Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL]

Earl Russell Excerpts

Friday 13th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of this Bill, as I did at Second Reading. I too will oppose the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, because it removes crucial provisions relating to climate adaptation and environmental recovery objectives.

The truth is that, despite having really good environmental legislation, the Government are largely off track to meet their legal obligations, particularly on nature recovery, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The Office for Environmental Protection has concluded that the Government are largely off track to meet their nature goals; the Climate Change Committee has stated that the UK is not on track to meet its 2030 emissions targets; and in the recent report of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Climate Change Committee, not a single delivery plan for adaptation was rated as good. This is an alarming situation, and this Bill will help to resolve some of those problems.

The trouble is that nothing is joined up. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, put it really well at Second Reading when he said that the Government have all the levers, but they are not actually attached to anything. The Government are like a general in a military campaign who fails to tell the troops what the strategy is. Government needs to be interconnected, and these targets and ambitions need to go to the bodies, local authorities and people on the ground who are taking these decisions daily, to help make sure that government policy is joined up from top to bottom and united in its purpose and aims. That is what this Bill seeks to do.

As others have said, we sought to amend the Crown Estate Act, and we succeeded; we also succeeded in amending the Water (Special Measures) Act, but it wastes a lot of parliamentary time having to do this. I will be tabling an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to put such a duty on the Forestry Commission as well. The Government need to do these things.

On Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, I too was a little bit confused by it; there was a disconnect between the wording of the amendment and the speech he gave. It would remove the requirement for public bodies to deliver the adaptation programme. Just yesterday evening, we had a debate in Grand Committee on the impact of wildfires, and the threat is ever-growing. If we do not adapt, people will suffer and we will face increased costs and damages. We need to prepare: the reality of climate change is here, and it is going to be disastrous for people and our economy. We need to do something about it.

Amendment 1 would also remove the nature recovery duty. However, we have to do this. Climate change and biodiversity losses are interconnected and interdependent. Government public bodies own 6% of the land in the UK, so why would we not seek to improve our biodiversity by making use of those bodies and the land under their control?

Councils, as we have heard, also have an important role. I will challenge some of the remarks made because, in Scotland, councils do have a duty to make climate-related improvements. In fact, where they do so, they are making real improvements. Lots of councils want a greater ability to do these things. I therefore reject the amendment because, if passed, it would rip the heart out of the Bill. I will however address some of the points the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has made.

I do not think it appropriate to talk about our climate targets as being arbitrary. They are set by scientists and are reviewed by the Climate Change Committee; they are real targets with real purpose. I agree with the noble Lord about the cost of energy bills. More must absolutely be done to bring down the cost of energy, but we need to remember that it is the cost of gas that sets the electricity price in the UK 98% of the time. I know that the Government are looking at energy market reform, but more needs to be done on that. The green economy grew by 10.3% last year, according to the CBI. In fact, it is one of the very few parts of the UK economy that is showing real growth.

I therefore have to say that I do not think the amendment is useful. I am not able to support it, but we do support the Bill.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his commitment to environmental issues and, as a result, bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill. The noble Lord’s expertise and dedication have long contributed to the strength of debate in your Lordship’s House, and we thank him for his continued leadership on this front.

I turn to Amendment 1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and acknowledge the concerns that he has raised in putting forward this amendment. While we recognise the intention behind this Bill—to ensure that public bodies play their part in meeting our ambitious environmental targets—we need to offer some words of caution, particularly on the issue of overreach. I am sure that all noble Lords agree that our most cherished landscapes—our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, now called national landscapes—must do everything they can to aid in the recovery of wildlife and biodiversity. That ambition is shared across your Lordships’ House and, indeed, the country as a whole.

Recognising that, Defra has already put in place the Farming in Protected Landscapes programme. This grant scheme allows farmers to receive support where they actively contribute to climate resilience, nature recovery and the protection of the character and cultural heritage of our landscapes. This is a targeted and thoughtful policy, which encourages both practical and local delivery. We therefore caution against laying on additional statutory duties that might potentially cut across these already established aims. The public bodies listed in the Bill are not environmental regulators, nor are they designed to be. Asking them, for example, to assist in meeting targets for particulate matter or broader air quality may stretch them beyond both their remit and their expertise.

Turning to local authorities, I remind your Lordships’ House of the substantial steps already taken through the Environment Act 2021, which amended the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to create a duty not just to conserve but to enhance biodiversity. Public authorities must now actively consider what action they can properly take, consistent with the proper exercise of their functions, to further that aim. This is a significant evolution in environmental governance. The key question, we believe, is whether we should be adding yet more duties on these authorities. We must consider not just what is desirable but what is feasible. Many public bodies, particularly the smaller local authorities, lack the resources and technical know-how to contribute meaningfully to the targets set out in the Bill. There is a risk that we distract those authorities from their essential services and dilute the impact of the environmental work already under way, as was so eloquently illustrated by my noble friend Lord Jamieson.

To take one example, Great British Nuclear, which I will speak to further in group 2, was established to help deliver nuclear energy projects in support of government policy. Its objectives are clear and technical. Of course, it goes without saying that it must adhere to the rules and regulations already set for environmental safety, but expecting it or other bodies to contribute to these environmental targets risks undermining their principal duties and weakening delivery across the board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the advisory board of Penultimate Power UK Ltd and as a consultant to Japan Bank for International Cooperation.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on obtaining a Committee stage debate for his Bill. I recognise his consistent efforts in raising environmental and climate issues in this House, although I may not always wholly agree with him and sometimes question whether his approach is proportionate. I regret that the obsessive determination of both the last Government and this one to eliminate fossil fuels too quickly, particularly gas, has ensured that the cost of providing electricity to industrial users is now the highest in the world. For example, household electricity in the UK is 42% more expensive than in France and 169% more expensive than in the United States. As for industrial electricity, UK prices are two and a half times as much as the equivalents in both France and the US.

The comparisons with France are important because French electricity is generated 70% or more from nuclear and the UK grid depends for around 15% of its supply on imports, much of that from France. I did not speak at Second Reading on 18 October but the contribution to that debate by my noble friend Lord Blencathra is relevant to my amendment. My noble friend said:

“Take Great British Nuclear, which was created in 2023, not 100 years ago. It has as its objects ‘to facilitate the design, construction, commissioning and operation of nuclear energy generation projects for the purpose of furthering any policies published by His Majesty’s government’. I do not think you can make a better contribution to net zero than that”.—”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 397.]


My Amendment 2 seeks to exempt Great British Nuclear—weirdly and misleadingly renamed on Tuesday as Great British Energy-Nuclear, or GBE-N—from the duty to adhere to the environmental targets laid out in the Bill. I have argued before that to establish GBE as a separate publicly owned company from what is now GBE-N was a mistake and that it would have been much more sensible to have integrated GBE-N into GBE at the time of GBE’s establishment. I say that the renaming is misleading because it gives the impression that GBE-N is being brought under GBE’s umbrella. Perhaps the Minister can tell your Lordships what corporate or structural changes have taken place in either company as a result of the renaming.

Noble Lords will remember that when we debated the GBE Bill many of us lamented the fact that GBE has been given £8 billion to invest in energy projects, principally wind and solar, whereas GBE-N does not have any committed funding to invest in nuclear projects. I move this amendment not out of disregard for the environment but from a desire to see our environmental goals achieved through pragmatic, economically responsible policy. The Bill sets ambitious and admirable goals but, in its current form, it risks entangling Great British Energy-Nuclear, a vital strategic body, in layers of environmental regulation that could unintentionally undermine our path to both net zero and energy independence.

Nuclear energy is not merely an option; it is an economic and environmental necessity for this country. However, as many noble Lords will appreciate, the economics of nuclear are finely balanced. The upfront capital costs are at present extraordinarily high. Each new gigawatt-scale power station costs billions of pounds. We acknowledge that investors, both domestic and international, will certainly scrutinise every risk and additional burden before making a decision to invest.

I welcome the Government’s decision to invest in Sizewell C, as such huge projects are always going to need public sector support. To subject Great British Energy-Nuclear to further regulatory obligations under the Bill beyond what it already faces from the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Environment Agency and planning authorities would be to risk unnecessary cost inflation. It would create bureaucratic drag and, worse, it would signal to markets that the UK remains a difficult environment for major infrastructure investment.

Let us be clear: nuclear energy is not on a level playing field with other low-carbon technologies. Wind and solar have enjoyed significant subsidy support over the past decade through contracts for difference, feed-in tariffs and other mechanisms. Nuclear, by contrast, is expected to finance itself under far more stringent conditions and is simultaneously capable of delivering baseload power that intermittent renewables cannot. Why is the consumer required to subsidise only intermittent energy sources but not nuclear projects?

The result of that is that UK-developed new nuclear schemes suffer a massive disadvantage compared with UK renewable schemes but also compared with nuclear schemes developed overseas, which, fortified with massive subsidies from foreign Governments, particularly the US, are coming over here and driving out UK-originated nuclear schemes which cannot compete financially.

Furthermore, nuclear is already held to the highest environmental and safety standards. From construction to decommissioning, the nuclear industry is subject to extensive regulation, scrutinised by multiple agencies and underpinned by rigorous science. It is misleading to suggest that this sector operates without accountability; to the contrary, it is perhaps the most tightly governed of all.

I say this not out of a lack of concern for the environment but because we must think strategically. Nuclear energy is, after all, one of the cleanest forms of energy over the long term. Its carbon footprint is negligible and it plays a critical role in achieving a stable low-carbon grid. The Government have rightly committed to ramping up nuclear capacity, both through small modular reactors and new gigawatt-scale stations. But these ambitions must be matched by policy consistency. If Great British Nuclear is to fulfil its remit, it must not be hobbled by duplicative environmental targets that add cost without adding value.

Furthermore, I remind the House that GBN is not a typical public body. It is a strategic delivery vehicle. Its success is measured not in reports or audits but in gigawatts connected to the grid. I propose, therefore, that we either exempt Great British nuclear entirely or create a more tailored framework, recognising the unique challenges and contributions of nuclear infrastructure.

Our duty is to make Britain cleaner, safer and more secure. We must avoid binding the hands of the very institutions we have created to do precisely that. I urge the House to support this measured, targeted amendment and to ensure that economic realism and environmental ambition go hand in hand. I beg to move.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for bringing his amendment, which seeks to remove Great British Nuclear from the Bill. I just remind noble Lords that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, seeks to install an environmental recovery obligation and adaptation for public bodies to help meet our targets under the Environment Act and the Climate Change Act.

The purpose of this amendment is to remove Great British Nuclear and make an exception for that particular body which does not apply to any of the other 29 listed public bodies that are named in the Bill. For the noble Viscount’s argument to be successful, an argument needs to be put forward that Great British Nuclear is in a particular situation that is separate to all the other bodies named in the Bill, such that it has a specific, cast-iron case to be removed from the provisions in the Private Member’s Bill before us today.

I have not heard that argument, so, in short, I do not support this amendment—rather the opposite. I remind noble Lords that only the other week the Public Accounts Committee published a report on Sellafield talking about the intolerable risks there. There is a £136 billion cost and a projected timeframe of 100 years for dealing with the nuclear waste legacy in this country. This Government have no long-term geological store for nuclear waste and are unlikely to have one before the 2050s at the earliest. That is in sharp contrast with the announcement of a nuclear renaissance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, for his amendment proposing to add the Canal & River Trust to the list of public bodies in Clause 2 of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.

While I have every sympathy for his case, the truth is that the Canal & River Trust is a charity that was set up in 2012. My understanding is that, as a charity, it is not a public body, and it is therefore simply not possible to add it to the list of bodies covered by provisions in the Bill.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, on the inclusion of the Canal & River Trust in the list of public bodies subject to duties under the Bill.

I thank the noble Lord for his scrutiny and diligence in drawing attention to what is undeniably an important point of principle and practice, as was referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. The Canal & River Trust, as the noble Lord rightly noted, is responsible for an extensive and significant network of inland waterways. These assets contribute not only to heritage and recreation but to the health of our natural environment.

There is no question but that the trust plays a role in environmental outcomes. Its custodianship of over 2,000 miles of canals and rivers and the biodiversity that supports is of considerable public interest. It is worth emphasising, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has, the persistent and ever-increasing problem of littering in our canals. Litter not only blights these beautiful and historic waterways, diminishing the enjoyment of walkers, boaters and anglers: crucially, it also harms wildlife and contributes to the broader degradation of aquatic ecosystems.