable of holding public authorities to account on their environmental responsibilities, including through the use of their enforcement functions. That is why the Government have given the OEP a remit and powers of unprecedented breadth in this Bill. In order for the OEP to work effectively, it must act strategically and take action only when there is an environmental and public interest in doing so. On this point, everyone is agreed.
As the Secretary of State is ultimately accountable for the OEP’s performance and use of public funds, the Government consider that this accountability power in Clause 24 is necessary to ensure that the body continues to use public resources effectively to achieve the greatest public good. However, I must be clear that the content of guidance is limited to the areas of the OEP’s enforcement policy listed in Clause 22(6). It cannot be used to direct the OEP as to the content of any report they might produce or any advice to the Government. Indeed, it cannot be used as a power of direction at all. It would also be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on specific matters relating to the enforcement of environmental law against the Secretary of State for Defra, given that there would be a conflict of interest.
I do not want to be disingenuous: the OEP would be expected to have regard to any guidance issued, but it retains the ability and discretion to make its own decisions and is not bound to act in accordance with the guidance where it has clear reasons not to do so. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others have previously raised concerns that the Secretary of State might be able to use guidance to preclude the OEP investigating a broad category of individual cases or subject areas, such as nuclear power stations. I must say unequivocally that it is our view that the power could not lawfully be used in this way.
Any guidance issued must be consistent with the duty in paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 for the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to protect the independence of the OEP. Any guidance that diverts OEP scrutiny away from entire policy areas, outside existing statutory steers on prioritisation, would not be in keeping with that duty. This is not a power that could be used simply to divert the OEP away from investigating issues that could be in some way inconvenient to government. The provision for guidance on how the OEP intends to exercise its functions means that the guidance will in its nature be on the OEP’s approach to these issues, rather than defining specific areas to prioritise or deprioritise.
The OEP will operate with a very high degree of independence, especially when it comes to making individual enforcement decisions. In exercising its discretion in individual cases, the OEP would need to have regard to all relevant factors, but ultimately must take all its decisions objectively, impartially and independently of government.
Furthermore, the Environment Bill already provides that the OEP should focus on cases that have national implications. Guidance could not be issued that goes against these existing provisions and could instead add further detail. However, it will remain up to the OEP, within the framework provided by the Bill and any guidance, to determine whether cases that have a discrete local impact also have national implications, or for some other reason have sufficiently broad or widespread impact to be considered serious, or to be prioritised, for the purposes of its enforcement functions.
It is important to note that the Secretary of State is also able to offer guidance on how the OEP should respect the integrity of other bodies and existing statutory regimes. With such a huge and broad remit, the OEP will be able to scrutinise all public authorities, including many expert scientific bodies. This ability will be important for the OEP to be able to take a broad view and identify systemic issues.
Although I am sure the OEP will be extremely effective, it will be a relatively small body with a broad remit. The decisions of organisations such as Cefas, for example, which employs hundreds of world-leading marine scientists, will be based on deep expertise and often highly technical scientific data. The OEP will need to be mindful of this in its own decision-making when scrutinising these bodies. It is important to get this balance right to maintain confidence and integrity within existing regimes, and guidance could help to address this.
We believe that this power is important to ensure accountability, so that the OEP can contribute to delivering environmental improvements in the way I think we all agree it should: by acting strategically, not just in the short term, but long into the future. I can also confirm that this Government will not issue guidance to the OEP before its initial set-up or before it has had the chance to develop its own enforcement policy.
I recognise the points that noble Lords have raised, which is why the Government previously reintroduced a provision for Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly to scrutinise any draft guidance before it is issued. I hope my assurances regarding what this power could and could not be used for, as well as the additional parliamentary scrutiny we have provided for, serve to reassure noble Lords about this provision.
Turning to Amendments 33B and 33C, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this topic, but in particular the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for his detailed and continuously constructive conversations with me and my officials. On environmental review, the key area of debate has been the remedies available in the event that a breach of environmental law is confirmed by the court. At the heart of this issue has always been the fact that, through environmental review, the OEP will have the ability to bring cases to court outside standard judicial review time limits, potentially long after the decisions in question have been taken. For this reason, the Government have maintained that bespoke provision is necessary to ensure certainty and fairness for third parties who have acted in line with decisions made by public bodies, and to protect good administration.
Lord Krebs
Leave out from first “do” to end and insert “insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 31A and 31B on which the Commons have insisted for their Reason 31D, do not insist on its Amendment 31C in lieu to which the Commons have disagreed for the same Reason, and do propose Amendment 31E in lieu—
“(1) The OEP has complete discretion in the carrying out of its functions and in preparing and publishing its budget (but subject to this section).
(2) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in section 22(6), but this should not include matters relating to the enforcement of environmental law against the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
(2A) The OEP must have regard to the guidance in preparing its enforcement policy, unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise.””
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Bill team for the very helpful discussions that I have had with them throughout, and particularly during the last week. In spite of this, here I am with a further amendment, and I feel slightly embarrassed to be pressing yet again on the matter of the independence of the OEP. However, the strength of opinion across this House was clear at the first stage of ping-pong, when my amendment passed with a majority of 51.
The Government clearly have an umbilical attachment to the guidance powers in Clause 22, and my amendment makes a major concession in that it does not seek to remove the guidance power. I expect that there will be some noble Lords who believe that this concedes too much. However, the proposed new subsection (2) in the amendment would introduce a specific constraint on the Secretary of State in issuing guidance, namely that guidance cannot be issued on
“matters relating to the enforcement of environmental law against the Secretary of State”.
The aim of this subsection is to prevent the Secretary of State having a conflict of interest. Without it, he or she could, in effect, mark their own homework.
The proposed subsections (1) and (2A) of my amendment state that, in spite of any guidance, the OEP
“has complete discretion in the carrying out of its functions”,
and that, while it
“must have regard to the guidance”,
the OEP does not have to follow it if
“there are material considerations that indicate otherwise.”
These subsections are designed to ensure that the OEP has the operational independence that we all want, in spite of the guidance power.
I turn to the Minister’s opening speech and quote back two key sentences. The first is:
“It would also be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on specific matters relating to the enforcement of environmental law against the Secretary of State for Defra, given that there would be a conflict of interest.”
The second is:
“the OEP would be expected to have regard to any guidance issued, but it retains the ability and discretion to make its own decisions and is not bound to act in accordance with the guidance where it has clear reasons not to do so.”
Although the wording is slightly different from my amendment, the implications of the points made in the Minister’s speech are more or less identical. I hope that, later in this debate, the Minister will confirm that my interpretation is indeed correct. The only piece that is left out is the OEP setting its own budget, but there are some other safeguards in other parts of the Bill.
I consider it a great pity that the Government were not prepared to accept my amendment, as the Minister’s speech implies that its intent has indeed been accepted. However, as the Minister stated at the start of his speech, ministerial statements in Hansard could be used by the courts in future as an aid to statutory interpretation. I look to the lawyers, because it is well above my pay grade to judge the value of that statement and, therefore, whether what we have heard is a sufficiently robust protection for the OEP’s independence.
The Minister also made three other important points that respond to earlier concerns expressed about the guidance power. First, the guidance power could not be used to preclude the OEP from investigating a broad category of cases. The example I used in an earlier debate was new nuclear power stations. Secondly, it is up to the OEP to decide whether cases have national implications. For instance, a case that has specific and local implications, such as the destruction of a unique habitat, could also be of national significance. Thirdly, the Secretary of State will not issue guidance to the OEP before the initial setup and before the OEP has had a chance to develop its own enforcement policy.
I thank the Minister for his speech. I believe that we have converged on a way forward that protects the operational independence of the OEP. The solution may not be perfect, but it gives me some reassurance on this absolutely central plank of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, it appears that there has been some sort of rapprochement—albeit, I suspect, reluctant. On the one hand are us, from all sides of the House of Lords, who wish to see a strong and independent OEP; on the other side is the current Defra team, which still, I get the impression, wishes to guide its activities as far as is politically possible. It would appear that we are gradually getting closer together. Sadly, however, we are not seeing a total volte-face by the Government, as we have over sewage and CSOs—or, for that matter, on breaches of parliamentary rules on lobbying.
Unfortunately, the independence of the OEP, a body that has yet to exist, is a concept too esoteric for the public to even know about, let alone to get hot under the collar about. If they knew about it, bearing in mind the Government’s behaviour in recent weeks, I should have thought that they would be concerned that future Secretaries of State could be exercising guidance over this body, whose primary function, let us face it, is to hold the Government, its Ministers and their quangos to account.
As my noble friend Lord Krebs said, his Motion A1 is very much in line with what my good friend Rebecca Pow, the Minister in the other place, has already said on the Floor of that House, as echoed by the Minister in this House today. It would have been good to get it on the face of the Bill to make the sentiment more certain and, above all, more durable, because that is really what matters. Bearing in mind that we are unlikely to get another environment Bill for some decades, I for one would have preferred us to move beyond just the commitments of this excellent team of Ministers and to a properly constituted, independent OEP that will stand the test of time. However, although I strongly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Krebs, I recognise that the rapprochement we have achieved is now probably as far as we are going to get.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, that we have achieved some rapprochement, I was looking for total independence for the office for environmental protection and the consequences of that for Northern Ireland. While welcoming the progress, I am therefore still disappointed that the Government have rejected attempts to strengthen the independence of the office for environmental protection in law. I felt that needed to be placed on the face of the Bill.
I have carefully read what the Minister in the other place, Rebecca Pow, said yesterday on this important matter and note that she put some helpful statements on the record, including to confirm that the Government have no intention of issuing guidance before the OEP is up and running and has developed its own enforcement policy. She also recognised the conflict of interest inherent in this guidance power involving the implementation of environmental law by the Defra Secretary of State.
While these are welcome statements, my fear is that they could be forgotten or ignored by future Secretaries of State. I repeat the point made in several debates on the importance of future-proofing. I recall that I had amendments about the need for the independence of the OEP in Northern Ireland in Committee, on Report and during the last ping-pong. My great wish remains for such assurances to be written into the Bill, but sadly—like the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington —I believe we have achieved as much as we possibly can. Regardless of the outcome of this debate, I will write to the DAERA Minister in Northern Ireland to ask for similar assurances to be provided.
I ask the Minister here to tell the House whether he is confident that the Bill and this OEP will be totally accountable, and what discussions he has had with the DAERA Minister in Northern Ireland regarding the accountability of the OEP. We have a five-party Executive in Northern Ireland, and it is not always easy to achieve consensus on a wide range of issues. I would welcome answers to those questions.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, having pestered the Minister since well before Second Reading for meaningful judicial remedies on environmental review, I will speak to Motion B and Commons Amendments 33C and 33D, which I believe are the product of negotiations between a variety of departments —some of them powerfully opposed to what they see as constraints on development.
While I thank the Minister and his colleagues at Defra for shouldering that task, I sense that the imprint of the Treasury and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities is visible on the end result. The good news is that the courts are now to be trusted with a discretion over whether to grant a remedy, even if substantial hardship or prejudice may be caused to developers or other third parties. The bad news is that this discretion is, as the Minister has said, weighted: weighted in favour of the developer. Uniquely in our law, the court will be barred—save for an exceptional public interest reason—from granting a remedy in such cases, even if it is satisfied that a remedy is necessary to prevent serious damage to the environment or to public health. The Minister’s example of the harmfully polluting factory makes just that point.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, spoke in Committee of an underlying feeling that environmental law is to be
“a grade below some other laws so that, although you fail to comply with it, you can still be all right”.—[Official Report, 30/6/21; col. 815.]
I regret that, while this amendment does achieve a limited upgrade for environmental law, a good deal of truth remains in his comment.
It was tempting—but would in the end have been futile—to fight on so, making the best of it, I end with two positive remarks. First, I draw attention to the helpful indication that the Minister has just given about what is intended by the obscure phrase “exceptional public interest reason”. By his own account, such a reason will exist whenever the public interest in preventing serious harm to the environment or to human health substantially outweighs the interest in preventing hardship to a third party. Less benign interpretations of that phrase might have been imagined, so I am grateful to him and his counterpart in the other place, Rebecca Pow, for their clarity and their express acknowledgment that their statements may in future be drawn on by the courts as a legitimate aid to statutory interpretation under Pepper v Hart.
Secondly, I take comfort in the fact that even after what we must assume to be the passage of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, the full panoply of court remedies will remain available on judicial review—if not at the suit of the OEP, which will be allowed to bring judicial review proceedings only in urgent cases, then at least to other claimants with a sufficient interest. In that context, I note the Government’s view, expressed from the Dispatch Box on 30 June, that
“the OEP’s complaints and enforcement functions would not affect the rights of other persons to bring legal challenges against public authorities by way of a judicial review”.—[Official Report, 30/6/21; col. 823.]
In those circumstances, with profound thanks to the noble Lords from all parties and none who have signed and supported various amendments on this theme, and to the Minister and the Bill team, I offer a qualified but sincere welcome to Amendments 33C and 33D.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak specifically on Motions A, A1, B and D. My noble friend Lady Quin will then return to Motion C later in the debate. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Anderson, for their perseverance and commitment to achieving proper OEP independence and enforcement powers. As we have said repeatedly, these measures are necessary to ensure that the environmental standards set out in this Bill, and indeed elsewhere, are protected for the longer term. I am also grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for listening and engaging on the issues that we have raised.
However, what we have before us today is not ideal, and we believe that the Government could have gone further to amend the Bill to give the assurances for which noble Lords across this House have repeatedly pressed. Throughout the process, we have supported the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in his determination to protect the independence of the OEP. This has been a fundamental issue and we continue to support Motion Al, which he has tabled today. We believe, as his amendment sets out, that the OEP should have complete discretion to carry out its functions free from the interference of government.
In this context, there have been a number of areas of detail which have been helpfully clarified by the Government in the Commons and, again, in this Chamber by the Minister today. For example, despite the Government’s insistence on the right to issue guidance to the OEP, we welcome the recognition that this should be limited to the areas of OEP enforcement policy listed in Clause 22. Quite rightly, it has been made clear that the Secretary of State cannot issue guidance on enforcement issues against the Defra Secretary of State, as this would be a clear conflict of interest. It has also been helpfully clarified that it would be within the scope of the OEP’s remit to investigate broad categories of individual cases that might have a common theme. This includes cases that have a discrete local impact but national implications.
We also reiterate our support for the proposal that Parliament should scrutinise the draft guidance before it is issued. All this goes some way to providing reassurance on an issue that we nevertheless believe continues to represent a flaw in the overall construct of the legislation. Can the Minister also assure us that before the Government publish any draft guidance, they will consult the OEP? Can he also assure us that the framework which will be agreed with the OEP will also set out its commitment to a five-year indicative budget? These are issues which the Minister will know are outstanding from earlier debate.
On the issue of enforcement, we welcome the tabling of the Government’s amendments to Clause 37(8), which address the concerns that the threshold for achieving a successful judicial review was insurmountable and anyway gave precedence to the interests of third-party polluters rather than those of the environment and the community. The amendment recognises that, on occasions, granting a remedy to address behaviour or damage will be necessary even if it may cause substantial hardship to the rights of a third party.
We have argued from the beginning that the courts should have the discretion to weigh all these factors equally in the balance. The Government’s amendments do not achieve that objective, but nevertheless we support the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in the view that this compromise wording is a step forward and the best that we will get at this stage of the process. No doubt the exact meaning of “the exceptional public interest” test will be played out in the courts in years to come, and we very much hope that the widest possible interpretation of it will become the norm.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that we still have reservations about the final wording in the Bill on these issues, but nevertheless, we accept that progress has been made, and hope that he can reassure us on the remaining outstanding questions about the OEP’s independence.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Motion C, introduced by the Minister.
Members of both Houses of Parliament and the public have become increasingly aware during the passage of this Bill that our rivers, of which we are so proud, are being despoiled every day by sewage discharges, both legal and illegal. The BBC and national newspapers have carried so many disturbing stories and even Ministers have learned to what extent our aquatic environment is being continuously mistreated.
I thank the Government for tabling in the other place the amendment in lieu, which the House of Commons passed last night by a large majority. I also thank Rebecca Pow, the Environment Minister, for discussing the amendment with me last Thursday and I thank several Ministers and the Secretary of State for various meetings which we have had in recent weeks.
Since this House passed the cross-party amendment on 26 October, which placed
“a duty on sewerage undertakers to take all reasonable steps to ensure untreated sewage is not discharged”,
there has been considerable public support for this wording. Even Water UK, the industry body which represents the water companies, put out a statement the following day that MPs should back the Lords amendment to strengthen the Environment Bill. I was surprised by this as I had assumed that the water companies would oppose my amendment, but they want the Government to go further. Specifically, they want the Government to instruct regulators—I assume that means Ofwat—to authorise investment in sewers. From the Minister’s words when moving the Commons amendment, it appears that the Government will be giving suitable directions to Ofwat. The government amendment requires by law that the water companies secure a progressive reduction in the adverse impacts of discharges. I particularly welcome the reference to “public health” in the new amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, my coughing is not Covid, in case anybody is concerned.
I am so sad and disappointed that we have got to this place: we are under pressure, because of the primacy of the other place, to pass a Bill that is not as good as the one we amended. It seems that the Government do not understand what they have done in stripping out some of the safeguards we have put in. This will come to haunt MPs, because people will not forget the campaign to stop the sewage discharges into our rivers. Some people were also concerned about the office for environmental protection. This will not be forgotten.
I know the Minister said that this was not true, but I would argue that the Government have legitimised the sewage discharges that will be happening from now on. There is no timetable and there are no targets. Quite honestly, it seems that the Government do not understand the pressure that is coming from the grass roots—from dog walkers, fishing enthusiasts, Surfers Against Sewage and wild swimmers, who have seen this and really care about it. We have returned to the 1970s version of ourselves as the “dirty man of Europe”.
I hope that the Government will now admit the deliberate confusion that they created about the cost of stopping any further discharges. The figure—was it £60 billion or £600 billion?—that they put forward was absolutely outrageous; of course, they quickly withdrew it when people started to check. The Government could loan the money to the water companies to put in the infrastructure that we need to prevent discharges in a relatively short space of time. However, that would mean, of course, that those water companies could not pay dividends to investors, senior people and shareholders until the debt was paid off. If we had a tough regulatory system, the scandal would never have been able to escalate in the way that it has. It has been a failure of the Government, Ofwat and the Environment Agency and, unfortunately, the Environment Bill does nothing to deal with our relatively toothless system of enforcement.
I had hoped that we would be able to pressure the Government even more. Quite honestly, if any votes are put this afternoon—I cannot give up—I will vote for them, because the Government have still not achieved what we hoped would be achieved and what the general public want us to achieve: a cleaner Britain. I am hoping that the Government will at some point come forward with more safeguards, but at the moment I am not holding my breath and, as I said, I will vote for any amendments that are pressed.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on bringing us this far and I add my congratulations to my noble friend the Minister.
I want to ask two small questions. My noble friend said that he would look for the water companies to achieve a progressive reduction in the discharge of sewage over a period and admitted that this would go beyond one price review. As we are so far into the current price review, what will the level of expenditure be within this review, and does he admit that the majority of expenditure will probably fall in the next price review?
He is aware of my concern about the delay in introducing the regulations under Schedule 3 of the water Act 2020. Does he not share my concern that we will still potentially be front-loading raw sewage as surface water will be allowed to mix with the overflow from the combined sewers, pumping more raw sewage into the rivers? I am deeply unhappy that we have not yet fulfilled one of the outstanding requests of the Michael Pitt report from 2007, when surface water flooding first became an issue, and even after the awful floods that we have had since. We have not managed to achieve an ending to the automatic right to connect and, until these regulations are introduced, we will not do so.
Is my noble friend able to put a timetable on when these regulations will finally come into place, so that we can have a pincer movement on the raw sewage going upstream and downstream, as addressed by the amendments before us this afternoon?
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion C1. I know enough about military strategy to know that where a Duke of Wellington does not lead a forward manoeuvre, it may be unwise to try to advance when he is not leading. So I am very mindful of the views of the House, and other noble Lords will speak before I decide whether to press Motion C1.
The point he made, which I think still holds, is that, although there has been movement on the part of the Government, in two key respects—the scope of the duty on water companies and the timescale in which it is intended to be met and in which we are intended to see improvements—the amendment that the Government have moved is unsatisfactory. I think there is general recognition in the House that we are not talking about a minor matter. We are talking about 400,000 discharges of raw sewage into Britain’s rivers in the last year alone. All the evidence is that the number is increasing, not reducing. We are not moving in the right direction; we are moving in the wrong direction and indeed, because of the impact of Brexit and the supply chain problems and all of that, and the shortage of relevant chemicals, the Environment Agency has issued formal advice exempting water undertakings from having to meet their prior conditions.
The noble Duke’s first amendment referred to taking “all reasonable steps”, which would imply a short timescale, and my amendment refers to
“a period specified by the Secretary of State”
in which defined objectives are to be met. My question to the Minister, which I think will be of great importance to the House since there is no reference to any timescale in his amendment, is: in what timescale does he envisage that there will be significant reductions in sewage discharges?
The second issue relates to scope. The noble Duke’s amendment put a direct duty on water companies to improve the performance of sewerage systems to get at the heart of the problem—inadequate sewage treatment facilities to reduce discharges of raw sewage. Now, the Government’s amendment refers to reducing
“the adverse impact of discharges”,
which is an indirect duty and does not require at all, necessarily—but certainly not in a defined timescale—significant improvements in the performance of sewerage systems. I ask the Minister why the Government are so focused on the indirect impacts—which we accept are important, and the noble Duke referred to that—rather than a direct duty on water companies to improve the performance of their sewerage systems?
A final point of some significance is: who can enforce this duty? Because, as everyone has accepted, without enforcement the duty will probably go unfulfilled. Philip Dunne—to whom we pay tribute and who has done great work in the other place on this issue—in his speech yesterday referred to his continuing concerns about enforcement, particularly in the context of a cut in the Environment Agency’s staffing and budget of two-thirds in the last 10 years, which has dramatically reduced its capacity to enforce or indeed even to inspect—and of course, unless you have inspected, you cannot enforce.
The noble Duke’s amendments would have given any individual or body corporate the power to enforce or to bring enforcement action or legal action because of the non-fulfilment by a water company of the duty. I think in particular of local authorities. Of course, it is local authorities that best know what is going on in their area and have the professional staff who are able to make assessments. Under the Government’s amendment, only the Secretary of State and defined state institutions can hold water companies to account for the enforcement of their duties. That is a very significant limitation on the noble Duke’s amendment.
So my third question to the Minister is: why are the Government not prepared to allow local authorities and non-state bodies, many of which are highly expert in this area, to bring proceedings against water companies that are not fulfilling the duty that is now set out in the Government’s amendment?
To me, these are three very significant issues: timescale, the scope of the duty and enforcement. In all three respects, the Government’s amendment is wanting at the moment. It does not lead me to have any expectation that the noble Duke’s aspirations, which we all share, will actually be fulfilled, because the timescale for meeting these objectives could be inordinately long. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords, and in particular of the Minister at the end of the debate, before I decide whether, even if the noble Duke himself is retiring from the field, others of us might feel that it is in the public interest that we should attempt to advance none the less.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, in response to the public outcry at the Government’s opposition to the noble Duke’s original amendments, the Government promised us that they would deliver the wishes of the public in a new amendment, in keeping with the intentions of the Duke. That is something that we really should bear in mind today when we consider the intricacies of the back-and-forth of the various comments that have been made.
It would have been better if, yesterday evening, our MPs had stood firm and insisted on clarity and action by Ministers. That is what is needed to stop our rivers and seas being treated like an open sewer by the water companies. It is the case that the public must never again be faced with an annual figure of 400,000 releases of raw sewage into our rivers and seas.
In that regard, I have three quick points to make. Will the Government confirm that they will, in due course, do three things? First, will they work with the Environment Agency to immediately start setting tougher permits for sewage works and CSOs, and on the monitoring, inspection and enforcement regimes, by way of ministerial direction? Secondly, will they tell Ofwat that it has a central role to play in cleaning up sewage using existing regulations, and will they make Ofwat accountable to Parliament on an annual basis for progress in reducing sewage discharges? Finally, will they strengthen current schemes to generate clear investment plans, backed by resources, to begin eliminating the worst and most damaging sewage pollution?
I think we all understand that the public will be watching, particularly in the towns and villages represented by those MPs who supported the Government so robustly in the other place last night.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Although this is not strictly relevant, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the important international agreement on rainforest protection in recent days. I am so pleased.
I am content with the government amendments as outlined by my noble friend the Minister, especially the improved parliamentary scrutiny that is provided for on guidance. I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, or indeed with the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, which we have not really been able to debate properly. I think we are on the way to a cleaner Britain through these proposals, so I am extremely grateful for them.
However, I have a question for clarification on the new untreated-sewage provisions, which I do not think has been covered by what has already been described. How will we know what is happening in terms of the success of progressive improvements in sewage disposal into our rivers and the sea? What are the monitoring arrangements? These are important to all of us and to the water companies, on which we rely for our water and for investment, whatever the agreed timetable on the new proposals.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Motion C. I begin by giving my renewed congratulations and thanks to the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for all his efforts, which have not only caused the Government to concede in various ways but highlighted the issue to the wider public, so that many of our citizens who were previously unaware of the extent of sewage discharges are now very much engaged and determined to see that these large-scale problems are addressed. It is a pleasure to have been involved in the cross-party work with the noble Duke, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates. I wish the Government had included all the elements of the noble Duke’s amendment, but I recognise some of the commitments that have been included, and which represent a considerable improvement.
I will make three brief points which I think have not been fully covered so far. The first point is about cost. There is a lot of controversy about the costs of the clean-up, and the Government’s estimates of the costs have been challenged by many people as being far too large. I hope that the Government, in determining the costs as they move forward, will consult widely—not just with the water companies but with all stakeholders and communities—particularly looking at the claims of some people who believe that much more can be done quickly and relatively more cheaply than the Government claim.
For example, the Thames tideway scheme is claimed to be able to eliminate 90% of storm overflows at a cost of £20 to £25 on London water bills a year, which is not a huge cost, given some of the figures that have been bandied around. Many individuals and environmental groups think that a substantial reduction of spills can be achieved in the short term without, for example, having to replace wholescale networks of Victorian sewers. We need to look at what can be achieved with a fairly modest increase in water bills.
Secondly, I still believe that we need improved take-up of technology by the water companies. For example, when looking at the figures on smart meters and comparing what is happening in this country with the United States, we can see the introduction of technology in a much more widespread way in the United States.
Thirdly, we need a holistic approach to particular rivers and coastal waters. It makes no sense to upgrade—as sometimes happens—one treatment works on a river but not another one just a few kilometres downstream, which means that the environment for aquatic life improves only for the distance between the two and there are no proper, fundamental effects. Within an overall approach, there must also be priorities. I believe that the chalk streams and the SSSI areas—particularly sensitive coastal areas and places where there is an effect on health—should still be very high priorities.
I share some of the frustrations expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, particularly when she talked about European battles of the past. I remember campaigning, a long time ago, and feeling ashamed that our own country was so far behind in, for example, the clean-up of waters around our beaches and coastal areas. It is very depressing that we need to once again express shame for what is happening in our rivers and coastal waters today.
In conclusion, I welcome the progress that has been made during the course of the Bill’s passage, but the issue remains a crucial one. I hope that the Government will find themselves under close scrutiny from all parties, across both Houses, to ensure that they deliver on their promises, and that we will see an end to the appalling amount of sewage discharges which have occurred in recent months and years.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, on Motion C, I too congratulate my noble friend the Duke of Wellington on all his amendments throughout the passage of the Bill to which I have added my name. It has been a pleasure to work co-operatively across the House, including with the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates.
Indeed, noble Lords’ scrutiny has achieved many important improvements. I therefore thank our excellent Ministers—my honourable friend Rebecca Pow in the other place and my noble friend the Minister—my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, and the entire Bill team for their engagement, hard work and willingness to be persuaded to finally accept the need to place duties on the water companies. I also commend the work of my honourable friend Philip Dunne in the other place, who did so much to move this forward.
At last, the Bill places a direct legal duty on the water companies. The government amendment seems to me to produce what we and my noble friend the Duke of Wellington were aiming to achieve with the most recent amendment. There is considerable public concern that the Environment Agency is not using its existing powers, has relied too much on self-reporting and has consistently tolerated repeated illegal discharges which damage our waterways and public health. I am grateful to the Government that they have now specified both the environmental and human health aspects.
It will also, as other noble Lords have said, be important to monitor and oversee sewage discharges far more rigorously and to track and reduce such unacceptable discharges so that companies do not rely on not being caught as the most cost-effective way to proceed. I have sympathy with the frustrations of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but I believe that, although in an ideal world we would not want to start from here, we are not dealing with the situation that we would all wish to see. After years of neglect and companies having behaved so egregiously, I do not believe that this can be addressed instantly. Therefore, it will take time to undo the neglect. I believe that the Government must and will take the necessary actions, but of course we will see over time.
Currently, we have two excellent Ministers who are committed to the aims of the Bill, for which I am most grateful. I also briefly congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Anderson, on the pressure they have put on to improve the independence of the OEP. Overall, I believe that this House has achieved a significant amount. We have pushed the Government as far as we possibly can, and I hope that we will now accept the government Motions and be rightly proud of this landmark Bill.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have rightly stayed silent up to now, having been content with listening, as I have done throughout. I think noble Lords are hugely to be congratulated for encouraging and indeed pushing the Government into a much more favourable position which I think, as the noble Baroness has just said, we ought to accept. I remain particularly concerned about one thing: the discharge of sewage into rivers and chalk streams. How on earth will the Government really see that this is properly monitored? Because if it is not monitored, it is a waste of time.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Very briefly, I was very keen that all the amendments in your Lordships’ House, when they went down to the other place a couple of weeks ago, should be accepted, but we are where we are and it is a good illustration of a degree of co-operation between the two Houses. I do wish that the other place would not look on us as competition, or adversaries, but rather as a complementary Chamber very much influenced by those with real knowledge and experience, as has been marvellously illustrated this afternoon by the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
Led by our Cross-Benchers, we have achieved a considerable degree of improvement to a Bill that started out as a somewhat flawed flagship. I think now we can take a certain quiet pride. It is not perfect; it would have been better had more of our amendments been accepted and had those before us not been doctored a little, but we must not be churlish. However, I do hope that the other place will come to regard your Lordships’ House as not a competitor or an adversary but a complementary Chamber that can add real value. If one compares the depth of the debate in your Lordships’ House with what happened rather briefly in another place, we can be gently satisfied and quietly proud of what this House has achieved.
It would be churlish to sit down without saying to my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park that we appreciate what he has done. However, in future Bills it would be a good idea if Ministers in your Lordships’ House were given a little more latitude to be responsive at the Dispatch Box—a little more authority, because they deserve it, and my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park has given a lifetime of service to the causes embraced in the Bill. This is a satisfactory afternoon and it would be spoiled by any Division.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, with regard to the Minister and his team’s unfailing co-operation and ambition for the Bill, which is the most important Bill on the environment that we have seen in this country for at least the last 30 years. When it came to us at Second Reading, all of us welcomed it but said that it needed to go a lot further. It would be churlish not to reflect on the fact that it has gone somewhat further, if not as far as most of us—perhaps including the Minister—hoped we might be able to achieve.
On the three final hills on which we have chosen in this House to fight today, we are in the position of having to accept that we are where we are, given the majority of the Government on the other side. On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—he has indeed been a champion redoubtable—on pushing for remedies for the OEP, that is an incredibly important issue and it is of deep regret that it will not go into the Bill. However, I hope, like I am sure other Members around this Chamber, that the assurances that the Minister has given today can bear fruit should there be—as I am sure there will—instances in the future in the courts as these issues are challenged.
On the independence of the OEP, on which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, led so skilfully on behalf of this House, he is right to say that the Government seem to have an umbilical attachment to not wishing the OEP to have the independence that absolutely all in this House agree that it should. It is of deep regret that that has not made its way into the Bill. However, I think all of us in this House have confidence in the current holders of the OEP, and we hope that they will use the discretion given by Rebecca Pow in the other place so that they are not bound to the guidance if there are good reasons for not taking it forward. I hope that they will make full use of those powers and challenge the Government should they so feel the need.
Personally, where I am most concerned that the Government still have that guidance power to contain the independence of the OEP is on the issue of planning, which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned. The Government still retain the ability to perhaps constrain the OEP from taking enforcement measures on planning applications, which may appear local and discrete but have nationally significant biodiversity implications. Given the fate of the biodiversity in our country at this time, we know just how important that may be.
Finally, on the issue of sewage, we on these Benches—particularly my noble friend Lord Oates, who has worked so closely with other colleagues from other Benches—thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for the campaign that he has taken forward, and indeed Philip Dunne, who I see is with us this afternoon. It is good to be able to say to them that we in this House thank them both for their campaigning to bring this appalling issue, which is really important for both the environment and human health, to the attention of the Government and the public more broadly. On behalf of all of us, I thank both of them for doing that.
As I say, we have probably pushed the Government as far as they are prepared to go on this issue. However, in having made the general public so aware of what is at stake, the Government can be under no illusion that, while we have done our job here today and in preceding weeks, if they do not listen, act and take the necessary steps to stop these appalling sewage discharges, the public will notice, and it will not just be the environment that pays the price in the future. The Government will pay the price at the next general election.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will particularly address the amendments from the Government and in the name of my noble friend Lord Adonis on water quality, in Motions C and C1. First, I thank the Minister and Defra officials for their time in listening to our concerns throughout the passage of this Bill. While we welcome the government amendment to improve water quality, we must be clear that the Government did not want to include stronger provisions in this Bill to improve and protect our rivers and waterways, including from sewage discharges. We have the government amendment before us today because of the refusal of your Lordships’ House, Philip Dunne in the other place and in particular the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, to give up on campaigning to protect both our environment and public health. Once again, the Minister has been dragged back to debate this because people have been disgusted that the situation was allowed to continue. The Government truly brought the pong into ping-pong.
While the government amendment before us today does improve the Bill, noble Lords have said that they are finding it in some ways unsatisfactory, as it does not go far enough to address some of the concerns that have been raised today. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, talked about the considerable public support for his amendment, including from water companies, which he said just want more public investment from the Government in order to improve the sewerage system. He also expressed concern that the government amendment is considerably weaker than his in some aspects. We strongly supported the Duke on this issue, and believe that his original amendment was better than the government amendment before us today, and it is disappointing that Government refused to just accept it. My noble friend Lord Adonis has now picked this up, and he clearly laid out his reasons for doing so: his concerns that discharges have been increasing; that enforcement has not been what it should be; and that this is partly down to cuts to the Environment Agency, which have reduced its capacity to both monitor and take action.
I will now draw particular attention to three concerns raised by my colleague Luke Pollard in the other place. First, on prosecutions—the noble Duke mentioned their lack—will the Minister commit to reviewing the system of fines and penalties? The current penalties clearly do not have the effect of stopping certain water companies form routinely dumping raw sewage into our waterways. Penalties must be meaningful so that they change behaviour, or they are pointless. Water companies and the regulator, Ofwat, have consistently failed to stop damaging discharges. They know they that they are currently allowed to discharge raw sewage only in exceptional circumstances, but take no notice, which is why penalties and fines must be reviewed. Southern Water had committed no fewer than 168 previous offences before being fined this summer.
Secondly, we need to strengthen the duty of Ofwat to take action, to give water companies a clear direction on targets, ensure that there is a priority to clean up the most polluting discharges, and have oversight on progress from the relevant parliamentary committees. The regulator should have environmental experts available to strengthen its decision-making.
Thirdly, can the Minister further clarify what is meant by “progressive reduction”—the timescales mentioned by my noble friend Lord Adonis? By when, and by how much? Yesterday, I attended COP 26, as mentioned by the Minister in his introduction. Much is being made there of the importance of putting nature and the environment at the centre of policy-making and legislation. We know that one consequence of climate change in the UK is likely to be heavier rainfall. Without progressive reduction being pinned down properly, we are a very long way away from seeing an end to this persistent pollution.
In yesterday’s debate in the other place, the Minister, Rebecca Pow, ran out of time to respond to these questions from my colleague, so I would be grateful if the Minister could take the opportunity to answer these points today. I also look forward to his reply to other concerns raised by noble Lords in this debate, including my noble friend Lord Adonis, and whether he can reassure the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that there will be proper parliamentary oversight and progress on ending the practice of discharging raw sewage into the waterways, because without proper oversight on progress, it will, as I said, take a very long time to change this behaviour at all.
I also look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions from my noble friend Lady Quin and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, regarding the true cost of tackling this issue. If he cannot answer these questions, can he explain why the Government are refusing to commit to addressing these very real concerns, which we have raised time and again?
Noble Lords are right: the Bill is in a better place now than when it started, and that is mainly down to concerns raised by your Lordships. But it is a shame that the Government have not been able to completely accept today’s important improvements.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank your Lordships for your contributions to this debate. This is a landmark Environment Bill, the benefits of which will undoubtedly be felt by future generations both in the UK and, as a result of, for example, our due diligence legislation and more besides, internationally. I thank your Lordships for the collaborative and expert manner in which you have approached this Bill. Your constructive support and knowledge have been invaluable in enabling the passage of this Bill and making it better than when it first came to this House.
I will begin by addressing points made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, whom I thank again for sharing his expertise, time and patience on this important issue, and for his words today. I am happy to reiterate my earlier statement, also in response to questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that, in exercising its discretion in individual cases, the OEP would of course need to have regard to a range of relevant factors but ultimately must take all its decisions objectively, impartially and independently of government. Furthermore, I am happy to confirm that the Government are committed to ensuring the operational independence of the OEP.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked whether, in preparing the guidance, we would consult the OEP. The answer is, of course, yes we would. She also asked whether the framework document that the Government will agree with the OEP will make explicit reference to the Government’s commitment to a five-year indicative budget ring-fenced within each spending review period. The answer is that the framework document will make explicit reference to the five-year indicative budget and Defra will provide a ring-fence within each spending review period, in line with previous government commitments. It will also add detail that will guide and give further clarity to the relationship between the OEP, Defra and the rest of government.
To answer the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, I assure her that Defra Ministers and officials continue to have very regular discussions with DAERA, as has my noble friend, who I see up in the Gallery now, as they have throughout the passage of this Bill. Northern Irish Ministers have consistently sought parity as far as possible between the two Administrations with regard to the OEP. I know that my friend, Minister Pow, will continue these discussions and will support Northern Ireland in setting up a fully independent OEP.
Turning to Amendment 33B on the environmental review measure, I reiterate that the changes made by the Government in the other place will provide discretion to the court to grant remedies if it is satisfied that it is necessary to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the environment or people’s health, and there is an exceptional public interest reason to do so. They also ensure that a high bar is still set for the granting of remedies where third parties may be affected.
I place again on the record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for his important contribution to improving the Bill and the manner in which he has engaged with me and my officials. I am glad that my words have at least gone some way to reassure him sufficiently today.
I turn to Amendment 45B in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and Amendment 45C tabled by Rebecca Pow on storm overflows. The Government’s new amendment in lieu will underpin the storm overflows measures in the Bill by requiring water companies to secure a progressive reduction—I will come to the definition of that in a moment—in the adverse impacts of their storm overflows. It will make our expectations unequivocal in law and enforceable with the full suite of sanctions available under the Water Industry Act 1991.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I appreciate the new provisions for real-time monitoring, which are obviously a move forward, but how do they get added together to make sure that we are tackling the sewage issue? That is what I was concerned about.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
If the monitoring is done in the manner in which this legislation requires, that data will become immediately available, but it is for the regulators—indeed, the Government—to ensure that the data is processed and understood and that it informs next steps. It is hard to be more specific; that is the Government’s job and if the Government fail in their duties there are a number of other accountability mechanisms which we are introducing through the Bill—not least the OEP—to ensure that the Government do their job.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about timelines. We have committed to review Schedule 3; I have put that on the record in the past, work has begun, and the review will report early next year.
I hope that I have answered the questions that were put to me today. I thank all those who have contributed to this debate and to the hours of debate since the Bill was introduced. It has had a challenging passage, but I have sincerely appreciated contributions—or most of them—from across the House and in the other place in support of the environment that we all cherish.
I once again thank all noble Lords who have tabled amendments throughout the passage. I also thank the stakeholders, who have used their voices so effectively. I particularly thank my counterparts on the opposition Benches—the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I very much take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about the pong in the ping-pong, but the work—
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
I am so sorry—I have just transferred that brilliant joke to another party. It may have been a brilliant joke but there was some truth in it—many a truth is told in jest, as someone said. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, makes a very good point, but I genuinely believe that the work of this House has removed much of the pong, and the ping-pong has, as a result, improved the Bill considerably. I genuinely thank her and others across the aisle for the work that they put into this.
I equally thank my exceptional private office staff, who have worked above and beyond the call of duty. This has been a very long process; it is one of the biggest Bills we have had to deal with. They have been working—in some cases—around the clock and I am very grateful to them and of course to the Bill team, who have been absolutely superb and extraordinarily patient, not just with colleagues in this House but with Ministers. I really appreciate their efforts and I look forward—as I know many in this House do—to the Bill continuing the crucial work that we have already begun to restore our appallingly depleted natural environment, improve the quality of our air and water, and end the scourge of plastic waste pollution. I commend this Motion to the House.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate and will reiterate something that was said at earlier stages of the Bill. The amendments I have been involved in, and many of the others, have been genuinely across all groups, and it has been a particular pleasure for me to work not only with the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Parminter, but with colleagues on the Conservative Benches: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank and others. The concerns we have expressed are not partisan: they are genuine concerns about wanting to improve the Bill and protect the environment for our grandchildren and generations to come.
I also thank the Minister. In his reply, he did indeed utter the words I was hoping he would: namely, that the Government’s intention is to protect the operational independence of the OEP. I am very grateful to him for confirming that.
In concluding, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said it far more eloquently and succinctly than I could. We have worked hard to try to improve the Bill and we have made significant gains, but there comes a point at which we say, “Enough is enough. We have done the best we can. We have brought our experience and expertise to bear on the Bill and we think we have got about as far as we can. It may not be perfect, but it is better than it was when we started.” On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33B to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 33C and 33D in lieu.
(8A) Condition A is that the court is satisfied that granting the remedy would not—
(a) be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person other than the authority, or
(b) be detrimental to good administration.
(8B) Condition B is that Condition A is not met but the court is satisfied that—
(a) granting the remedy is necessary in order to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or to human health, and
(b) there is an exceptional public interest reason to grant it.”
(5A) Condition A is that the court is satisfied that granting the remedy would not—
(a) be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person other than the authority, or
(b) be detrimental to good administration.
(5B) Condition B is that Condition A is not met but the court is satisfied that—
(a) granting the remedy is necessary in order to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or to human health, and
(b) there is an exceptional public interest reason to grant it.”
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 45B to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 45C and 45D in lieu.
“Reduction of adverse impact of storm overflows
In Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after section 141EB insert—
“141EC Reduction of adverse impact of storm overflows
(1) A sewerage undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in England must secure a progressive reduction in the adverse impact of discharges from the undertaker’s storm overflows.
(2) The reference in subsection (1) to reducing adverse impacts includes—
(a) reducing adverse impacts on the environment, and
(b) reducing adverse impacts on public health.
(3) The duty of a sewerage undertaker under this section is enforceable under section 18 by—
(a) the Secretary of State, or
(b) the Authority with the consent of or in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State.””
“( ) section (Reduction of adverse impacts of storm overflows) (reduction of adverse impacts of storm overflows);”
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 75A and 75B on which the Commons have insisted for their Reason 75D, and do not insist on its Amendment 75C in lieu to which the Commons have disagreed for the same Reason.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, before we move to next business. I think we will have a small pause to allow the Front Bench and other noble Lords to change places.
Royal Assent
Tuesday 9th November 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironment Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 63-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments - (9 Nov 2021)